NFL Relocations and League Expansion

[Starburns_]

Just a quick hashing here...

Either all the Canadian cities together to foster CFL-like rivalry

Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary-Edmonton, Vancouver + Buffalo, New England, etc

Or

Split off the Canadian cities so there's one/two in each region...


Vancouver, Calgary-Edmonton, Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, Arizona

Winnipeg, Minnesota, Detroit, Green Bay, Chicago, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati

Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, New England, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, London

Kansas City, St Louis, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Mexico City, New Orleans, Tennessee

Atlanta, Birmingham, Carolina, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Miami


Just still trying to organize the above list better.

Fair enough, that would do away with some classic rivalries though.

Would be difficult to work a "fair" schedule with uneven regions too.

Can we move some nuff nuff team from AFC West, lets say San Diego over to the NFC West. Then introduce 3 teams into the AFC?
I love what you've done in theory, but taking the Saints away from Atlanta?

I did consider that as a rivalry to keep, but it was too difficult to work around, it could have been different had I placed London in the AFC, but I figured they were a better fit for the NFC East because the profile of the teams in there would help boost the interest in London's matches.

I don't see why it'd be a good idea to move SD, I tried to keep teams as much were they currently are (or were before the 2002 realignment, except when it made no geographical sense).

Keeping Saints/Ravens together could happen with this (but as I said, I prefer London in the NFC East):

AFC East- Pats, Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Colts, London

AFC Central- Steelers, Ravens, Browns, Bengals, Jags, Canada

AFC West- Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders, Texans, Titans

NFC East- Giants, Eagles, Cowboys, Redskins, Panthers, Bucs

NFC Central- Packers, Bears, Lions, Vikings, Falcons, Saints, Falcons

NFC West- Seahawks, Rams, 49ers, Cardinals, LA, Mexico

They're the most entertaining divisional rivalry at the moment among all 8 divisions!
Nothing comes up to it in level of standard and passion among rival fans.

You're joking right? I could probably name 3 others with more heat in them than that. Even Ravens vs Steelers which is roughly the same age as a rivalry has more sting.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I hadnt completed the regions btw, why they're uneven. Was just posting what i had worked on for the time being.

 

[Exe Gesis]

McCourt’s involvement makes L.A. return less likely

Yes, it appears the NFL will have a team in London before it ever returns to Los Angeles.

With the league not interested in Ed Roski’s shovel-ready project in the City of Industry and the league presumably interested in the AEG proposal in downtown L.A. only if Phil Anschutz will do a deal that’s very bad for him financially (which he won’t), the last shot at a new venue is Chavez Ravine, adjacent to the stadium where the Dodgers play.

And the former owner of the Dodgers is now in position to screw that up, too.

The Los Angeles Times reports that documents recently unsealed by a court in California show that Frank McCourt has the contractual ability to be the sole landlord for an NFL stadium built at what many believe is the NFL’s preferred L.A. location. But Sam Farmer of the Times explains that the NFL has no desire to be in business with McCourt, whose ugly divorce resulted in the sale of the Dodgers.

To make the stadium happen in Chavez Ravine, someone would have to buy out McCourt, making an already incredibly expensive proposition even more costly.

Farmer’s item contains plenty of intriguing details. Chavez Ravine landed on the NFL’s radar screen in the mid-1990s, with former Dodgers owner Peter O’Malley envisioning a team playing in a stadium overlooking L.A., led by a General Manager named Roger Goodell.

Those possibilities evaporated when the Coliseum became, at the time, the preferred local option for a return from the NFL. (Saints fans everywhere are now rooting for the invention of time travel.)

As a result, the NFL is even farther from returning to L.A.. With more than a generation gone since the Rams and Raiders left and the NFL perhaps as popular as it ever will be domestically, it makes far more sense for the league to focus not on a frontier that has been conquered and abandoned, but on new turf in a different continent.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Some St Louis players are re-tweeting Los Angeles Rams tweets......

 

[Broken]

Given the problems the city of Detroit is facing, could a move of the Lions be more of a possibility?

I'd assume bankruptcy conditions would be placed on the city, making it much, much harder for any tax payer bailouts for the Lions (or Pistons/Tigers/Red Wings).
Also with a city with a 15% unemployment rate (and growing) you would imagine people are thinking twice about buying tickets for their sporting teams, in turn hurting the clubs operating costs. Admittedly last season Ford Field was 98% full for their home games, but things aren't improving in Motown.

 

[Burzum]

I imagine they'd do all they could to retain one of the industries that actually makes the city money.

