NFL Relocations and League Expansion
- Thread starter Alphabet Man
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
I think one team in LA suffices, at least for a long while, pending Jacksonville.
Team in Oakland
Team in Santa Clara
Team in LA
Team in San Diego
That’s surely the best situation for California, two Norcal teams and two Socal teams. Taking the Raiders out of Oakland would skew the Californian balance, ostracizing the passionate Norcal football fans.
Team in Oakland
Team in Santa Clara
Team in LA
Team in San Diego
That’s surely the best situation for California, two Norcal teams and two Socal teams. Taking the Raiders out of Oakland would skew the Californian balance, ostracizing the passionate Norcal football fans.
Sven
Norm Smith Medallist
Although it doesn't quite fit in this thread, i couldn't find a better one and didn't want to start a new one.
NFPost has a great article on a 17 game season, where the 17th game is at a neutral venue.
The idea of sacrificing one of the pre-season game for a 17th regular season game under this scenario is very tasty indeed! Playing the game around the world would mean the NFL could have a 24 hour fest of football.
make it happen NFL, make it happen!
NFPost has a great article on a 17 game season, where the 17th game is at a neutral venue.
The idea of sacrificing one of the pre-season game for a 17th regular season game under this scenario is very tasty indeed! Playing the game around the world would mean the NFL could have a 24 hour fest of football.
make it happen NFL, make it happen!
Tassie19Cairns20
Team Captain
I was always a person that thought it was only a matter of time before the Jaguars pack up and head to LA. But then I did some investigating of my own. I studied the Jaguars lease, and found that the media has really distorted a lot of information.
First off the Jaguars lease goes to 2030 and not 2027 as a lot of people falsely report. Secondly, the media states that the Jaguars have a $60 Million buyout to terminate the lease. This is also false. That $60 Million buyout only applies if the Jaguars show that they lost money for 3 consecutive seasons, something that would be impossible in today's NFL of equal revenue sharing. And even if they get to that point, a Duval County judge would have to allow the lease to be then terminated for that sum of money. Basically it's one of the more iron-clad leases in the NFL.
As for attendance issues, if you throw out 2009 which was the year that Jacksonville suffered the most from the global financial crisis, here is how that Jaguars compared to an iconic NFL franchise in terms of home attendance.
2011: Jaguars- 62,331 Steelers- 63,034
2010: Jaguars- 63,032 Steelers- 63,083
2008: Jaguars- 65,167 Steelers- 62,890
2007: Jaguars- 65,301 Steelers- 62,084
2006: Jaguars- 66,858 Steelers- 62,432
So to sum it all up, the Jaguars have an iron-clad lease, a big modern stadium, and they apparently don't have attendance problems. Zero percent chance of them relocating anywhere for the next 18 years.
- Feb 28, 2009
- 37,695
- 34,889
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Baltimore Ravens, Atletico
Would never happen because season ticket holders/franchises wouldn't allow it.
The franchises wouldn't want to give up that extra game's worth of season tickets and the ticket holders aren't going to be happy with paying for a game in another state that they can't (in all likelihood) going to attend
Chadwiko
The Captain!
- Sep 25, 2004
- 24,887
- 41,055
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Washington Commanders, Boston Celtics
Oakland to LA. Gut feeling.
Woodson
Former AE commish
- Mar 20, 2001
- 30,752
- 11,763
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Steelers, NY Mets, Villa and SUFC
It's all a $$$$ exercise of playing elsewhere O/S so I'm with drd23 here...the ticket holders merit the final call which obviously they wouldn't give up the home game.
If it ain't broken, why radically change things for the sake of changing??
Isn't Goodell making enough?? One game in Mexico/ London alternating to maybe another destination on the third year cycle would be appropriate. As Is. Most International fans can ALWAYS travel to the USA to absorb the full gameday experience if they are that 'much inclined' to watch the game LiVe with no asterisk attached.
The Australian media would be a dire embarrassment in 'trying' to give an informed preview... it's bloody shameless how blase / with contempt the Super Bowl is already treated... Keep it away from Down Under thanx.
But bringing the LFL Down Under in 2013 is the GO!!
Maybe some could 'appreciate' the athletic ability.. after the novelty of perv wears off.
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Video of talkback inside link too.
After arbitration, CVC will have big decision to make
Posted by Mike Florio on June 16, 2012, 5:43 PM EDT
Getty Images
It’s fitting that in this age of maximum NFL involvement in the litigation process the fate of the Rams in St. Louis will be determined in large part by a form of litigation.
