NFL Relocations and League Expansion

[Rakuten06]

Clubs do play at Wembley for the FA Cup final in a "neutral" capacity.

Yeah, I'm talking about the regular basis. Last time a club played at Wembley Stadium is Arsenal in European club competition at the old Wembley Stadium from 1998-2000.

 

[SA1NTER]

NFC South, NFC West and AFC South are divisions that I don't mind being re-structured. The other ones are more established with heated rivalries that shouldn't be touched, even with relocation.

I agree with the AFC South being changed but the Texans and Titans should still be in there.

On a bit of an unrelated note; I've never know why the Colts are in the AFC South. Anyone have any idea?

I know they were originally in Baltimore and part of the NFL during expansion, and switched to the AFC side with the Steelers and Browns, but why are they in the AFC South now?

 

[Woodson]

I agree with the AFC South being changed but the Texans and Titans should still be in there.

On a bit of an unrelated note; I've never know why the Colts are in the AFC South. Anyone have any idea?

I know they were originally in Baltimore and part of the NFL during expansion, and switched to the AFC side with the Steelers and Browns, but why are they in the AFC South now?

I think you mean the Jaguars, being in the AFC North. The Colts being in the south has me stumped. If anything, they should be in the AFC North but the NFL love the Ravens-Steelers as rivals just as Redskins - Cowboys - Eagles are grouped in the East... Dallas nowhere near the east.

Who cares.. they seem to gel pretty well now. Better than previous as the NFC West was geographically challenged (for three + decades).

 

[SA1NTER]

I think you mean the Jaguars, being in the AFC North. The Colts being in the south has me stumped. If anything, they should be in the AFC North but the NFL love the Ravens-Steelers as rivals just as Redskins - Cowboys - Eagles are grouped in the East... Dallas nowhere near the east.

Who cares.. they seem to gel pretty well now. Better than previous as the NFC West was geographically challenged (for three + decades).

I really think that with the 2002 realignment the NFL had everyone matched up but the Colts were just left over. Alone. Irrelevant. Lonely. They would have just been put in our (Texans) division to make up the numbers. Should be with the Ravens in my opinion, but I'm happy the way things are now.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Looking at the 2001 divisions, I would of gone with.

AFC East - Patriots, Bills, Jets, Colts
AFC North - Steelers, Browns, Bengals, Ravens
AFC West - Raiders, Broncos, Seahawks, Chargers
AFC South - Jaguars, Dolphins, Titans, Chiefs

Were in AFC East
Were in AFC Central
Were in AFC West

NFC East - Eagles, Giants, Redskins, Cowboys
NFC North - Vikings, Bears, Lions, Packers
NFC West - 49ers, Cardinals, Rams, Texans
NFC South - Buccaneers, Falcons, Panthers, Saints

Were in NFC East
Were in NFC Central
Were in NFC West
Expansion Team

 

[Exe Gesis]

The Titans and Ravens had a great rivalry going before re-alignment. Indianapolis could've been placed in the AFCN and Ravens AFCS.

The only other division that is a hold-over of old rivalries that has no regional sense at all is the NFC East. Dallas in the South to Philly in the North, to Washington in the East, to NY in the East. Can also include Miami Dolphins AFC East should be in the South.

Check the thread directory, there's a link in there specific about re-alignment discussions.

 

[Dirty Bird]

The Titans and Ravens had a great rivalry going before re-alignment. Indianapolis could've been placed in the AFCN and Ravens AFCS.

The only other division that is a hold-over of old rivalries that has no regional sense at all is the NFC East. Dallas in the South to Philly in the North, to Washington in the East, to NY in the East. Can also include Miami Dolphins AFC East should be in the South.

Check the thread directory, there's a link in there specific about re-alignment discussions.

If Colts were in the AFC North it would of been at the expense of Cincy or Pittsburgh.

Ravens vs Colts (Baltimore link)
Ravens vs Browns (Cleveland link)

 

[Exe Gesis]

The Oakland City Council members met last Tuesday to discuss the proposed Coliseum City stadium/entertainment district.

Here's a video link to the sit ins...

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/20762899


.