 

[FootyJunkie]

LA Lions move to the NFC West, St.Louis to NFC North

 

[Exe Gesis]

I think Rams are most likely team to move back to LA. They were the most-tenured LA team, going over 50 years or so. And it's the easiest team as no division/conference adjustments need to be made. They're also having problems with stadium resolution in St Louis and will effectively be free to relocate soon. So too the Raiders btw, whose lease runs out this year.

 

[krudmonk]

Detroit city is poor and mismanaged, but the suburbs are not. The Lions would never move from that market or facility.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Not a fan of the NFL but was genuinely surprised last night when watching the tv show Entourage that Los Angeles doesn't have a current team. For one of the biggest and most famous cities in the world not to have a NFL team is pretty interesting.

On the subject of Grid Iron, my home town of Ballarat recently started up a team I believe. Good for growing the code locally I suppose

 

[Exe Gesis]

Oakland Raiders' stadium woes makes move to Los Angeles inevitable

Oakland likely can't afford to keep team in town

Published Wednesday, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:08 pm EDT
David Steele Sporting News

63 Comments

As recently as early June, the plans for a stadium in Los Angeles to house a future NFL team were described as “essentially dead.”
Yet the possibility of a stadium there still has the power to back a city and its citizens against a wall. It has given cities leverage to get taxpayers to build new stadiums or make expensive improvements to old ones—and now, it might subject Oakland and its citizens to the indignity of losing its favorite team to the same city twice in barely three decades.

The Oakland Raiders share the field at O.co Coliseum with the Athletics. It's not satisfactory for either side, and the result could be the Raiders heading to Los Angeles.


“Of all the situations, this is the one where moving to LA is most likely to happen,’’ said Victor Matheson, a Holy Cross economics professor and, with colleague Robert Baade, author of several studies on public stadium financing.

“It sucks to be an Oakland Raiders fan—not a Raiders fan, but an Oakland Raiders fan,’’ Matheson added.

Oakland is on the hot seat because the Raiders’ lease with the 47-year-old O.co Coliseum expires after the upcoming season. Owner Mark Davis—the son of Al, who moved the team to LA in 1982—has said he does not want to sign another short-term lease, and a month ago consultants hired by the team proposed a new $800 million, 56,500-seat stadium to local government officials.

The city and county, however, would have to chip in $300 million. With all the other economic challenges facing Oakland, they simply cannot afford it.

But, Matheson pointed out, “The NFL has been masterful in using the LA situation to extract new stadiums out of everybody.’’
The Minnesota Vikings are the latest example: Their stadium in Minneapolis is scheduled to break ground this fall and open in 2016. Just over half of the current $975 million cost will come from public money, according to the Vikings.

At the very least, the Colts, Saints, Panthers, Chargers, Rams and Jaguars either have used or are using the specter of moving to Los Angeles as leverage to get either new homes or upgrades from the public, Matheson said, adding that in such cases, “the NFL can really engage in extortion.’’

There are a few exceptions among recent new stadiums—but unfortunately for the Raiders, one of them is the 49ers’ $1.3 billion palace opening in Santa Clara next season.

That only increases the owner’s envy for Davis, Matheson said, and might derail any compromise offer of less-costly renovations to the old stadium.

“The Raiders are going to look across at Santa Clara and say, ‘The Niners got a billion-dollar stadium—that’s what we want,’’ Matheson said. “Owners aren’t going to be placated by some freshening up and a coat of paint.’’

One other exception to the Los Angeles bait is the Dolphins, Matheson said, even though the team in May lost its bid for $350 million of public money to improve SunLife Stadium—and lost Mike Dee, its CEO and stadium advocate, to the Padres shortly afterward.

The Dolphins have no incentive to leave South Florida, even for LA, Matheson said, and it appears that the fight for the team will be between cities and counties willing to pony up to owner Stephen Ross. Asked by reporters last Thursday about the future of renovating the stadium, Ross said, “Have I given up? The answer is no.’’

Ross added that where the stadium currently stands is “the best location.’’

“It’s harder to use the LA card if you’re such an established team in a market like that,’’ Matheson said.

The urgency for Oakland and its people is obvious, even with the two proposed Los Angeles stadium projects becoming too expensive and too complicated with ownership demands.

In late July, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said that he envisioned two existing teams eventually landing in Los Angeles. "It's more imminent than any time since we haven't had a team in Los Angeles," he told NFL Network.

Making Oakland’s situation even more complicated is the fact that it’s already on track to lose the NBA’s Golden State Warriors to a new San Francisco arena in 2017, and that the baseball Athletics also want a new stadium.

During last week’s local broadcast of the Raiders’ preseason game against the Cowboys, the Raiders’ announcers pointed out frequently how theirs was the only NFL team left playing in a baseball stadium, and on infield dirt in part of the playing field.