Actually, arbitration has become a popular alternative to full-blown litigation, allowing parties to resolve differences through a private process that keeps cases out of the courts — which in turns makes the courts very interested in private parties using arbitration.
In St. Louis, with the Rams and the Convention and Visitors Commission unable to agree on what it will take to make the Edward Jones Dome a “first-tier stadium,” three arbitrators will now hear each side out and come up with a plan for placing the venue at least within the top eight of all NFL facilities.
Once the arbitrators, who will be selected by the two sides with the only disqualifying factor being residence in Missouri (where the team now plays) or California (where the team could eventually move), reach a decision, the CVC will have 60 days to decide whether to accept it.
If the CVC accepts the plan, the Rams must stay put for 10 more years. If the CVC rejects it, the Rams can terminate the lease, converting the situation to a year-to-year arrangement that would allow the Rams to leave after any given season.
Setting aside for now the wisdom of the Rams or the CVC agreeing to this process when the Rams moved to St. Louis in 1995, both sides did — and now both sides must proceed with arbitration, the outcome of which will go a long way toward determining whether the team will stay or go.
And until the Rams make it clear that, no matter what, they won’t be leaving, there’s every reason for folks in St. Louis to worry about the outcome. But if the Rams want the CVC to ultimately accept the decision issued by the arbitrators, the Rams have to create the impression that, without the upgrades, the Rams will leave.
After arbitration, CVC will have big decision to make
Posted by Mike Florio on June 16, 2012, 5:43 PM EDT
It’s fitting that in this age of maximum NFL involvement in the litigation process the fate of the Rams in St. Louis will be determined in large part by a form of litigation.
Actually, arbitration has become a popular alternative to full-blown litigation, allowing parties to resolve differences through a private process that keeps cases out of the courts — which in turns makes the courts very interested in private parties using arbitration.
In St. Louis, with the Rams and the Convention and Visitors Commission unable to agree on what it will take to make the Edward Jones Dome a “first-tier stadium,” three arbitrators will now hear each side out and come up with a plan for placing the venue at least within the top eight of all NFL facilities.
Once the arbitrators, who will be selected by the two sides with the only disqualifying factor being residence in Missouri (where the team now plays) or California (where the team could eventually move), reach a decision, the CVC will have 60 days to decide whether to accept it.
If the CVC accepts the plan, the Rams must stay put for 10 more years. If the CVC rejects it, the Rams can terminate the lease, converting the situation to a year-to-year arrangement that would allow the Rams to leave after any given season.
Setting aside for now the wisdom of the Rams or the CVC agreeing to this process when the Rams moved to St. Louis in 1995, both sides did — and now both sides must proceed with arbitration, the outcome of which will go a long way toward determining whether the team will stay or go.
And until the Rams make it clear that, no matter what, they won’t be leaving, there’s every reason for folks in St. Louis to worry about the outcome. But if the Rams want the CVC to ultimately accept the decision issued by the arbitrators, the Rams have to create the impression that, without the upgrades, the Rams will leave.
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Report: Roger Goodell sends out Los Angeles memo
Posted by Darin Gantt on June 29, 2012, 4:05 PM EDT
Robert Kraft’s talking up London, but Roger Goodell’s sending out word he thinks Los Angeles might be closer to hosting an NFL team.
Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times obtained a memo sent to all 32 teams outlining requirements for a move.
“Although substantial uncertainties remain,” Goodell wrote in the two-page memo, “stadium development in Los Angeles has advanced to the point where the prospects for a new facility are better than they have been in many years.”
The memo serves as a set of ground rules for teams considering such a move (and the plugged-in Farmer mentioned the Chargers, Raiders and Rams specifically), with the league pointing out that it controlled the process, not individual teams.
The memo also mentions the 2013 season, a clear indication that they’re thinking sooner rather than later. If a team wanted to apply to relocate, they’d have to file paperwork between Jan. 1, 2013 and Feb. 15, 2013, although the memo said no vote was likely to be taken before March 2013.
“The overall goal, as we have frequently said, is to ensure that any league re-entry to the Los Angeles market is as successful as possible, both for the club or clubs that will play there and for the league as a whole,” the memo read.