 

[ashley12]

That would have killed the Steelers vs Ravens rivalry though, and the only other way to have the teams all in the same division would be to split the Ohio teams up.

 

[Exe Gesis]

There was no Steelers-Ravens rivalry at the time. It was Titans-Ravens. They had many great close games, in the regular season and playoffs.

 

[Woodson]

There was no Steelers-Ravens rivalry at the time. It was Titans-Ravens. They had many great close games, in the regular season and playoffs.

Correction GG.

The two seasons you can claim such a rivalry were VERY short lived GG.

1996: Ravens joins as expansion team > AFC central
Finished stone cold motherless last in division
Houston were the Oilers at this time. Finished 4th in AFC Central
Steelers won the Division

No dice on any rivalry claims

1997: Another Division claim for Steelers in AFC Central
Once again, Ravens stink it up
Oilers move to Tennessee (finished third 8-8)

No dice on such rivalry claims yet

1998: Ravens still struggling (6-10)
Jaguars step up and claim Division
Tennessee become the Titans, no play-offs with 8-8 campaign

No dice on any rivalry claims still!


1999: Jaguars go back to back Division titles
Titans 13-3 play-off Wildcard team
Ravens still no winning season to be had yet.

Rivalry impact yet to blossom... but low & behold >>

*******************************************
2000: Titans claim AFC Central Division
Ravens claim wildcard with 12-4 campaign
Ravens sting Titans with a 24-10 play-off win en-route SB winning run

2001: Steelers win AFC Central title
Baltimore claim Wildcard
Titans have losing season
Steelers bounce the Ravens out of play-off hunt with 27-10 win

2002: Re-aligned Divisions
Steelers & Baltimore stuck together
Titans shipped out to AFC South

2003: Ravens lose to Titans 17-20 in Wildcard

End of story... very minor impact on such a 'talked up rivalry'

Let's not forget that the Steelers and the Browns were much the rivalry story of the AFC Central and we all know which city Art Modell dragged the Ravens from.. just sayin'

 

[Exe Gesis]

Cross-ownership issue looms for Kroenke

In late January, when Rams owner Stan Kroenke emerged as a potential buyer for the L.A. Dodgers, we asked the league about the potential application of the cross-ownership rules.

“We have not been presented with any proposal to evaluate,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said at the time. “Thus, we will refrain from speculating.”

Less than two months later, with Kroenke now one of three finalists to buy the team, the league still may not be ready to speculate, but it’s definitely ready to act in the event that Kroenke emerges as the new owner of the Dodgers.

“I have told Commissioner Selig this, if [Kroenke] is ultimately the winning bid, then we would immediately move with our committees and our membership to have the discussion,” Commissioner Roger Goodell said Monday at the league meetings. “So we would move as quickly as possible knowing that it is an important issue for baseball.”

For now, even though no NFL team is in Los Angeles, a potential issue seems to exist under the cross-ownership rules.

“[Kroenke] is aware of it,” Goodell said. “Baseball is aware of it. It would have to be addressed by our membership.”

Kroenke undoubtedly would contend that, because no NFL team currently resides in the L.A. market, he may own a non-NFL sports franchise there. But Goodell also said Monday that Los Angeles is a “league market,” which could mean that even without a team in L.A. at the moment, the NFL believes the cross-ownership rules apply. (We have requested clarification from the league office.)

It could be a matter of form over substance. The NFL had no problem with Kroenke committing to shift control of the NBA’s Denver Nuggets and the NHL’s Colorado Avalanche once he became owner of the Rams. (In fact, Kroenke still actively owns the two Denver-area non-NFL franchises; under the deal with the NFL, the transition won’t happen until 2014.) The league will likely find a way around this one, especially since the NFL would be getting involved at a time when it would be a little awkward, to say the least, to tell Kroenke he can’t buy the Dodgers.

If the NFL were going to block Kroenke from buying the Dodgers, the time to act would have been back in January, when the league regarded the entire issue as a matter of speculation.

In the interim, look for more speculation to emerge regarding a possible move of the Rams to Los Angeles — and regarding the possible construction of a stadium adjacent to Dodgers Stadium.