Davis and the Raiders have not commented on the proposal since the presentation to the Oakland-Alameda County Commission was made a month ago Friday. The next commission meeting—with the Raiders’ situation on the agenda—was scheduled for this Friday, but was postponed without a new date announced.

City and county officials knew even before the proposal that the clock was ticking. "There is no set deadline … but we know time is not on our side, even if there isn't a deadline," assistant city administrator Fred Blackwell told the Oakland Tribune at the time.
Everybody is also painfully aware that Los Angeles is once again an option—the Raiders’ fan that started an online petition to Davis this week named it, “Don’t Move to LA.”

This time—for the second time—there might be nothing Oakland or its fans can do about it.

It isn’t fair to them, Matheson. But, when all factors are considered, “Los Angeles could end up paying less to get the Raiders than Oakland can pay to keep them.’’

 

[Exe Gesis]

http://www.dailynews.com/20130817/d...e-raiders-stay-in-oakland-not-move-back-to-la

Question: Is this a real threat, the Raiders moving back to L.A., or one you think is fabricated?

Answer: I think it’s very realistic. I’ve talked to people who are part of a group called Save Oakland Sports, people who go to city council meetings and know facts in this case. There’s a developer who six months ago said the Raiders’ chances of staying were 70/30 but now they’re closer to 50/50, and he’s trying to help them stay. This is the reality and some fans without their ear to the ground don’t understand the severity of it.

Mr. Davis HAS TOLD ME, ‘There are investors in L.A. and it can work there.’

 

[Exe Gesis]

Colin Cowherd (on his show) quoted an economics professor from Holy Cross Univ. who said a move to LA is “inevitable”.

Cowherd said it makes sense with the Raiders stadium situation and the fact there exists a huge Raider fan base already in place in Southern Cal.

The link to that article is here: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2013-08-14/oakland-raiders-stadium-los-angeles-oco-coliseum-athletics-mark-davis

Chargers are not moving to LA. The Chargers have zero fan base north of Oceanside and aren’t exactly losing money in SD, plus they have commitments to the city they’d have to buy out of. They haven’t fulfilled the requirement to the NFL to show they can’t be viable in their current location or get a new stadium in SD which they definitely can and will.

LA is a Raiders and Rams town. Its really the only scenario that makes sense considering the fan bases, current conferences (afc/nfc west) and current team situations. My money is they will be sharing a new stadium by 2017 if not earlier.

Jerry dropped the big hint in preseason, there are shovel ready projects ready to go (that he has interest in, btw), Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum have announced available leases for short term vacancy – something is going to happen soon. Expect an announcement in January after the regular season is over during the allotted ‘window’ that the Rams and/or Raiders are moving in 2014.

Tarpgate, Davis’ public comments, the vaunted ’stadium study’ that shows a new stadium not feasible – to me shows due dilligence, no discussions at all to renew o.co lease … all very fishy.. I think the writing is on the wall.

Or maybe, just maybe – the Raiders can still share Santa Clara which is actually not a bad situation the place will be state of the art, close to current location, can keep same practice facilities/headquaters, napa camp, etc. Makes a ton of sense, assuming they can still get a deal done.

That’s the *only* other scenario for them to stay in the bay. A new stadium in Oakland simply won’t happen and if they let 2 other teams move into LA market besides them without getting a new stadium deal in Santa Clara – they really are in serious trouble..

 

[Exe Gesis]

Article from January 2013, but it says it all very well....

Raiders Must Make a Move - to L.A.

By Samuel Chi - January 31, 2013

Wherever Al Davis is these days - some say Heaven, others not as charitable - let's hope he doesn't have a Facebook account. Because when he sees this, he'll be very, very mad.

This is probably the best demographic study ever done on NFL fandom. Broken down by county, it shows what NFL team is most "liked" by the residents across the 50 states via their Facebook activities.

And Davis can easily draw this one conclusion: L.A. still hearts his Raiduhs.

Yep, nearly two decades after his Silver and Black left the L.A. Coliseum for its namesake in Oakland, the Raiders are still the most popular team in the most populous county in the United States. And not just the City of Angels, but most of Southern California: Other than Orange County that's defected to the Charges, the Raiders fandom stretches to the Nevada border and up the Grapevine well into the San Joaquin Valley.

You know where the Raiders are still playing second fiddle? Alameda County, where their very stadium is located. In fact, everywhere north of Santa Barbara and Fresno is solidly 49ers country, all the way to the Oregon border. There's more Raider fan loyalty in southern Oregon than in Northern California.

Which begs the question: Why did Davis ever leave Los Angeles?