At a time when the Rams are doing everything evident to get out of a lease (or cut a sweetheart deal with St. Louis), it’s a clear sign that the league doesn’t mind reminding everyone who’s in charge.
Posted by Darin Gantt on June 29, 2012, 4:05 PM EDT
Robert Kraft’s talking up London, but Roger Goodell’s sending out word he thinks Los Angeles might be closer to hosting an NFL team.
Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times obtained a memo sent to all 32 teams outlining requirements for a move.
“Although substantial uncertainties remain,” Goodell wrote in the two-page memo, “stadium development in Los Angeles has advanced to the point where the prospects for a new facility are better than they have been in many years.”
The memo serves as a set of ground rules for teams considering such a move (and the plugged-in Farmer mentioned the Chargers, Raiders and Rams specifically), with the league pointing out that it controlled the process, not individual teams.
The memo also mentions the 2013 season, a clear indication that they’re thinking sooner rather than later. If a team wanted to apply to relocate, they’d have to file paperwork between Jan. 1, 2013 and Feb. 15, 2013, although the memo said no vote was likely to be taken before March 2013.
“The overall goal, as we have frequently said, is to ensure that any league re-entry to the Los Angeles market is as successful as possible, both for the club or clubs that will play there and for the league as a whole,” the memo read.
At a time when the Rams are doing everything evident to get out of a lease (or cut a sweetheart deal with St. Louis), it’s a clear sign that the league doesn’t mind reminding everyone who’s in charge.
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Goodell lays down guidelines to NFL teams hoping to move to L.A.
By Sam Farmer
June 29, 2012, 4:15 p.m.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says the league, not individual teams, will control any relocation process. But he also notes that prospects for a new stadium in the L.A. area 'are better than they have been in many years.'
With two proposed football stadiums under development in the Los Angeles area, including Farmer's Field in downtown Los Angeles (artist's rendering), NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stated the league's stance on team relocation in a memo distributed to its teams Friday. (Associated Press; Shawn Thew / EPA)
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo about Los Angeles to the league's 32 teams Friday — one that surely resonated with the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams and any others that might be considering relocation to the nation's second-largest market.
"Although substantial uncertainties remain," Goodell wrote in the two-page document obtained by The Times, "stadium development in Los Angeles has advanced to the point where the prospects for a new facility are better than they have been in many years."
The purpose of the memo does not appear to be driven by any plans that might be imminent. Rather, NFL insiders say, the commissioner felt it was appropriate to set and restate some ground rules, foremost among them:
It's the league — and not an individual team — that will control the relocation process.
In making that point, Goodell put in writing what was discussed by owners at a May meeting in Atlanta and lays down rules for moving back to a market that has been without an NFL franchise since the Raiders and Rams left after the 1994 season.
That the memo refers specifically to the 2013 season does not necessarily mean the league is ready to reenter the market immediately, but it does underscore how seriously the NFL is considering the current opportunities. In order to be considered for relocation, Goodell wrote, a team must submit its application to do so between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15 of 2013.
What the league doesn't want is a team making the unilateral decision to relocate to L.A. intending to play in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum for a few years with the hope of moving over to a new venue once a stadium solution is found. The guidelines are partly intended to discourage squatting on the market.
Among the relocation candidates are the Chargers, Raiders, Rams and Jacksonville Jaguars, although new Jaguars owner Shad Khan has said he's committed to staying put. At this time, the league is not considering expansion.
Raising the long-held league belief that L.A. is a two-team market, Goodell wrote: "Consistent with our long-standing view, we have made it clear that any stadium seeking investment support from the 32 member clubs should preserve a viable option of being able to host two teams at appropriate times and on appropriate terms.
"The overall goal, as we have frequently said, is to ensure that any league re-entry to the Los Angeles market is as successful as possible, both for the club or clubs that will play there and for the league as a whole."
Goodell specifically made reference to the AEG proposal in downtown L.A. and Ed Roski's concept in City of Industry. He said the competing plans both have the ability to include ancillary entertainment opportunities such as a hall of fame, NFL Network studio, youth football facilities and the like.
Goodell wrote: "We are also exploring the availability of other sites in the Los Angeles area." Those sites are believed to be in Carson, at Hollywood Park and around Dodger Stadium, where proposals have been pitched in years past.
Goodell wrote that issues such as approval to relocate, assessment and terms of a relocation fee, financial commitments from the league for stadium construction, and Super Bowls awarded must come from the full membership of teams. Any such approval would require a three-quarters vote of membership, or at least 24 teams.
