NFL Relocations and League Expansion

[Tassie19Cairns20]

As another aside how much did losing the Browns affect the city of Cleveland in 1996?

You've provided a bad example because Cleveland didn't "really" lose the Browns. They got to keep their team name and had a new stadium within 3 years. Now if the Browns name, logo, colours, and team history were taken to Baltimore, then absolutely it would've had a tremendously negative impact on the city.

Speaking of Baltimore, losing the Colts was terrible for Baltimore and even with the Ravens coming into existence 12 years later, fans still haven't gotten over it. Seeing the Horseshoe representing another city is probably extremely painful for older generation fans.

As a Fitzroy guy I'm sure you know how much losing a club hurts a community.

 

[Broken]

I know there are still people in Baltimore who are Colts fans still. I guess I was looking at it from a financial perspective rather than emotional, how much of an economical hit did the city of Cleveland take during the Browns hiatus? Was the loss of an NFL team felt? Would it affect the state of Minnesota financially to lose a team?

It's hard to compare Fitzroy. Emotionally I'm still gutted by it all, but the loss of Fitzroy from the AFL landscape didn't affect the city in any way, it affected a lot of people though.

 

[Iason]

Just out of curiosity, how much money does the NFL/MLB and teams pump back in to the community as opposed to what taxpayers shell out for new stadiums?

Its the longest con going.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Posting it here too.

A very good detailed article by Florio on the Vikings stadium situation, and the what ifs.

10 things to know about the vikings stadium situation


.

 

[Exe Gesis]

And...

Think you have had enough with all the endless stadium debating? Imagine how Vikings’ owner Zygi Wilf feels. That is why it isn’t all that surprising that his jet has been reportedly seen in LA, according to an ESPN report. It is possible that he is there because he owns real estate in that area. It also is entirely possible that he has reached his breaking point. Wilf has let Lester Bagley do most of the talking over the last few months but now Zygi is doing something to send his own message. Bagley himself has already said “there won’t be a next year” when referring to more stadium debating. The problem is at the front burner and needs to be addressed now. So, Wilf may be checking on his real estate or he could be looking at a backup plan for when we find out that we don’t have next year. Are you ready to say good-bye to the Vikings like we did to the North Stars and Lakers?

 

[Burzum]

Go Vikings!

 

[Exe Gesis]

As always, the comments section is a goldmine, not just for quips, but good points being made. Here's just one...

"It has been regarded as a given for years that the Metrodome is outdated, and that it can’t be modernized in a manner that unlocks the high-end revenue streams that will keep the Vikings competitive with other franchises."

---

And once again, this is complete nonsense. BC Place, built at the same time, of the same architectural structure and on a larger footprint than the Metrodome, was remodled into a state of the art facility with a partially retractable roof last year for less than 75% of the cost a brand new facility proposed for Minneapolis or the suburbs.

This myth that you can’t reuse this structure needs to stop. The truth of the matter is that Wilf, like Red McCombs before him, bought the team with the expectation that they would profit off of the real estate surrounding a new facility surrounding a suburban location built on public funds. When McCombs couldn’t get it done, he cashed out.
If Wilf can’t get it done, he’ll do the same.

This isn’t about the physical facility. It’s about generating as much ancillary revenue as possible with the least amount of expense. Selling the real estate around the facility does that, playing in a renovated, publicly owned centrally located facility does not.

 

[Burzum]

Vikings stadium: Breathe people, breathe

League executive vice president Eric Grubman confirmed there are "plenty of willing buyers" who want to purchase and presumably relocate the team. Vikings vice president Lester Bagley made the media rounds Thursday, saying the team has done all it can and urging state legislators to reconsider before the team considers other options. And NFL commissioner Roger Goodell will be joined in Minnesota on Friday by Pittsburgh Steelers president/co-owner Art Rooney, the chairman of the league's stadium committee, to explain the league's increasingly impatient stance.

You should be aware that NFL teams have acted swifly in the past, relocating without giving a deadline or even an explicit warning. There would be nothing stopping Wilf from throwing his hands up, selling the team to a Los Angeles investor next month and being done with it. So I'm not questioning the gravity of the situation.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Another thing...

As a side note, the Vikings have stated that the state of Minnesota has claimed the name of the Vikings officially, so if they move they’ll have to change their name.

 

[Exe Gesis]

The Arizona stadium only cost $455M to build. The Vikings current stadium, and the TCF Bank stadium used by the college team, could both be renovated and made 'state of the art' at far less cost. There's no reason the proposed new stadium should cost $985M, costing the taxpayers half of it.