One of the great pioneers of professional football, Al Davis obviously wasn't a stupid man. But in leaving L.A., he made a colossally dumb business decision. Instead of cementing their role as the football kingpin of the nation's second-largest market, the Raiders went back to what became entrenched 49ers turf after they won five Super Bowls in 14 years, all while the Raiders took up residence down south.

The Raiders are in today's state of disrepair mostly because Davis made an impulsive decision back in the spring of 1995.

Let's recap: After winning a hard-fought court battle against the NFL to relocate the Raiders for the 1982 season, Davis was running out of patience after 13 seasons in L.A. His team was still playing in the dilapidated L.A. Coliseum with no new stadium plans in sight. Even though the Rams had just pulled up stakes and moved to St. Louis, leaving the Raiders as the only team in L.A., Davis did not perceive it to be a golden opportunity.

Make no mistake, Davis had reasons to be leery about his situation in SoCal. The notorious Coliseum Commission never delivered on its promise to substantially refurbish and renovate the aging stadium - opened for the 1932 Olympics. His new stadium deal with Irwindale fell through after it was secretly torpedoes by L.A.'s power brokers. The NFL pledged to help fund the construction of a new downtown stadium - but only if Davis accepted a second tenant relocated from another NFL city (the Seahawks were rumored to be the front-runner).

David basically lost his nerve. Instead of winning a game of chicken against then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, daring him to bring a second team to town, Davis went back to his desperate old fling. Oakland promised a sold-out, renovated Coliseum for the Raiders' triumphant return. Instead, the Silver and Black played in front of the monstrosity known as "Mount Davis," on the skin infield of what's now the NFL's only multi-purpose stadium in contests often blacked out in the Bay Area.

The truth is that even without the Facebook map and today's demographic tools, Davis should've known better. Even while the Raiders won two Super Bowls after being the most dominant team in the old AFL, they never truly owned the Bay Area. While the 49ers were downtrodden throughout the '70s, they were Northern California's first big-league professional franchise and remained its darling. And when they started winning under Bill Walsh - and in the Raiders' absence - that relationship became even more entrenched.

In contrast, L.A. did embrace the Raiders, and still does.

L.A. is a front-runner town where everybody loves a winner. And most teams in L.A. do win because it's simply a magnet for talent. The Lakers, Kings, Ducks, Angels, Galaxy have all won titles in the past decade. The Dodgers' drought, going on nearly a quarter century, probably will end soon after all that money gets printed at Chavez Ravine this offseason. Even the Clippers - the Clippers! - are taking the NBA by storm.

And the Raiders did their share of winning in L.A., too. They posted the best record in the AFC in their first three seasons in SoCal and won Super Bowl XVIII their second year - still the lone Lombardi Trophy claimed by an L.A. team. The Coliseum was full of excitement in the late '80s during the Bo Jackson era, and right up when the Raiders left after the 1994 season, they were perennial playoff contenders.

Fans turned out for Raiders games at the cavernous, 92,000-seat Coliseum, a crumbling edifice with no amenities nestled in a bad neighborhood with precious little parking (I know, I was an L.A. Raiders season-ticket holder). Yes, there were gangbangers among the fans. Yes, you can get high in the stands by just breathing in the air. And yes, a large contingent of LAPD cops were needed at every game to keep the peace.

But it's also a myth that the Raiders were only embraced by thugs and lowlifes. Many wine-and-cheese USC fans were also Raiders season-ticket holders. Years later, (after I had moved to the Bay Area to cover the Raiders) a sizable contingent of fans still fly up to Oakland for every Raiders home game - even now. Walk around in any mall in L.A., if a kid, or an adult, is sporting NFL gear, chances are it'd be in Silver and Black.

Despite the fact that the Raiders left L.A. nearly 20 years ago, despite their dreadful record in the last decade, L.A. TV stations still get respectable ratings for their frequent Raiders telecasts. All Raiders games are carried by KLAA, an all-sports radio station that's also the flagship of the Angels. When they play the Chargers in San Diego, Raiders fans pack Qualcomm and turn it into a home game for the Silver and Black, just like always.

So while leaving L.A. will remain an everlasting regret for the dearly departed Al, his son Mark can do something about it. In fact, he needs to do something about it.

The Raiders will not be viable as a competitive football team - or a business entity - if they remain in the Bay Area. The Warriors are about to move out to San Francisco and the A's are sure to follow suit to the South Bay, leaving the ghostly complex to the Raiders. The 49ers will soon take up residence in their spanking new stadium in Santa Clara, perhaps after adding another Lombardi Trophy.
The Raiders will remain forever an afterthought in the Bay Area and the broke city of Oakland doesn't have another cent to spare to renovate the facilities. The Raiders, currently pegged as the third-least valuable franchise in the NFL by Forbes, simply won't be able to improve its revenue stream as a second banana in Northern California, even if they become a tenant in the 49ers' new stadium.