“We have often said that is an extraordinary stadium site up at Dodgers Stadium, and it is something we were interested in going back to the 1990s,” Goodell said.

And then there were three potential locations for an NFL venue in Los Angeles. Just like the three candidates to own the Dodgers.

Look for this to come to a head soon. The winning bidder for the Dodgers is due to be identified by April 1.

UPDATE 8:04 a.m. ET: NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says via email that “L.A. is treated as an NFL market for purposes of the policy. It was designated as an NFL market by the league (32 clubs collectively) after the departure of the Rams and Raiders from L.A.”

 

[Burzum]

intredasting

 

[Burzum]

Magic Johnson won the purchase of the LA Dodgers.

 

[Tassie19Cairns20]

Downtown Los Angeles Stadium proposal in trouble because of AEG’s terms to NFL

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_downtown_los_angeles_nfl_stadium_goodell_aeg_032912

It doesn't necessarily kill LA's plans for a new NFL stadium, but it may place Ed Roski's Stadium in the suburbs as the only realistic option.

 

[Burzum]

Come on Raiders!

 

[Exe Gesis]

PFT Live segment, Mike Florio connects the dots and says LA wont be revisited until the next TV Network deal is due in 2014, says mainly being used to up the tv money, NFL doesn't like idea of stadium builders trying to get a discounted ownership slice from a team, etc.

Will football ever return to LA?


.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Shit getting interesting...

New Dodgers owners are looking into NFL stadium at the site

As people fixate on the proposed downtown Los Angeles and City of Industry sites as the top two locations for a new NFL stadium in Southern California, one spot nestled in the L.A. hills could emerge as a game-changer in the NFL's attempts to return to Los Angeles.

Chavez Ravine, currently the home of Dodger Stadium and the Los Angeles Dodgers, is on the mind of the team's new owners as a potential home for an NFL team. A league source recently told The Los Angeles Times that the buyers had preliminary discussions with the NFL about just that.

A group led by Los Angeles Lakers legend Magic Johnson and veteran baseball executive Stan Kasten agreed to buy the Dodgers this week for a record price of more than $2 billion. St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke was one of the three finalists for the team.

The development comes one day after Yahoo! Sports reported that the plans for a downtown stadium could be on the verge of extinction because of Anschutz Entertainment Group's (AEG) unwillingness to alter its financial plan. AEG's terms included a clause that would allow the firm to buy a stake in the franchise at a discounted rate in addition to another clause that dictates AEG -- and not the owner -- would control the team's marketing, relationships with club-seat customers and things of that nature, according to The Times.

The Times reported that Chavez Ravine has been the subject of past failed stadium projects. Owner Frank McCourt had a plan for a stadium project nicknamed "Five Ton Gorilla" that included a retail complex, and former Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley had his own proposal get derailed by the city when it backed the Los Angeles Coliseum, which now is out of the picture because the University of Southern California has right of first refusal on an NFL team.

Btw, it's worth noting that Magic Johnson once tried to buy the Raiders in order to move them to LA permanently.

 

[Burzum]

Mark Davis takes in a game with L.A.’s Ed Roski

Raiders owner and Clippers fan Mark Davis was sitting courtside at today’s LAC game against the Warriors with Ed Roski, who is trying to get a team in Los Angeles.

Roski has over 600 acres in the City of Industry. The team that moves there would be responsible for financing the stadium, and the team that moves there would sell Roski a share of the franchise at market value.

The Raiders would like to build a stadium at their current site in Oakland. But there has been no progress and Davis is exploring other options, like sharing the projected new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara and returning to Los Angeles.

Roski would give land to the NFL team at no cost, with team responsible for paying for structure and pocketing all revenue.

Per the Los Angeles Times, the downtown facility that AEG wants to build would be financed and owned by AEG; the football team would be a tenant.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Interesting

 

[Tassie19Cairns20]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/40710/vikings-stadium-cue-the-threats-right

It's time for the Vikings to play their last remaining card, the one I'm surprised they haven't used already. What's the secret to securing public financing for a new stadium? Relocation.

I fully agree with the article. With the Vikings Stadium Bill being rejected today by the State of Minnesota, I think it's time that the Vikings start exploring all their options.

