NFL Relocations and League Expansion

Remove this Banner Ad

Should do what the AFL does and just have one side just sell some home games in London. Perhaps a 4-4 split? If its the Jaguars, have them play home games in Jacksonville against western state sides and games in London against eastern state sides... makes a it a bit fair for the western state sides never having to cross the Atlantic. All playoff games in Jacksonville.

Lonjax Jaguars - the team of the trans-Atlantic
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Report: Rams owner trying to buy old Hollywood Park site
Posted by Darin Gantt on November 11, 2014, 11:24 AM EST
ad46bc3f5041cd6671423dcc1fc2db15.jpeg
AP
Technically speaking, the Rams are talking to Missouri officials about a new stadium deal which would keep the team in St. Louis.

But Rams owner Stan Kroenke keeps buying land in California, just in case.

In an column by Nick Canepa of U-T San Diego outlining the impact on the Chargers of a team moving to Los Angeles (perhaps even themselves), Kroenke’s recent interest in real estate is revealed almost parenthetically.

After mentioning the 60 acres in Inglewood he bought earlier this year, the report says Kroenke is “said to be negotiating to purchase” of Hollywood Park, the 300-acre defunct racetrack.

While the stadium issue in Los Angeles is a hot potato that stays in the air longer than teams have stayed in L.A., Kroenke having such a stadium-sized parcel should be a concern to any Missouri politicians who have serious hopes of keeping the Rams in town.

If, of course, they’re serious about trying to keep them.
 
http://bleacherreport.com/tb/dfswW?..._medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=st-louis-rams


SAN DIEGO

• All around him, fans were engaging in the usual pregame tailgating activities. You know, food, beverages, tossing the pigskins around. But Tom Bateman was busy making signs. Here’s a sampler:

• Chargers Belong in San Diego.

• Raiders Belong in Oakland.

• L.A. is Rams Country.

• You Can’t Spell LAurinaitis Without L.A.

“If anyone understands what St. Louis fans are going through, it’s Los Angeles fans,” said Bateman, director of the Bring Back the Los Angeles Rams booster club. “We loved our team and it broke our hearts when they moved. We want our team back. This is our father’s team and our grandfather’s team.”
 
GG said:
Jerry Jones: We “very much” want a team in London
Posted by Michael David Smith on November 8, 2014, 8:52 AM EST
jerryjones.jpeg
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.
Click to expand...

Would be an absolute disaster! Tourists and people from over the country come for the occasional games, there wouldn't be enough people for a whole season.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chiwigi said:
Would be an absolute disaster! Tourists and people from over the country come for the occasional games, there wouldn't be enough people for a whole season.
Click to expand...
They went from 1 to 2 and now to 3.
Still selling out.
They're going to 5 next year.

If they still sell it out, they should push for 8 the year after and if still going well, give them their own team.
 
Dirty Bird said:
They went from 1 to 2 and now to 3.
Still selling out.
They're going to 5 next year.

If they still sell it out, they should push for 8 the year after and if still going well, give them their own team.
Click to expand...
Being from the UK and having played and administered gridiron in the UK, (I played for an ex-semipro team called the London Olympians (O's) among others). I can comfortably tell you an actual London team would not work. Whilst they change the team playing every time etc. It will be somewhat successful, there are plenty of fans of already existing franchises, but to expect people to head to London to watch a full season schedule just won't happen. It is a soccer saturated market, so much more so than even ten years ago due to huge foreign investment in London teams, Wasps rugby club (another alma mater) have left London and other rugby clubs play more on the periphery.
Going to a game in London would be stupidly expensive, so best used as a treat. Londoners themselves would have no interest (they are Sydney like in their 'support'). Hotel for the night would be about $300 tickets for NFL games are way beyond what people are used to paying, again the occasional treat game is fine but a season ticket...nah.

I'd love to be proven wrong but as I said I played and administered junior, college, national and pro gridiron in the UK and the sustained interest would not be there. The experience of the Monarchs and the Claymores also suggest that to be the case.

I would suggest another city but most would struggle. With Manchester City doing so well the obvious secondary choice is no good. Birmingham would seem to make sense but it is far from glamorous and would not suit the profile the NFL would want.
 
Last edited:
krisholio14 said:
Rams are gone. No one cares about them there anyway. And anyone outside of St Louis cares even less than that. I live 1 hour away and you can't give away Rams gear here. This is Bears country.
Click to expand...

Gotta agree with this, in 2012 i stayed 2 hours out of St Louis for 3 months and didn't hear boo about them. Its all Cardinals and Mizzu tigers
 
BomberWatson said:
It'll likely be it for St Louis as well as far as NFL goes if they do leave, 2nd team to leave in under 30 years.
Click to expand...
And LA had 2 teams leave in under 30 weeks.

Your point?
 