According to the guidelines, a team that intends to relocate must:
•Negotiate a deal with an alternative site — in this case the Coliseum or Rose Bowl — that can play host to games while a stadium is being constructed, and keep the league fully apprised of every step in those negotiations.
•Submit within the first 1 1/2 months of 2013 an application to relocate. "If no application is received for the 2013 season," Goodell wrote, "we will consider when and under what circumstances clubs may apply for consent to relocate in a future season."
•Evaluate all stadium opportunities in its existing market, and consult with league staff on those. Unstated by Goodell, but implied by the league, is that the Raiders, for instance, would have to explain why it would be more practical to relocate than share a stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers.
•Show that it not only has an appropriate stadium solution in the L.A. market but one that has in place a marketing plan, naming rights, and can make financial guarantees to the league.
Goodell wrote that any application to relocate will be acted on as soon as possible, but that it's unlikely any vote would be taken before the annual meeting in March 2013.
By Sam Farmer
June 29, 2012, 4:15 p.m.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says the league, not individual teams, will control any relocation process. But he also notes that prospects for a new stadium in the L.A. area 'are better than they have been in many years.'
With two proposed football stadiums under development in the Los Angeles area, including Farmer's Field in downtown Los Angeles (artist's rendering), NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stated the league's stance on team relocation in a memo distributed to its teams Friday. (Associated Press; Shawn Thew / EPA)
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo about Los Angeles to the league's 32 teams Friday — one that surely resonated with the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams and any others that might be considering relocation to the nation's second-largest market.
"Although substantial uncertainties remain," Goodell wrote in the two-page document obtained by The Times, "stadium development in Los Angeles has advanced to the point where the prospects for a new facility are better than they have been in many years."
The purpose of the memo does not appear to be driven by any plans that might be imminent. Rather, NFL insiders say, the commissioner felt it was appropriate to set and restate some ground rules, foremost among them:
It's the league — and not an individual team — that will control the relocation process.
In making that point, Goodell put in writing what was discussed by owners at a May meeting in Atlanta and lays down rules for moving back to a market that has been without an NFL franchise since the Raiders and Rams left after the 1994 season.
That the memo refers specifically to the 2013 season does not necessarily mean the league is ready to reenter the market immediately, but it does underscore how seriously the NFL is considering the current opportunities. In order to be considered for relocation, Goodell wrote, a team must submit its application to do so between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15 of 2013.
What the league doesn't want is a team making the unilateral decision to relocate to L.A. intending to play in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum for a few years with the hope of moving over to a new venue once a stadium solution is found. The guidelines are partly intended to discourage squatting on the market.
Among the relocation candidates are the Chargers, Raiders, Rams and Jacksonville Jaguars, although new Jaguars owner Shad Khan has said he's committed to staying put. At this time, the league is not considering expansion.
Raising the long-held league belief that L.A. is a two-team market, Goodell wrote: "Consistent with our long-standing view, we have made it clear that any stadium seeking investment support from the 32 member clubs should preserve a viable option of being able to host two teams at appropriate times and on appropriate terms.
"The overall goal, as we have frequently said, is to ensure that any league re-entry to the Los Angeles market is as successful as possible, both for the club or clubs that will play there and for the league as a whole."
Goodell specifically made reference to the AEG proposal in downtown L.A. and Ed Roski's concept in City of Industry. He said the competing plans both have the ability to include ancillary entertainment opportunities such as a hall of fame, NFL Network studio, youth football facilities and the like.
Goodell wrote: "We are also exploring the availability of other sites in the Los Angeles area." Those sites are believed to be in Carson, at Hollywood Park and around Dodger Stadium, where proposals have been pitched in years past.
Goodell wrote that issues such as approval to relocate, assessment and terms of a relocation fee, financial commitments from the league for stadium construction, and Super Bowls awarded must come from the full membership of teams. Any such approval would require a three-quarters vote of membership, or at least 24 teams.
According to the guidelines, a team that intends to relocate must:
•Negotiate a deal with an alternative site — in this case the Coliseum or Rose Bowl — that can play host to games while a stadium is being constructed, and keep the league fully apprised of every step in those negotiations.
•Submit within the first 1 1/2 months of 2013 an application to relocate. "If no application is received for the 2013 season," Goodell wrote, "we will consider when and under what circumstances clubs may apply for consent to relocate in a future season."
