NFL Relocations and League Expansion

[Dirty Bird]

Breaking into that market would be difficult too. The Spurs are number 1 in San Antonio and while they keep winning that's the way it will stay.

Non-factor.
Texas is a football state. Place an NFL team there and they'll show up.
Heck, in 2011, the local university set up a football program and have averaged 31k after 22 games (4 seasons) with 1 of those seasons being in FCS (effectively div 2)

If an irrelevant college, in Texas (Austin) Longhorn territory can draw that an NFL team will work a treat.

Heck, the Saints went 56,688, 65,652 and 63,747 and their 3 2005 games in San Antonio. If a team from another state who are only playing there because their stadium is damaged can draw that, there's no logical reason to say why their very own NFL team can't sell out the place.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Non-factor.
Texas is a football state. Place an NFL team there and they'll show up.
Heck, in 2011, the local university set up a football program and have averaged 31k after 22 games (4 seasons) with 1 of those seasons being in FCS (effectively div 2)

If an irrelevant college, in Texas (Austin) Longhorn territory can draw that an NFL team will work a treat.

Heck, the Saints went 56,688, 65,652 and 63,747 and their 3 2005 games in San Antonio. If a team from another state who are only playing there because their stadium is damaged can draw that, there's no logical reason to say why their very own NFL team can't sell out the place.

Talking about a third NFL side in Texas is like talking about a third AFL side in WA.
Can it be done in medium/long term future... probably... but should it be done?

 

[Dirty Bird]

Talking about a third NFL side in Texas is like talking about a third AFL side in WA.
Can it be done in medium/long term future... probably... but should it be done?

No it isn't.
WA - 2 teams in 1 city. No alternative city.
Texas - 2 teams in 2 cities. Still has 1 (arguably 2) other alternative cities.

Florida (circa early-mid 90s) is like WA. They could feasibly set up a new team, but no guarantee that it would work.

San Antonio is the safest expansion opportunity in the NFL. Rabid football loving patrons starved of decent football.

Chargers should go to LA.
Oakland should go to San Antonio.
Jacksonville should go to London.
St Louis should just go into extinction (What fans would want to support them when they know in 20-30 years they'll **** off anyway)
And a new franchise should come in somewhere

 

[Chadwiko]

And a new franchise should come in somewhere

Hawaii.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Hawaii.

I was thinking Portland honestly.
Though, I'd personally love Vegas. But the NFL hates there.

Honolulu would be interesting..... Especially if we get a Hawai'i @ London game Would it be quicker to fly over asia or America?

 

[nobbyiscool]

No it isn't.
WA - 2 teams in 1 city. No alternative city.
Texas - 2 teams in 2 cities. Still has 1 (arguably 2) other alternative cities.

Florida (circa early-mid 90s) is like WA. They could feasibly set up a new team, but no guarantee that it would work.

San Antonio is the safest expansion opportunity in the NFL. Rabid football loving patrons starved of decent football.

Chargers should go to LA.
Oakland should go to San Antonio.
Jacksonville should go to London.
St Louis should just go into extinction (What fans would want to support them when they know in 20-30 years they'll **** off anyway)
And a new franchise should come in somewhere

You'd probably think Toronto would be next cab off the rank after those 4 wouldn't you?

 

[Dirty Bird]

You'd probably think Toronto would be next cab off the rank after those 4 wouldn't you?

Toronto has a * next to it

*Buffalo or Bust.

 

[Chadwiko]

DB is right, Toronto won't get a team whilst Buffalo has one.

Portland is a possibility, but I have a feeling they (shadowy league figures) might prefer a team from one of the northern plains states.

Montana, the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska... not a huge population up there, and not big media markets, but they love their football.

Failing that, left field ideas would be Montreal or Ciudad de Mexico.

 

[Broken]

Failing that, left field ideas would be Montreal or Ciudad de Mexico.

I remember Mexico got 103,000 spectators for the 0-3 Cardinals vs the 1-2 49ers in a 2005 regular season game. I'm sure the fans are there, but I think the political situation would be a deterrent.

 

[Dirty Bird]

DB is right, Toronto won't get a team whilst Buffalo has one.

Portland is a possibility, but I have a feeling they (shadowy league figures) might prefer a team from one of the northern plains states.

Montana, the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska... not a huge population up there, and not big media markets, but they love their football.