Mark Davis must swallow hard and play ball with the NFL and the dealmakers in L.A., even if it involves his selling a share of the team. Moving back to L.A. is the only way his team will be competitive and relevant again. But the least of his problems - which will be daunting for any other NFL team attempting to move to L.A. - is to drum up fan interest. It's already there, because it never left.

Just Move, Baby!

 

[Exe Gesis]

Me commenting in another site...

Just on the LA topic you guys were talking about previously…

I can understand why the NFL wants the Raiders in LA without Mark Davis. Mark isn’t a self-made man. He’s not an idiot, but he’s not a bright corporate spark and mountain-mover and inspiration (like say Kraft is to Boston). If the Raiders are going to be long-term successful in LA, they’ll need a savvy corporate owner. Remember, the NFL is now more and more about the self-made billion-dollar men owning sports teams.

Secondly, despite the love for the East Bay, unfortunately, it’s not like the people in Wisconsin and Buffalo, similar small markets who are far more rabid, regardless how their team performs.

Thirdly, if a new stadium got built on the adjacent site the Coliseum is now, the East Bay will never see a Super Bowl either. The NFL have given Santa Clara the ticket. But…the carrot is, if the Raiders moved to LA, in a new state of the art stadium, the NFL will surely bring a Super Bowl to LA.

Fourthly, as that facebook graphic and article posted previously illustrates, there’s more Raider fans in Oregon and SoCal than NorCal. The Niners have got a strangehold on a large region of California, and ours is split in half (oregon, nevada, southern california). Wherever we move or stay, we’re going to ostracize those fans due to that split territory the Niners own.

But LA is clearly the better direction due to LA’s populace, money (like SF’s Silicon Valley), and would allow us to become a Forbes top 3 team….which is ultimately what the NFL wants. Not us being a $750k valued basketcase in a dying region of NorCal where currently a larger entity (Niners) owns.

The Raiders at Santa Clara would just be a disservice to us too. The little ugly stepchild of. But our brand is more global than any other, and being a long-term financial juggernaut in one of the most recognized cities in the world (LA).

We can still be evil rebels with an Al Davis chip on our shoulder. If we did move, I would want Mark Davis to still be a minority owner/director in upholding the traditions (no uni change, etc etc). But hopefully Mark sires a kid to carry that on.

 

[Dirty Bird]

You know, looking at that, I feel LA should be about #3 on their list.
1 should be Portland. They could monopolise the state of Oregon (like Titans have since Oilers moved there) then creep into Idaho and northern California.
2 should be Salt Lake City. That's currently the fringe of Denver land and a pure mix leaning to Dallas. They could monopolise Utah, while creeping into Nevada (though, no one really lives in the East there), Southern Idaho and maybe a little into Western Wyoming (though, no one lives there either)
3 should be Los Angeles - They already have strong support there, they gain nothing.

Looking at that though, I wonder if Jacksonville, Carolina, Tampa Bay and New York (Jets) are viable. (More so the first 2) Perhaps LA should be in heir sights?

Though, what really interests me there. I heard a few years back that Kansas City should be called America's team as their fan support went north and they monopolised Montana, Wyoming, the Dakota's and Nebraska. That map does not indicate that; so perhaps Dallas is America's team.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Why did they even bother putting another side in Texas... it's Cowboy country through and through.

 

[Exe Gesis]

fresh update on this...



Mark Davis on the Raiders’ chances to stay in Oakland, ruling out Santa Clara, looking at Berkeley and LA


Posted by Tim Kawakami on August 24th, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Raiders owner Mark Davis saw me standing not too far from him on the Raiders sidelines about an hour before last night’s game as he was chatting with Howie Long, Reggie McKenzie and NFL exec Ray Anderson, and then Davis waved me over.

I (partly) jokingly asked Davis and Anderson if Anderson had been hired by the Raiders yet, and both laughed and then Anderson (reportedly a potential CEO candidate for the Raiders) quickly added that this was a normal NFL observer conversation with a team exec.

Then I asked Davis if he wanted to talk about stadium issues and he was more than happy to.

Important notes: The Raiders’ most recent three-year lease with the Coliseum expires after this season and, as Davis makes it clear, there are no firm plans with any site at this point in time, though he’d love to get something going with the Coliseum for a major renovation that would keep the Raiders in Oakland for a long, long time.