 

[Exe Gesis]

More on this: Source

Agree with the bolded points.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton on Wednesday that there would be "serious consequences" for the Vikings if a stadium bill is not completed.

A Minnesota House committee voted down a bill on Monday that would have provided for a new stadium at the site of the Metrodome, leaving the Vikings' long-term fate up in the air. The team is committed to playing in the Metrodome for the 2012 season, even though its lease expired last year.
Debate: Toughest schedule
The schedule is out. Which team was dealt the toughest hand? A few of our analysts point to Peyton Manning's Broncos. More ...

According to the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, Eric Grubman, the NFL's executive vice president of ventures and business operations, said the situation was "ripe for change."

"I don't know if that means a sale. I don't know if that means a move. You have a very dejected ownership," Grubman said.

In an interview with the Minnesota Star Tribune, Grubman said "there are plenty of willing buyers."

"I think the Wilfs do not want to sell the franchise, but I think there is a point where they probably would be open-minded to listening to alternatives," he said. "To my knowledge, they have not been willing to do that at this point ... I doubt the commissioner would put probablilities or threaten or anything like that. But I would not be surprised if the commissioner tells the governor, if he asks, what other cities are interested in the Vikings because we are aware of that."

If a deal isn't reached this year for a new stadium in Minnesota, Grubman said he believes the league's criteria for approving relocation of the franchise would be met.

"Who's holding this up?" Grubman asked. "Who doesn't want this to be voted on? Stand up and be counted."

Roger Chamberlain, a state senator who introduced a competing bill to shift much of the stadium cost from the taxpayers to the Vikings, answered the league's concern.

"It's disappointing to think the NFL or the Vikings are driving policy for Minnesota government," Chamberlain wrote in an email. "They need to be willing to come back to the table and negotiate. The Vikings and NFL are in a much better financial position than our state."

Dayton holds out hope a bill can be reached this year, if not before the end of the session, then perhaps in a special session after the November elections.

Goodell has another phone call scheduled for Thursday with Dayton and Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II, who chairs the league's stadium committee.

goodell is trying to tell states what to do now they should tell Miss roger if the nfl wants a new stadium then help pay for it instead of taking tax dollars the state could use for its people

 

[Monocle]

Question for GG or any others with a bit more knowledge of the politics of the game.

Any chance of the Vikings heading in the same direction as the former Minnesota Lakers ?

 

[Tassie19Cairns20]

Question for GG or any others with a bit more knowledge of the politics of the game.

Any chance of the Vikings heading in the same direction as the former Minnesota Lakers ?

As of now, the only good answer to that question is "Maybe." The two competing NFL stadium project in LA want to actually own a team, and as of this moment Vikes owner Ziggy Wilf has no intention of selling the team.

The next step in this process is Wilf making a public announcement that he is exploring all his relocation options, which hopefully will scare the sh*t out of Minnesota politicians, and then a stadium agreement will hastily be agreed to. Now if a stadium agreement still isn't agreed upon even after Wilf threatens to move the team, then LA will start looking more likely. But usually cities tend to fold when "held at gunpoint."

As GG showed in his article, the ball is already rolling with Roger Goodell's threat that there would be "serious consequences" for the state of Minnesota if a stadium bill isn't agreed to. What I take from that is, "Get this stadium thing done NOW, because if they leave town you guys will NEVER get another NFL franchise as long as I'm commissioner."

 

[Broken]

The NFLs arrogant approach to this is very disappointing IMO.

The country is battling through a very tough economic time yet the NFL and owners, knowing that they have an extremely popular product, put the clamps on cities for their own profit.

I'd hate to see the Vikings anywhere but Minnesota, but I fully agree with Roger Chamberlains position - the state should be interested in the welfare of the state. If that wellbeing is going to be compromised by building a 'state-of-the-art facility' funded by taxpayers that:
a) most of those taxpayers can't afford to attend,
b) is not utilised 365 days a year,
c) serves the wealthy owner and league more than it does the community
d) prevents the state from investing in critical projects for the state
then by all means tell the NFL to leave.

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?

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