The quoted bit from the PFT commenter was spot on. As was another person who reminded that Robert Kraft built the Pats stadium with his own money, so Wilf could too, and he hasn't been forthright opening his books.

At the same time, Florio makes a good point that...

Why does the NFL build new stadiums with public money?

Because it can.

Some call it leverage. Others call it extortion. As NFL executive V.P. Eric Grubman told PFT Live on Thursday, the league regards it as competition.

Regardless, if one place won’t kick in significant public money to keep the NFL, someone else will kick in significant public money to get the NFL, either directly through cash contributions or indirectly through tax credits and other incentives. Or through that Private Seat Licenses and/or higher ticket prices that a larger metropolitan area has the population density (i.e., enough really rich people) to support.

Notwithstanding the label applied, it’s a basic business reality of dealing with the most popular sports league in America. With 32 teams and little or no chances at expansion, places that don’t have an NFL team but that want an NFL team will have to target an NFL team that already has a home.

Iason was right in the comment above "longest running con," because it's that whole supply-demand of only 32 NFL teams and more cities out there (not just LA) who would kill for a team. However, it's also worth mentioning that other states would also struggle to pass a stadium costing taxpayers $500M.

LA basically said “Screw the NFL if I have to pay for it.” So, in LA, their stadium is being proposed with nearly 100 of it covered by private investors with no cost to LA taxpayers.

Why is the public in Minnesota planning to fork over $548 million dollars? That’s insane.

Minnesota is proud of saying how loyal they are to their team/NFL, but maybe they should take a page from LA and be a lot less loyal. Loyalty can often mean extortion.

 

[Exe Gesis]

And, to answer Broken's question about financial/etc effect of losing an NFL team...

Source

From the sourced article...

“In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.”

The sport stadiums most likely to have a (small) positive effect on tax revenue? Baseball. The stadiums most likely to have a (large) negative effect? Football.

 

[Starburns_]

Posting it here too.

A very good detailed article by Florio on the Vikings stadium situation, and the what ifs.

10 things to know about the vikings stadium situation

.

Most interesting thing I noticed from that article was:

Along the way, the other owners would impose a transfer fee on the Vikings, which would be recommended by the Commissioner based on factors like the income streams in the new location, the income streams in the old location, the expenses in the new and old location, the differences between the new and old stadium, the demographics of the new and old markets. It’s believed that a relocation to Los Angeles would result in a nine-figure transfer fee.

The hidden cost in relocating for either the chargers or raiders too?

Another thing...

Wouldn't make much sense to keep the vikings name anyway. Best to keep a distance from mistakes such as the lakers moving to where there are no lakes, or the jazz to "where they don't allow music".

 

[Exe Gesis]

The hidden cost in relocating for either the chargers or raiders too?

I guess so. Tho, I think the Raiders still legally consider LA to be theirs, but if Mark Davis is not as ballsy and litigious as his father, then he won't fight it.

Wouldn't make much sense to keep the vikings name anyway. Best to keep a distance from mistakes such as the lakers moving to where there are no lakes, or the jazz to "where they don't allow music".

They were the Tennessee Oilers for a couple years before realizing the same thing and changing to Titans.

Another interesting thing in all this is...with so many current NFL cities/states struggling financially, and as the years wear on with more and more requirement for owners to build newer stadiums, already there are a bunch that need it, we could see more teams relocating to other parts of the US. The whole regional landscape of the NFL could change a bit, not just teams moving around a lot across divisions/conferences, but the 'city' names we've grown accustomed to.

 

[Starburns_]

I guess so. Tho, I think the Raiders still legally consider LA to be theirs, but if Mark Davis is not as ballsy and litigious as his father, then he won't fight it.

It just makes the arguments to stay put even stronger when you know you'll likely face something in the range of 10-20% of a new stadium cost just to change post code.

They were the Tennessee Oilers for a couple years before realizing the same thing and changing to Titans.


Another interesting thing in all this is...with so many current NFL cities/states struggling financially, and as the years wear on with more and more requirement for owners to build newer stadiums, already there are a bunch that need it, we could see more teams relocating to other parts of the US. The whole regional landscape of the NFL could change a bit, not just teams moving around a lot across divisions/conferences, but the 'city' names we've grown accustomed to.

For some reason whenever I think of relocated teams I always seem to forget about the oilers/titans.

I know it's been mentioned here at length, but aside from L.A. and Goodell's pet project in London, there doesn't seem to be the huge demand for a significant movement of teams. Unless I'm forgetting somewhere?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Others have mentioned potential cities that would want and could get relocated teams and provide as big or bigger revenue stream than some current cities/teams.