•Evaluate all stadium opportunities in its existing market, and consult with league staff on those. Unstated by Goodell, but implied by the league, is that the Raiders, for instance, would have to explain why it would be more practical to relocate than share a stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers.
•Show that it not only has an appropriate stadium solution in the L.A. market but one that has in place a marketing plan, naming rights, and can make financial guarantees to the league.
Goodell wrote that any application to relocate will be acted on as soon as possible, but that it's unlikely any vote would be taken before the annual meeting in March 2013.
BeinPurplenGreen
Freo Football Foci
- Apr 8, 2008
- 8,798
- 8,993
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Fulham/76rsPhilsNovaDrexel/Atalanta
Bring back Brooklyn Dodgers I say.
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
If L.A. move will happen in 2013, Chargers are the most likely to go
Posted by Mike Florio on June 30, 2012, 6:07 PM EDT
If the NFL plans to return to Los Angeles in 2013, there’s only one team that can pull it off.
The Chargers.
A comparison of Sam Farmer’s Friday item in the Los Angeles Times regarding Commissioner Roger Goodell’s recent memo on the possibility of a move as soon as 2013 with the NFL’s relocation policy (a copy of which PFT has obtained) with the realities of the various stadium and ownership situations reveals that the San Diego Chargers (who actually spent their initial season in Los Angeles, losing the AFL title game to the Oilers) are the only team that currently can pull off a move by next year.
The Rams can’t leave St. Louis at the earliest until after the 2014 season. The Jaguars must demonstrate three straight years of losses before being able to exit Jacksonville. The Raiders’ lease situation is irrelevant, because (as we’ve previously reported) the league won’t allow them to move to L.A. unless Mark Davis sells controlling interest in the team.
So that leaves the Chargers, who have an annual window to cancel their Qualcomm Stadium lease, from February 1 through April 30, with a buyout that decreases each year. (For 2012, the cost was a mere $23 million, $2 million less than what Jaguars owner Shad Khan would have to pay former owner Wayne Weaver if the Jags move before 2017.)
The Chargers’ three-month escape hatch overlaps by 15 days with the league’s relocation policy, which requires notice of an intention to move to be filed with the league office between January 1 and February 15.
The relocation policy also requires a team that hopes to move “to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community.” Relocation is appropriate only “f, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs.”
In other words, a team can’t move without showing that it has exhausted all reasonable efforts to stay put.
It won’t be hard for the Chargers to demonstrate that they’ve tried to work things out in their current home. After all, the Commissioner has publicly said that “unfortunately, some sense of a growing impasse and an absence of a sense of urgency” exist regarding efforts to build a new venue in San Diego.
The Commissioner who said that was Paul Tagliabue. The year in which he said it was 2004.
Then there’s the fact that San Diego will be picking a new mayor in November. Earlier this month, a preliminary election narrowed the field for the looming runoff to two candidates: Republican Carl DeMaio and Democrat Bob Filner.
Both oppose using public money to build a new Chargers stadium. DeMaio says that fixing streets and restoring services remains a bigger priority, and Filner doesn’t want to subsidize a billionaire without partial ownership of the team by the city, something that the league would never allow.
So the handwriting is on the wall, San Diego. If any NFL team is going to be in Los Angeles by 2013, it’s the Chargers who will be, well, bolting.
Posted by Mike Florio on June 30, 2012, 6:07 PM EDT
If the NFL plans to return to Los Angeles in 2013, there’s only one team that can pull it off.
The Chargers.
A comparison of Sam Farmer’s Friday item in the Los Angeles Times regarding Commissioner Roger Goodell’s recent memo on the possibility of a move as soon as 2013 with the NFL’s relocation policy (a copy of which PFT has obtained) with the realities of the various stadium and ownership situations reveals that the San Diego Chargers (who actually spent their initial season in Los Angeles, losing the AFL title game to the Oilers) are the only team that currently can pull off a move by next year.
The Rams can’t leave St. Louis at the earliest until after the 2014 season. The Jaguars must demonstrate three straight years of losses before being able to exit Jacksonville. The Raiders’ lease situation is irrelevant, because (as we’ve previously reported) the league won’t allow them to move to L.A. unless Mark Davis sells controlling interest in the team.