Failing that, left field ideas would be Montreal or Ciudad de Mexico.

you're heading into college territory.
It's the reason I don't think Austin could pull it off.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Cisneros, others set to pitch S.A. to Raiders on Friday in Oakland

By Tom Orsborn November 6, 2014

Does San Antonio still have a shot at the luring the Raiders away from Oakland?

Former Mayor Henry Cisneros will lead a group of San Antonio governmental and civic leaders headed who'll meet with Oakland Raiders officials Friday in the Bay Area.

The meeting comes nearly four months after Raiders owner Mark Davis first discussed with Cisneros and others in San Antonio, including Spurs owner Peter Holt and former Minnesota Vikings owner B.J. “Red” McCombs, the possibility of the beleaguered NFL franchise moving to the Alamo City should it fail to gain a new stadium in Oakland.

Since then, the Raiders deemed the Alamodome as an NFL-ready facility following a visit by two team officials to a UTSA game and have exchanged information with city leaders. The Raiders and the city also shared the cost of a survey of fans in South and Central Texas to gauge their interest in supporting the team.

Add it all up, and Cisneros believes the possibility of the team moving to South Texas is a “very clear 50-50 proposition.”

 

[Exe Gesis]

Oakland Raiders Should Not Move To San Antonio
Comment Now
Follow Comments
Could the Oakland Raiders become the San Antonio Raiders? The San Antonio Express News reported yesterday the team is considering such a move MOVE +0.02%.

I think moving the team from the Bay Area to the Alamo City would ultimately lower the value of the NFL team.

I went to San Antonio last October to speak at a sports conference put on by the American Society of Appraisers. Nice city. The Riverwalk in particular is beautiful. In his recently published report on the business climates of U.S. cities my colleague, Kurt Badenhausen, rated San Antonio 16 and Oakland 62 out of 200 metro areas.

I get why Raiders owner Mark Davis is pondering the relocation. The revenue pecking order of NFL teams is based largely on stadium revenue from premium seating and sponsorships, of which his team scores poorly. O.co Coliseum is not only antiquated, but is also home for MLB’s A’s. The baseball team recently agreed to a 10-year lease extension that allows the A’s to continue to control concessions rights which grants them a share of proceeds from Raiders games. The Raiders have only one year left on their current lease and Davis is frustrated by the lack of progress for his proposed $800 million stadium in Oakland. A move to Los Angeles is also a possibility. But such a move, if approved by the league, would seem several years away given the NFL has not even decided on a site for a new stadium.

The Oakland Raiders come out of the tunnel at the Oakland Coliseum prior to the start of a home game against the New England Patriots. The Patriots won 49-26. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Alamodome opened 21 years ago at a cost of just $186 million. It is no palace. But sources say the City of San Antonio, which owns and operates the stadium, is trying to lure Davis by paying for a major stadium overhaul and handing him the operating keys.

But Oakland is in the country’s fourth-largest media market, compared with 36th for San Antonio. The number of big corporations in the Bay Area outnumber the Alamo City by 30 to five. Once Oakland’s economy rebounds the city will be able support much higher premium seating and sponsorship revenue than San Antonio.

The top revenue teams in the NFL–Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins, New England Patriots, New York Giants–all play in big markets and have new stadiums. Davis must do the same to maximize his team’s value.

 

[FootyJunkie]

San Antonio Raiders would have the same colour scheme as the Spurs in the NBA.

 

[Dirty Bird]

San Antonio Raiders would have the same colour scheme as the Spurs in the NBA.

and?

 

[Dirty Bird]

Oakland Raiders Should Not Move To San Antonio

An opinion piece? really? Are you incapable of independent thought?

 

[FootyJunkie]

and?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Oakland shrugs as San Antonio flirts with Raiders

By Matt O'Brien and Matthew Artz Staff writers
Posted: 11/07/2014 05:36:41 PM PST


OAKLAND -- East Bay leaders mostly shrugged -- and one even scoffed -- at a visit by San Antonio leaders Friday to woo the Oakland Raiders to Texas.

A team led by Henry Cisneros, a former four-term San Antonio mayor and federal housing chief, flew to the Bay Area to meet with the football franchise to make a case for the team to move.

"If they are visiting Oakland for the secret to Everett and Jones BBQ sauce, awesome, but if they are here to woo the Raiders they are wasting their time," said Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who sits on the city-county board that governs the East Oakland stadium site. "Hope they visit Children's Fairyland or the Oakland Zoo so their trip is not a total waste -- because the Raiders are staying."