Here’s the conversation…


-Q: You think you’ll be playing back here at the Coliseum next year?
-DAVIS: It’s a very good possibility.

-Q: Have you started negotiating a lease extension?
-DAVIS: You mean for after this season? No, we’re still talking. We’re talking and trying to get something done long-term.
-Q: You’ve said you don’t like playing on the dirt here. Would you want some things changed before entering another agreement?
-DAVIS: No, I don’t think you can change the dirt with the A’s. That’s just something that we have to live with.
That’s a deal that we made. When we moved back here, we knew we were going to play on it. So we can’t complain about it.
It’s not optimal, but it’s something that we have to deal with.
-Q: Is sharing the Santa Clara stadium out of the question now?
-DAVIS: For me, I would say it probably is.
-Q: At any time? Short-term and long-term?
-DAVIS: That’s a long conversation I’d have with you at another time. I don’t think it’s an answer of a “yes” or a “no.”
-Q: So it’s most likely you’re playing here in Oakland next year, by extending it out a little bit again?
-DAVIS: No, what I would like to do is build one right here and start breaking ground tomorrow. (Laughs.) That’s what I want to do.
-Q: Easy. No problem.
-DAVIS: (Laughs.)
-Q: So would you need to start talking about this with the Coliseum and city folks pretty soon? Don’t you need an extension, at the least, as soon as possible?
-DAVIS: Listen, we’re talking with the city and the county all the time. And we have another meeting coming up shortly. And we’ll see where that goes.
I don’t like to talk about what we’re going to do or not going to do. It’s what we can do and what’s going to happen.
-Q: Last time you did a three-year extension.
-DAVIS: That doesn’t seem to be something that I want to do. I don’t see where that does any good.
If you go back and look at when we did the three-year extension last time, and you look at the quotes from the politicians and the people around, they said, ‘Great, now we’ve got an opportunity to work on a long-term deal with the Raiders.’
If we do it again, then it’s, ‘Great, now we’ve got a long time to work on a long-term deal with the Raiders.’ I think we’ve got to get a little more urgency about it.
-Q: So you want a deal now that would lead into the rebuilding of the Coliseum, sounds like.
-DAVIS: Absolutely. Absolutely.
-Q: Tie the two things together–the extension and a new stadium deal.
-DAVIS: Correct.
-Q: Could you go somewhere else in the East Bay temporarily? Maybe Cal?
-DAVIS: Sure. I mean, if they’d want us. We’ve done it before. There’s some… things about Berkeley that wouldn’t be optimal–the parking and all of that stuff is always tough.
But at the same time, it’s if (there’s a need to play elsewhere for a while) for a new stadium… and we like Berkeley. I think what they’ve done with the new stadium is great.
-Q: Wouldn’t the city of Berkeley have to be involved?
-DAVIS: I’m not sure.
-Q: Is LA on your mind as a possible permanent site?
-DAVIS: Always. An opportunity for us to get a new stadium is always on my mind. Oakland is first, OK? That’s all I can say.
-Q: And you need to know ASAP.
-DAVIS: Yes.
-Q: You’ve said all this before, for years.
-DAVIS: I’ve been pretty wide-open in my thoughts on the process. One thing I’ve found out is if you’re honest, tell the truth, you don’t have to remember what you said last time.
-Q: If you’re in this stadium, like it is, for another five years, would that be a frustrating thing for you?
-DAVIS: I don’t see how that could happen. But yeah, it obviously would be frustrating. It just doesn’t make sense, for anybody.
-Q: How do you think the tarping of all those sections is going to work for you?
-DAVIS: I think the tarps help. What I was saying is when we played here prior to leaving in ’82, it was about a 53,000-seat stadium. And we had 53,000 season-ticket-holders, and we were doing pretty damn good.
Then when we came back, it was a 65,000-seat stadium, with I don’t know how many boxes. Instead of building up to that capacity, once you have one empty seat, you might as well have 500 empty seats or 5,000 empty seats.
It’s supply and demand. That’s what it’s gotta be.
The fans here at the greatest. There’s no question about it. That’s the one thing that makes me keep trying to get something done here. There’s nothing like ‘em.
-Q: Did you buy out another limited partner recently?
-DAVIS: (Puts his hand over his mouth and smiles.)
-Q: No comment on that?
-DAVIS: I won’t comment on any of those kinds of things right now.
-Q: How do you feel about your team going into this season?
-DAVIS: It’s something to watch. I don’t really comment on it. Right now we’re still trying to find the 53-man roster. I want to win. That’s it. That’s all I want to do.
It’s going to be a process. We’re going through that process. We had a lot to clean up.
-Q: You think you’re still in that clean-up process?
-DAVIS: No, I think once we get through this 53-man roster, I think we’ve got a pretty bright future ahead of us.