So that leaves the Chargers, who have an annual window to cancel their Qualcomm Stadium lease, from February 1 through April 30, with a buyout that decreases each year. (For 2012, the cost was a mere $23 million, $2 million less than what Jaguars owner Shad Khan would have to pay former owner Wayne Weaver if the Jags move before 2017.)
The Chargers’ three-month escape hatch overlaps by 15 days with the league’s relocation policy, which requires notice of an intention to move to be filed with the league office between January 1 and February 15.
The relocation policy also requires a team that hopes to move “to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community.” Relocation is appropriate only “f, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs.”
In other words, a team can’t move without showing that it has exhausted all reasonable efforts to stay put.
It won’t be hard for the Chargers to demonstrate that they’ve tried to work things out in their current home. After all, the Commissioner has publicly said that “unfortunately, some sense of a growing impasse and an absence of a sense of urgency” exist regarding efforts to build a new venue in San Diego.
The Commissioner who said that was Paul Tagliabue. The year in which he said it was 2004.
Then there’s the fact that San Diego will be picking a new mayor in November. Earlier this month, a preliminary election narrowed the field for the looming runoff to two candidates: Republican Carl DeMaio and Democrat Bob Filner.
Both oppose using public money to build a new Chargers stadium. DeMaio says that fixing streets and restoring services remains a bigger priority, and Filner doesn’t want to subsidize a billionaire without partial ownership of the team by the city, something that the league would never allow.
So the handwriting is on the wall, San Diego. If any NFL team is going to be in Los Angeles by 2013, it’s the Chargers who will be, well, bolting.
Chadwiko
The Captain!
- Sep 25, 2004
- 24,887
- 41,055
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Washington Commanders, Boston Celtics
See my June 4 post.
Broken
Brownlow Medallist
It seems inevitable that a team will move to LA soon.
I've always thought the Rams were LAs team, but that being said I'd still like to see a team in St Louis.
I've always thought the Rams were LAs team, but that being said I'd still like to see a team in St Louis.
Tassie19Cairns20
Team Captain
I do not agree with this part, and I think its just random speculation on Florio's part. I could see why NFL owners would be reluctant to have the Raiders go back to LA because of their image and association with certain negative aspects of LA Culture. But I do not see why Mark Davis would be a reason for NFL owners to not want the Raiders to move. From all accounts he's very different from Al, and he seems like a genuine forthright individual who has openly said that the team needs a new stadium to generate revenues to compete, whether that be in the Bay Area, LA, or anywhere.
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Bottom line of that Goodell memo is that he is telling everyone only three teams are being earmarked as possible LA targets...raiders, rams, chargers. And that Goodell will assume power to determine who will/wont proceed thru to an owners vote (24/32 needed).
Al Davis contested the other owners and won anti-trust laws, allowing him to move to LA despite the owners trying to prevent his move to LA. That opened the door for many other team relocations since to occur without needing or defying the 24/32 vote. The NFL lost that decision. So I don't see how Goodell can try to assume control in this, or to say only three teams are 'in the running'.
I've heard conflicting reports on it, but apparently Al Davis won the rights to 'own' the LA market. I think he originally won it, but lost on appeal. Moot point probably.
Florio is on the mark about the Chargers article. The Chargers are the only team who do not have their hands tied in a stadium lease agreement, and can move right away. They also don't have any nearby shared stadium options to try to meet first, and thus only have to prove that they can't get funding for a new stadium in San Diego...again, which Florio pointed out, is likely to not occur.
Also, that Goodell memo says that one of these prospective three teams must first meet the requirements of ensuring a viable stadium or shared stadium have been exhausted, doors shut, before they will be considered for an LA move. The Raiders can't get around this as the Niners Santa Clara stadium could be shared but the Raiders just don't want to do that, the Niners wouldn't object. Btw, it's funny how the NFL has indefinitely banned Niners-Raiders pre-season games due to ongoing violence, yet are trying to push them to share a stadium full-time.
Lastly, another interesting point is that Phil Anshutz has recently acquired the rights to the Oakland Coliseum, which seems like an aggressive ploy to tighten the ropes on the Davis family, to force them to sell controlling interest of the Raiders. As long as Mrs Davis is still alive, LA is definitely out of the question, and Mark has said ideally the Raiders will continue to look for an Oakland solution. Who knows tho. Maybe when Mrs Davis passes on, Mark might be keen to sell the team. Phil Anschutz currently part owns the LA Lakers and Kings. Looking to extend his sports empire nationally and abroad too.