Some current NFL cities 'struggling' in terms of attendance, revenue, stadiums, state finances...

Oakland, Buffalo, Jacksonville, St Louis, Minnesota, San Diego.

 

[Broken]

I suspected the local communities didn't get much bang for their buck with the new taxpayer funded stadiums.

If the Vikings do move and get a sweet deal I can see the teams that GG listed as wanting a slice of their pie and we'll be on the franchise merry-go-round like in 1995/6.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Mark Davis re-iterates Oakland is his preference, but there's also this snippet...

So while AEG has promised not to talk to the Raiders about trying to move to L.A. if AEG wins the management contract at O.co Coliseum in Oakland, AEG could try to persuade Davis to sell to AEG’s owner, Philip Anschutz.

And AEG trying to force Davis to sell by buying O.co contract out seems a little mobish to me. Is this Anschutz going to chase Davis out of stadiums until he’s forced to sell?

 

[Burzum]

I wouldn't put anything past Phil Anschutz tbh

 

[Exe Gesis]

Rams move to top of LA list (video discussion inside link)

Sorry, Rams fans. But it’s true.

With the Vikings’ stadium effort officially at the one-yard line with first down and goal and a five-man defense facing a 20-man offense, a new team must slide to the top of the “most likely to land in L.A.” list.

And it’s the Rams.

The biggest concern for folks in St. Louis should be the not-so-subtle sense of ambivalence that the Rams are projecting regarding the question of whether they stay where they are or move to L.A. or move to Toronto or move to even London.

Speaking of London, the team has justified its desire to play one home game per year there for the next three seasons by pointing to the possibility that the exposure will make the Rams a national franchise. Though the connection between the two may not be as clear as the Rams think or hope it will be, a move to the No. 2 market in the U.S.A. would be much more likely to thrust the Rams into the small group of franchises that transcend the town and state in which they play.

None of this means the Rams will move. But given the current posture of their lease at the Edward Jones Dome and the strong possibility of an upgrade impasse that will allow them to walk away in 2015, the Rams are the team to watch — unless and until they work out a new deal to stay in an improved venue in St. Louis.

For more commentary destined to depress folks in Missouri, here’s a slice of Thursday’s PFT Live.

 

[Burzum]

From what I've read lately the Raiders are no chance of making a deal with the city of Oakland as there is no money, so the option will be to sidle up to the 49ers or move to LA.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Gotta link for the updated "no chance" you mention?

 

[Tassie19Cairns20]

Gotta link for the updated "no chance" you mention?

Honestly GG, there doesn't really even need to be a link for that. It's completely obvious to anyone with knowledge of the city of Oakland's situation that the "Coliseum City" project is a pipe-dream at best. The A's want to move to San Jose, the Warriors want to hop over to SF, and the Raiders will play just about anywhere as long as they're in a new stadium.

I'm not saying that it means they'll leave the Bay Area. I think that sharing that Santa Clara Stadium with the 49ers is the NFL's preferred option, and probably the option that will cost the least.

 

[Exe Gesis]

My previous comment wasn't intended to sound snarky. Just interested to see an update on that notion that the Coliseum City proposal was supposedly dead in the water, because the impression I get is that, while it's still got a lot of work ahead to progress, that it was still very much going ahead...just that the A's didn't prefer that as a home to relocating elsewhere (tho they'd still consider it).

PFT link just now...

Raiders unlikely to move to LA

With the Vikings staying put in Minnesota, the two teams that used to play in Los Angeles have become the subject of increasing speculation that that they could be moving back there.

The Rams definitely should be regarded as a potential candidate, given that they currently are on track to walk away from their St. Louis lease after the 2014 season. As Mark Purdy of the San Jose Mercury News explains it, the Raiders should be on the short list, too. But there’s a catch.

The prevailing opinion among the league’s power brokers is that the owners most likely would not authorize a move by the Raiders unless owner Mark Davis sells controlling interest in the team.

Ultimately, 24 of the league’s 32 owners must approve any relocation.

It’s unclear why there’s a preference that Davis not own the team if/when it goes to L.A. But there is. And it could make it difficult, if not impossible, for Davis to pull off the move.

Thus, if Davis remains unwilling to sell, the Raiders most likely will remain in Oakland, indefinitely.

 

[Burzum]

Sorry, I don't have a link, my comments are based on those that are residents of Oakland.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Rams situation getting more interesting re: LA

posted on the Rams thread


.