 

[ashley12]

Why did they even bother putting another side in Texas... it's Cowboy country through and through.

Houston is the 4th biggest city in America.

If hypothetically when the Texans came to the league they were instead based in LA the exact same arguments about how can such a large population not have an NFL team would be directed at Houston instead of LA.

 

[Exe Gesis]

As far as this crazy we are going to LA stuff goes….just stop…are any of you people Eric Garcetti the Mayor of LA? Time for me to smack ya where it hurts.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/11/local/la-me-mayor-debate-20130412

Both candidates said they would be supportive of bringing professional football back to Los Angeles. “It just can’t be the Raiders, because we have gone down in crime every year since they left,” Garcetti said, receiving a roar of approval.

http://fansided.com/2012/08/20/when-los-angeles-gets-an-nfl-team-someone-will-lose/

See the attendance numbers in LA? 46 K in 1982 and 51 K in 1994! The article also doesn’t mention the last 5 seasons in LA there were only 5 sellouts total.

 

[Exe Gesis]

An article from 1995....

PRO FOOTBALL; Raiders' Divorce Made in Heaven

By TOM FRIEND
Published: July 09, 1995

Their fans were about leather and mace. Their stadium was rubble, their practice facility was a deserted school and their marketing department was on wheels.

The Raiders rented in Los Angeles for 13 years, had an option to buy but, in the end, preferred to move back in with their parents (Oakland). The legacy they leave behind is a paddy wagon.

They did not break the bank in Los Angeles, but one of their fans did. A Southern California man, with a severe Raider addiction, robbed several local savings and loans so he could afford tickets to both home and away games. He was arrested, did time and politely asked the Raiders' owner, Al Davis, for a job.

"I'll understand if you don't want me in payroll," the man said.

It used to be, if the Raiders were coming to town, you hid the women and children; in Los Angeles, the fans hid.

The police at the Los Angeles Coliseum packed riot gear, some of the ticket holders needed to be frisked at the door, and then the Raiders wondered why they ended up with baseball-sized crowds.

The Rams beat them out of town by a couple of months, and now -- with the smell of Ben-Gay in the air -- training camp opens next week without a single team in Los Angeles. Nobody's crying.

On the day the Raiders announced their escape last month, only one fan protested. He climbed in the face of defensive end Nolan Harrison, who had said Los Angeles prefers sushi over football.

Fan: "You talked bad about L.A., man."
Harrison: "We never belonged here. Can you honestly say L.A. showed us support? Thirty thousand is not going to cut it, man."
Fan: "Don't you talk bad about us."
Harrison: "Listen, you're just sore we're leaving. Our season ticket prices are the same as across the league, but how come we don't sell out? What do they cost? Thirty five bucks? You mean to tell me, you can't afford $35 eight times a year?"
Fan: "No, I can't. Got priorities."
Harrison: "Well, there you go. Your priorities are out of whack."

There was a cursory "Save the Rams" campaign in Anaheim, but no one passed around a petition to save the Raiders. In Philadelphia or in Washington, the mood of the city is dictated by whether the Eagles or Redskins win; in Los Angeles, the mood is set by earthquakes, mud slides, brush fires, floods, Hugh Grant, gridlock and juries.

There is enough blame to go around for everyone, but the first problem was a stadium that has had loose concrete, poor sight lines, nary a luxury box and no metal detectors. The prototypical Raider fan was from the harsher side of town. He drove a souped-up car, or a motorcycle, and brought his vulgar disposition to the game. The weekly arrests were in double figures and a bleacher gang once beat a Pittsburgh Steeler fan senseless. One league general manager, after being heckled at the Los Angeles Coliseum, said last year, "The toughest part about playing the Raiders is getting off the bus." Another player warmed up before a game, peered at the crowd and said, "Here we are at San Quentin."

So, it was no place for a station wagon full of children, and the attendance -- except for the rare Dallas and San Francisco games -- suffered for it. The Raiders also never pounded on the door of corporate Los Angeles and their idea of print advertising was the National Football League standings on the agate page.

It was also difficult to build a fan base when their business philosophy was predicated on threats.

Davis threatened to bolt for Irwindale, threatened to return to Oakland, threatened to settle in Baltimore -- all scare tactics to get the Coliseum commission to build luxury boxes with wet bars.

But, in the process, he alienated a season-ticket fan base that sometimes did not receive its renewal applications until August.

As for Davis's marketing approach, it was tantamount to driving around with a megaphone, announcing next week's opponent. His advertising scheme was circa 1963: on wheels. Raider billboards were placed only on taxicabs and buses, although Davis's argument was, if the Raiders needed more market penetration, then why did they lead the league in merchandise sales?