Dirty Bird said:
And LA had 2 teams leave in under 30 weeks.

Your point?
Click to expand...
The Cardinals and Rams didn't play in stadiums that (a) Had far too large of a capacity to reasonably expect sellouts, nor (b) Were never in fact renovated as was promised when they initially moved (as was the case with Al Davis). Conversely, neither the Cardinals nor Rams had an owner that essentially sabotaged any chance of the team having any success through their stinginess, in order to gain leverage to move the team back to her home town (Georgia Frontiere with the LA Rams).

LA lost their teams on the back of broken promises by governors and politicians, and by an owner with conflicting interests and motives. St Louis will lose their team because that city's too busy having wet dreams over David Freese's home run in the 2011 World Series to realise that they actually have an NFL team in town.
 
Last edited:
Report: NFL scouts potential stadium site in Carson, California
Posted by Mike Florio on December 6, 2014, 1:29 PM EST
la.jpg
AP
Two months ago, when reports first suggested that the NFL could be returning to Los Angeles far sooner than expected or believed, it also was noted that additional potential locations could emerge, beyond AEG’s downtown proposal, the shovel-ready (but hopelessly stalled) City of Industry locale, and the land recently purchased by Rams owner Stan Kroenke near Hollywood Park.

According to the San Fernando Valley Business Journal, NFL executives in recent weeks have been scouting a 172-acre site in Carson, California. It’s currently the location of the Victoria Regional Park and golf course, east of 405/110 freeways.

“Yes, I have been approached by two separate groups with NFL contacts,” Newport Beach developer Jeffrey Klein said. “And yes, there’s no question it’s an attractive place for a stadium.”

The property raises potential cleanup issues, since it was once the site of a municipal landfill. Of course, if the Carson possibility is merely being used to create some last-minute leverage as the NFL closes in on a deal with one of the other locations, those details won’t matter.

Either way, the NFL seems to be moving quickly toward a return to Los Angeles, and the potential candidates are widely believed to be the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers. At this week’s meeting of NFL owners, the window for making an application for relocation could be narrowed from January 1 through February 15 to February 2 to February 15, which would keep the potential relocation of a franchise from becoming an issue during the postseason.
 
Purdy: Raiders meet with financier seeking Oakland stadium deal

By Mark Purdy Mercury News Columnist
Posted: 12/05/2014 03:54:25 PM PST


I bring semi-hopeful news from the Raiders' stadium front. Maybe.

With the Raiders-49ers game scheduled for Sunday at O.co Coliseum, the countdown clock continues on a stadium deal that Raiders owner Mark Davis is seeking for the team in Oakland. The Raiders have only one more home game in 2014, against Buffalo on Dec. 21. Will that be the Raiders' last game in their ancestral home? The team's lease expires after this season, when it would be free to leave the East Bay for any other destination, subject to NFL approval.


There was a potential significant development earlier this week that I can report for the first time. On Tuesday afternoon at Raiders headquarters, team officials met with Floyd Kephart, the city and county's new hope for assembling a development proposal on the Coliseum property that would satisfy the Raiders and/or A's.


Kephart, a San Diego financier, was granted an exclusive 90-day negotiating agreement on Oct. 21 by the Oakland City Council. As of Friday, therefore, he has 45 days remaining to sign up at least one team for his vision of the "Coliseum City" project that Oakland and Alameda County representatives seek to build on the acreage that includes the current stadium and arena property, the Coliseum parking lots and land across the Nimitz Freeway.


The proposed 800-acre Coliseum City project would include sports venues, housing, hotels, retail and office buildings. Kephart has said he knows investors who would be interested in constructing a deal, which would cost billions. But to satisfy Oakland, he must get the Raiders or A's to officially engage in the project. So far, neither team has.


One Raiders source confirmed last Tuesday's meeting but would reveal no details or when another meeting might be scheduled. Davis, who has examined possibilities for a new Raiders stadium in San Antonio and Los Angeles, said this week that his first preference would still be Oakland if the proper terms are settled.


"We're trying like hell to get something done," Davis told me in a brief phone interview, then referenced the Raiders' home victory over the Kansas City Chiefs that attracted a sellout crowd of loud, supportive fans earlier this month. "That Thursday night game against Kansas City shows you the kind of fan loyalty we have here. You can't buy that anywhere."



Davis said that he has personally met with Kephart just once, at an NFL function in New York City, but that Raiders staff is working with the financier. The Coliseum City project has many unresolved issues, not the least of which is whether the development could generate enough dollars to help subsidize new facilities for both the Raiders and the A's. Each team seeks its own stadium. Davis' preference is for the current Coliseum to be razed with a new football stadium constructed on the same property. The A's recently signed a 10-year lease extension at the current Coliseum that has an escape clause if the Raiders in fact reach a deal to demolish the Coliseum and play in a new stadium.