Al Davis contested the other owners and won anti-trust laws, allowing him to move to LA despite the owners trying to prevent his move to LA. That opened the door for many other team relocations since to occur without needing or defying the 24/32 vote. The NFL lost that decision. So I don't see how Goodell can try to assume control in this, or to say only three teams are 'in the running'.
I've heard conflicting reports on it, but apparently Al Davis won the rights to 'own' the LA market. I think he originally won it, but lost on appeal. Moot point probably.
Florio is on the mark about the Chargers article. The Chargers are the only team who do not have their hands tied in a stadium lease agreement, and can move right away. They also don't have any nearby shared stadium options to try to meet first, and thus only have to prove that they can't get funding for a new stadium in San Diego...again, which Florio pointed out, is likely to not occur.
Also, that Goodell memo says that one of these prospective three teams must first meet the requirements of ensuring a viable stadium or shared stadium have been exhausted, doors shut, before they will be considered for an LA move. The Raiders can't get around this as the Niners Santa Clara stadium could be shared but the Raiders just don't want to do that, the Niners wouldn't object. Btw, it's funny how the NFL has indefinitely banned Niners-Raiders pre-season games due to ongoing violence, yet are trying to push them to share a stadium full-time.
Lastly, another interesting point is that Phil Anshutz has recently acquired the rights to the Oakland Coliseum, which seems like an aggressive ploy to tighten the ropes on the Davis family, to force them to sell controlling interest of the Raiders. As long as Mrs Davis is still alive, LA is definitely out of the question, and Mark has said ideally the Raiders will continue to look for an Oakland solution. Who knows tho. Maybe when Mrs Davis passes on, Mark might be keen to sell the team. Phil Anschutz currently part owns the LA Lakers and Kings. Looking to extend his sports empire nationally and abroad too.
Tassie19Cairns20
Team Captain
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Because Mrs Davis is the actual owner and she won't sell controlling interest to another entity as a way to enter LA. Whilst the fear for many years was that Mark has little interest in football and is open to the idea of selling the team and washing his hands of it. But it's been a surprise how keen and apparently passionate about fulfilling his dad's wishes. Probably why the NFL and owners might want ti see the back of the Davis family, try to impose this rumor Florio mentions. Also, apparently Al at the end years understood it was a mistake moving to LA, perhaps his wife opposed it, but he went thru at the time, but at the end wanted to see the team rooted in Oakland forever, why they've been constantly pushing for a new stadium, finding a location in the east bay, continuing efforts and avoiding as last resort LA.
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Haven't fully read this article yet, just been posted.
A developer in Sacramento wants to fund a new stadium in Oakland to ensure the A's and Raiders stay there. Involving zero public funding too.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...e-developer-thinks-A-s-have-future-in-Oakland
.
A developer in Sacramento wants to fund a new stadium in Oakland to ensure the A's and Raiders stay there. Involving zero public funding too.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...e-developer-thinks-A-s-have-future-in-Oakland
.
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Bruce Matthews case gives players a path to California workers’ compensation benefits
Posted by Mike Florio on August 14, 2012, 8:58 PM EDT
For years, the NFL and the NFLPA have been squabbling in a variety of court systems regarding the ability of injured players to pursue workers’ compensation benefits in California. A recent federal appeals court decision, while resulting in a defeat for Hall of Fame guard Bruce Matthews, paved the way for players to nullify contractual clauses requiring them to pursue workers’ compensation cases only in the states where their teams are located.
Still awake?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last week that, if the player has suffered an injury in California, he can’t be prevented from seeking workers’ compensation benefits in California, regardless of any provisions in his contract to the contrary. Matthews lost his case because he didn’t show that kind of connection to California.
Players generally prefer California because of the perception that it’s easier to get benefits, and the awards are larger. Moving forward, players can get benefits under California law, as long as the injury happens while playing there.
Though the dollars involved aren’t nearly big enough to make the league inclined to avoid doing business in California, the extent to which the league and the players have been fighting on this issue makes us wonder whether the league ultimately would prefer, when filling the L.A. market, to not increase the total number of California teams beyond the current total of three. If so, that makes the Chargers and Raiders more likely to move to Los Angeles than teams not located in California.