The Oakland trip follows a tour of San Antonio and its Alamodome that Cisneros and other San Antonio civic leaders gave to Raiders owner Mark Davis this summer.

Davis confirmed he met with the Texas delegation Friday and said only that "Henry Cisneros said their job was to present San Antonio's assets in the strongest light, and they did that."

Oakland Mayor-elect Libby Schaaf said that she will meet with team officials next week and that she was assured by Raiders President Marc Badain that the team still prefers to stay in Oakland if a stadium deal can be reached.

"I'm looking forward to getting to know the Raiders and what their needs are," Schaaf said Friday, while reiterating that she opposes using public money for stadium construction.

The team's continued flirtation with San Antonio comes two weeks after Oakland officials announced that a new investment team was interested in financing construction of a Raiders stadium at the site of O.co Coliseum.

However, the investment group, fronted by San Diego businessman Floyd Kephart, has refused to disclose its financial backers or whether it would demand a stake in the team in return for closing an estimated $600 million funding gap for the new facility. Davis still has not signed a letter of interest in the project requested by the city.

"I think Mark Davis wants a better deal is what it boils down to, and I think he's somewhat agnostic as to where it comes from," said Robert Boland, academic chair of the Preston Robert Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism, and Sports Management.

Boland said San Antonio is the least likely option for the Raiders, however, because the Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans would likely both oppose the move and seek compensation from the Raiders for moving to Texas.

"In that sense I think this is largely posturing," Boland said of Friday's meeting. "But the Raiders are telling the world that they are a very movable team."

Cisneros did not return requests for comment Friday.

Along with being the first Latino to become mayor of a major U.S. city, he was the federal secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Clinton administration.

Cisneros is also not a stranger to Bay Area land dealings. The real estate investment company he founded, CityView, bought an unfinished Berkeley condo development for $60 million two years ago and has worked in Pleasant Hill, South San Francisco and Marin County.

 

[Beetlebum]

Non-factor.
Texas is a football state. Place an NFL team there and they'll show up.
Heck, in 2011, the local university set up a football program and have averaged 31k after 22 games (4 seasons) with 1 of those seasons being in FCS (effectively div 2)

If an irrelevant college, in Texas (Austin) Longhorn territory can draw that an NFL team will work a treat.

Heck, the Saints went 56,688, 65,652 and 63,747 and their 3 2005 games in San Antonio. If a team from another state who are only playing there because their stadium is damaged can draw that, there's no logical reason to say why their very own NFL team can't sell out the place.

The more I think about it the more I agree that San Antonio would be a decent shout for a team to relocate.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Mark playing the San Antonio as an option game to try and force Jerry Jones into supporting his relocation to LA.

Pretty savy move, but the NFL wants no part of the Davis-owned Raiders back in LA.

Could be the most exciting play of the season watching this negotiation/posturing play out.

Almost like to see Mark paint himself into a corner and having to relocate to San Antonio...enjoy the river walk and playing third fiddle to the Spurs and Cowboys.

 

[Dirty Bird]

3rd fiddle to the Spurs and Cowboys?
LOL!
Are the Texans 2nd fiddle to the Cowboys in Houston? No.... So why would a new team in San Antonio be behind Dallas there?
And NFL is over by the time anyone gives a s**t about NBA, so both can co-exist. Non factor if they're still 2nd fiddle to the Spurs... Patriots are 2nd fiddle to the Red Sox. Giants 2nd fiddle to the Yankees. Rams 2nd fiddle to the Cardinals, Dolphins 2nd fiddle to the Heat. If their seasons are different it's a non-factor. You need to look at the demographic.

Draw a line from Green Bay to Washington D.C. Everything North-East of that line - basketball territory. Risky to move in. Anything* South-West of that line - football territory. Avoid doubling up in a city and anywhere with a population of 1.5M+ can easily sustain a football team.

*Except Florida, too many old retirees who don't care too much about sport.

Under 1.5M? Might have to cherry pick the right places. OKC at 1.3M would be tough to break, yet I think they could break SLC at 1.1M.

 

[BomberWatson]

3rd fiddle to the Spurs and Cowboys?
LOL!
Are the Texans 2nd fiddle to the Cowboys in Houston? No.... So why would a new team in San Antonio be behind Dallas there?
And NFL is over by the time anyone gives a s**t about NBA, so both can co-exist. Non factor if they're still 2nd fiddle to the Spurs... Patriots are 2nd fiddle to the Red Sox. Giants 2nd fiddle to the Yankees. Rams 2nd fiddle to the Cardinals, Dolphins 2nd fiddle to the Jets. If their seasons are different it's a non-factor. You need to look at the demographic.