Reached for comment, A's co-owner Lew Wolff said he has had informal talks with Kephart -- including a meeting earlier this month in Los Angeles -- but is waiting to see what happens next.

"I met with Mr. Kephart," Wolff confirmed. "He said that he hoped to have a transaction for a new football stadium within the time period allotted him by the Oakland city council. He was candid in saying the task he is seeking is difficult. He did not offer any details. The A's position remains the same -- that being, we have provided an exit if a firm Raiders deal is achieved. And that we wish to fully control our destiny wherever we are able to implement a new state-of-the-art baseball venue."

Translation: The A's don't want to be an afterthought in the Coliseum City project or be forced to an accept terms simply to accommodate the rest of the project. They have their own concerns.

One of the many potential hiccups that could sabotage any deal, it seems, is that both the Raiders and A's say they require thousands of surface parking spots -- which would eliminate the possibility of that land being used to construct the office, housing and retail buildings whose profits could subsidize the stadiums. Neither the Raiders nor A's are enthused about parking structures. Davis has said he wants to preserve a tailgating atmosphere for football games and Wolff is concerned that structures would discourage attendance and create traffic issues.

Kephart, at some point, will also have to reveal the investors he says he is representing in a potential Coliseum City deal. Private funding must be secured for the project because Oakland and Alameda County say they are reluctant to spend public funds on any stadiums -- and there are still $122 million in revenue bonds that must be paid off on the current Coliseum, which was remodeled and renovated for the Raiders' return from Los Angeles in 1995. His corporation, the Renaissance Companies, has varied interests that include equity fund and hedge fund investments.

My opinion on all this has not changed. I believe Oakland must eventually choose between keeping either the Raiders or the A's. I don't see how both franchises can be accommodated in any Coliseum City plan. The Raiders domino might be the first to fall, one way or another, because Davis must notify the NFL later this winter if he intends to move the franchise for the 2015 season -- and of course, there is that 90-day window with Kephart that will be closing in less than two months unless he gets one team signed on to his vision. Which means Davis must make up his mind soon about the team's future. The A's are positioned well as passive observers because they will either be playing at the Coliseum for the remaining 10 years of their lease or will be free to go elsewhere -- don't ask me where -- if a Raiders agreement is signed.

As I say, the good news is that all the parties at least seem to be talking to each other. They'd better talk even more intensely between now and February.

Read Mark Purdy's blog at blogs.mercurynews.com/purdy. Contact him at mpurdy@mercurynews.com. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/MercPurdy.
 
GG said:
My opinion on all this has not changed. I believe Oakland must eventually choose between keeping either the Raiders or the A's. I don't see how both franchises can be accommodated in any Coliseum City plan. The Raiders domino might be the first to fall, one way or another, because Davis must notify the NFL later this winter if he intends to move the franchise for the 2015 season -- and of course, there is that 90-day window with Kephart that will be closing in less than two months unless he gets one team signed on to his vision. Which means Davis must make up his mind soon about the team's future. The A's are positioned well as passive observers because they will either be playing at the Coliseum for the remaining 10 years of their lease or will be free to go elsewhere -- don't ask me where -- if a Raiders agreement is signed.
Click to expand...

Kind of an irrelevant deadline when neither existing LA stadium will have the Raiders.
 
No decision yet on narrowing the relocation window
Posted by Mike Florio on December 12, 2014, 11:28 AM EST
mayflower.jpg
AP
In two weeks and six days, the annual window opens for submitting an application to relocate. Unless the NFL changes it before then.

According to the league office, no decision has been made on whether the NFL will delay the commencement of the relocation period from January 1. Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal has reported that the league is considering it. It was believed the topic would be addressed at this week’s ownership meeting.

Ultimately, the decision would come not from ownership but from the league office.

If a decision is going to be made, it needs to be made soon. No decision eventually becomes a decision to keep the window where it is.

One way to change the window without officially changing the window would be to ask any team(s) that could submit an application to move to wait until February 2 or later. With the team that wants to move ultimately relying on 23 other owners to approve the proposal, it makes sense to comply with whatever requests are made on behalf of the league as a whole.

It’s believed that the Raiders, Rams, and/or Chargers could try to move to Los Angeles, as soon as 2015.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2024 - Syndicate League - Discussion
Replies
9
Views
376
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2024 - Omega League - Discussion
Replies
7
Views
344
manureid
manureid
Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2024 - Alpha League - Discussion
Replies
10
Views
376
manureid
manureid
Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2024 - Empire League - Discussion
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
LennyHayes77
LennyHayes77
Exe Gesis
Fantasy Syndicate League - 2024 - Discussion
Replies
14
Views
507
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Other UFL (United Football League) - Discussion
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
2K
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Fantasy 2023 - Cutthroat League
2 3 4 5
Replies
116
Views
6K
Mercurial89
Mercurial89

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top