Posted by Mike Florio on August 14, 2012, 8:58 PM EDT
For years, the NFL and the NFLPA have been squabbling in a variety of court systems regarding the ability of injured players to pursue workers’ compensation benefits in California. A recent federal appeals court decision, while resulting in a defeat for Hall of Fame guard Bruce Matthews, paved the way for players to nullify contractual clauses requiring them to pursue workers’ compensation cases only in the states where their teams are located.
Still awake?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last week that, if the player has suffered an injury in California, he can’t be prevented from seeking workers’ compensation benefits in California, regardless of any provisions in his contract to the contrary. Matthews lost his case because he didn’t show that kind of connection to California.
Players generally prefer California because of the perception that it’s easier to get benefits, and the awards are larger. Moving forward, players can get benefits under California law, as long as the injury happens while playing there.
Though the dollars involved aren’t nearly big enough to make the league inclined to avoid doing business in California, the extent to which the league and the players have been fighting on this issue makes us wonder whether the league ultimately would prefer, when filling the L.A. market, to not increase the total number of California teams beyond the current total of three. If so, that makes the Chargers and Raiders more likely to move to Los Angeles than teams not located in California.
Broken
Brownlow Medallist
Exe Gesis
Kylo was here
Bucs inability to sell out should raise specter of relocation
Posted by Mike Florio on August 31, 2012, 3:23 PM EDT
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers continue to struggle to sell tickets, and it’s gotten so bad that it’s time to address the question of whether the market still merits having an NFL franchise.
With their regular-season home opener only nine days away, the Buccaneers remain 9,000 short of the goal for lifting the local blackout.
The gap, reported by Roy Cummings of the Tampa Tribune, must be closed within 72 hours of kickoff, or the game won’t be televised in the team’s home market.
The failure to sell enough tickets at the stadium comes despite a string of efforts to sell all non-premium seats, from taking full advantage of the new league rule that allows teams to cut their “manifest” to 85 percent, to uncharacteristically spending million on free agents like Vincent Jackson, Carl Nicks, and Eric Wright, to hiring a new coach, to cutting the prices on parking and concessions for the home opener, to honoring Ronde Barber.
By the way, it’s the first freaking game of the year. And Cam Newton is coming to town. Division rival. The team that once claimed Chris Simms’ spleen.
It was supposed to be a slam dunk for Week One. And still the team is 9,000 tickets short.
Look, we like Tampa. The city did a great job hosting the Super Bowl. But regardless of the reason — local economy, apathy, whatever — if fans continue to fail to show up for the games, at some point the team needs to be moved to a place where the fans have the money, the time, and the inclination to attend games.
The Glazers get blamed for plenty of things. They bear no blame here. The Glazers have tried to improve the team and to make it more attractive to attend games. Eventually, the people need to respond.
There’s no indication that the Glazers are looking to move the team. Given the manner in which the community continues to respond to the franchise, they’d be crazy if they weren’t exploring their options.
Posted by Mike Florio on August 31, 2012, 3:23 PM EDT
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers continue to struggle to sell tickets, and it’s gotten so bad that it’s time to address the question of whether the market still merits having an NFL franchise.
With their regular-season home opener only nine days away, the Buccaneers remain 9,000 short of the goal for lifting the local blackout.
The gap, reported by Roy Cummings of the Tampa Tribune, must be closed within 72 hours of kickoff, or the game won’t be televised in the team’s home market.
The failure to sell enough tickets at the stadium comes despite a string of efforts to sell all non-premium seats, from taking full advantage of the new league rule that allows teams to cut their “manifest” to 85 percent, to uncharacteristically spending million on free agents like Vincent Jackson, Carl Nicks, and Eric Wright, to hiring a new coach, to cutting the prices on parking and concessions for the home opener, to honoring Ronde Barber.
By the way, it’s the first freaking game of the year. And Cam Newton is coming to town. Division rival. The team that once claimed Chris Simms’ spleen.
It was supposed to be a slam dunk for Week One. And still the team is 9,000 tickets short.
Look, we like Tampa. The city did a great job hosting the Super Bowl. But regardless of the reason — local economy, apathy, whatever — if fans continue to fail to show up for the games, at some point the team needs to be moved to a place where the fans have the money, the time, and the inclination to attend games.
The Glazers get blamed for plenty of things. They bear no blame here. The Glazers have tried to improve the team and to make it more attractive to attend games. Eventually, the people need to respond.
There’s no indication that the Glazers are looking to move the team. Given the manner in which the community continues to respond to the franchise, they’d be crazy if they weren’t exploring their options.