To the players' credit, a few (such as defensive end Anthony Smith and wide receiver Tim Brown) delved into low-income areas to do community-relations work, but that did little to fuel attendance.

In fact, the day Marcus Allen left was the day Los Angeles football died. Allen was the only player synonymous with the city, a player so Hollywood that he wore a jeans jacket during warm-ups. But the last straw for the Raiders was when Allen tapped Al Michaels on the shoulder three years ago and told a "Monday Night Football" audience that Davis was the devil.

The running back had a Heisman Trophy from the University of Southern California, not to mention a fan club, and Davis was envious. Eventually, Davis turned bitter over Allen's fumbles, underpaid him, accused him of a phantom ankle injury and told his coach, Art Shell, to bench him. Allen then broke the sacred Raider oath and spoke out, saying Davis had been "out to get him." Los Angeles sided with Allen.

Davis naturally banished him to Kansas City, and away went Raider soul. Bo Jackson could have assumed control, but his hip would not let him, and a town that needs marquee to nudge itself onto the Santa Monica Freeway to the stadium had only Jay Schroeder.

But fans have never been that rabid here, anyway. Super Bowl I at the Coliseum did not sell out or even cause a traffic jam. On a 1988 evening when Kirk Gibson delivered a ninth-inning World Series thrill, a third of the Dodger Stadium crowd was in the parking lot. Look closely at the replay of his game-winning home run, and the brake lights are evident. Los Angeles fans arrive late, leave early. They come to be seen, not to see. Jack Nicholson brings binoculars to his front-row seat at Laker games -- for the scenery, not to check if Nick Van Exel has green eyes.

The fans here want spicy tuna at the concession stands, a concourse clean enough to eat off and an owner, like the Lakers' Jerry Buss, who stays out of the way. Disney's Michael Eisner and the Hollywood mogul Michael Ovitz are said to have stadium blueprints in the works, but, for now, this city is about to receive a football novelty: television doubleheaders.

Or, as Harrison told that lone protester, "Just a 45-minute flight to Oakland, dude."

 

[Exe Gesis]

NFL could play eight games with different teams in London, won’t expand

So what’s the long-term goal for the NFL in London? Commissioner Roger Goodell said Saturday that he wants to put a team in both London and Los Angeles.

If that happens, it won’t entail expansion of the league. The NFL, we’re told, has no plan to grow beyond 32 teams.

And that would be a wise move. Based on the reality that there aren’t enough healthy and competent quarterbacks to go around for 32 teams, it would be a mistake to add one or two more franchises.

Thus, if/when teams move to London and/or Los Angeles, the league will be relocating existing teams.

As to London, it’s also possible that no one will move. Peter King of TheMMQB.com reported during Football Night in America that the league could play a full slate of eight games in England, with different teams playing in each game. Every team would play in London at least once every three years.

We floated the possibility of the cereal variety pack approach earlier this month, without actually knowing that it could be a possibility.

According to King, it is.

 

[Broken]

Interesting some of the comments on the link about establishing a team in London. Player safety seems to be a big concern with the long haul flights (West Coast teams about 11 hour flight).

I wonder, if the NFL is seriously considering 8 games in the UK, if they are using it as a way to determine what is involved with 8 UK 'home' games - which they could then compare against the costs of basing a team in the UK to then 'encourage' a team to relocate.

One or two games a year in the UK are rare enough to maintain interest, but add more games and you run the risk of too much of a good thing and UK people won't be so keen to attend multiple games, especially if/when the schedule serves up clunkers.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Interesting some of the comments on the link about establishing a team in London. Player safety seems to be a big concern with the long haul flights (West Coast teams about 11 hour flight).

I wonder, if the NFL is seriously considering 8 games in the UK, if they are using it as a way to determine what is involved with 8 UK 'home' games - which they could then compare against the costs of basing a team in the UK to then 'encourage' a team to relocate.

One or two games a year in the UK are rare enough to maintain interest, but add more games and you run the risk of too much of a good thing and UK people won't be so keen to attend multiple games, especially if/when the schedule serves up clunkers.

I can assure you no current owner would want to relocate his team to London full-time, and in the process ostracize the existing American fans, etc.

It will never happen, unless a team sold ownership to a new British owner, like say, Richard Branson, who had steel for veins and didn't care about US fans.

The best way is as described....all teams playing 8 games a year in the UK, on-going, for x years, until a new commissioner came in and wiped his hands of Goodell's ideas.

 

[Blacky]

I think it's one of the worst ideas in history TBH