Draw a line from Green Bay to Washington D.C. Everything North-East of that line - basketball territory. Risky to move in. Anything* South-West of that line - football territory. Avoid doubling up in a city and anywhere with a population of 1.5M+ can easily sustain a football team.

*Except Florida, too many old retirees who don't care too much about sport.

Under 1.5M? Might have to cherry pick the right places. OKC at 1.3M would be tough to break, yet I think they could break SLC at 1.1M.

FIFY.

 

[Exe Gesis]

The City of Oakland has a deal (including a new stadium) with the Raiders ready to sign, but Mark Davis hasn't signed it yet......because he wants to still try to finagle a deal with the NFL LA Committee to relocate there. Last resort will be to stay in Oakland with that deal (as there are some catches). The San Antonio thing is to try to coerce the LA Committee to agree to the Los Angeles relocation.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Inglewood mayor says he’ll meet with Stan Kroenke
Posted by Mike Florio on November 8, 2014, 11:40 AM EST

Getty Images
Rams owner Stan Kroenke has acquired the nickname “Silent Stan” for reasons other than being afflicted with periodic gaseous emissions that create no sound. Kroenke says nothing, ever. Especially as it relates to the future location of his NFL team.

Inglewood, California mayor James Butts does not share Silent Stan’s tendency toward not talking. According to KMOV.com, Butts told supporters after winning re-election that he has a meeting scheduled with Kroenke.

Kroenke has purchased 60 acres in Inglewood, triggering speculation that he could build a stadium there. The Rams currently play at the Edward Jones Dome on a year-to-year lease.

League insiders regarding the Rams as the current favorites to move to L.A., either in 2015 or 2016; the Chargers and Raiders also are considered to be finalists. Missouri officials recently launched an effort to solve the stadium situation in St. Louis, but there’s a chance it’s too late for anything meaningful to happen — especially if Silent Stan intends to turn his non-words into action after the current season ends.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Jerry Jones: We “very much” want a team in London
Posted by Michael David Smith on November 8, 2014, 8:52 AM EST

AP
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones says the NFL should have a franchise in London.

Jones, in London for tomorrow’s game against the Jaguars, said thrice-yearly games at Wembley Stadium are nice, but what the NFL really needs is to have a team make its home base in London.

“On a personal basis and speaking for the Dallas Cowboys we very much would like to have a team in London,” Jones said. “It has cache. It has an air about it of international competition I think that London is probably one of two or three cities outside of the United States that really does have all of the criteria that I would look at for having an NFL team.”

Several NFL owners have expressed interest in having a team in London, and from their perspective it makes sense: The league really can’t get much bigger than it already is in the United States, so if the business is going to continue to grow, that growth will have to happen overseas.

But no one who wants a team in London ever seems to have answers for all the logistical questions that would arise with having a team in Europe. Would it be an expansion team or would an existing team move there? How would the NFL deal with the obvious competitive disadvantage the London team would face, thanks to free agents not wanting to uproot their families to live in another country? Would the team be based in London year round, with minicamps, Organized Team Activities, training camp and the preseason all in London, or would the team only be there for its eight home games? Would the London team get additional salary cap space to make up for its players having to pay higher taxes in the United Kingdom?

And, of course, the big question is whether there’s really enough of a fan base in England to sustain a team in London. Right now, the NFL is able to sell out Wembley Stadium three times a year. But that doesn’t mean the NFL will be able to sell out Wembley Stadium eight times a year, especially if the team that’s playing at Wembley stinks, as expansion teams usually do.

So while Jones wants a team in London, it’s no sure thing that it would be a hit for the NFL.

 

[Starburns_]

But no one who wants a team in London ever seems to have answers for all the logistical questions that would arise with having a team in Europe. Would it be an expansion team or would an existing team move there? How would the NFL deal with the obvious competitive disadvantage the London team would face, thanks to free agents not wanting to uproot their families to live in another country? Would the team be based in London year round, with minicamps, Organized Team Activities, training camp and the preseason all in London, or would the team only be there for its eight home games? Would the London team get additional salary cap space to make up for its players having to pay higher taxes in the United Kingdom?

Sounds like the NFL equivalent of the COLA.