NFL Relocations and League Expansion

[Chadwiko]

Getting consensus owner approval is going to be tricky.

Chargers ownership won't approve Raiders going to LA
Dallas/Houston ownership won't approve Raiders going to San Antonio

Kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment.

Portland option looking decent, but then I wonder how Seattle's ownership would feel about it.

 

[Starburns_]

I can't remember, is the vote required to be approval from all owners, or just like a 2/3 majority?

 

[Exe Gesis]

6/8ths actually

 

[Starburns_]

6/8ths actually

24 is still a pretty easy number if there are owners desperate to get the league back into LA.

Jones probably wields enough influence to keep the Raiders out of Texas, and I imagine the Seahawks and 49ers would be happy with the status quo in Oregon, probably wouldn't be too difficult for them to convince 7 teams to vote with them.

 

[Exe Gesis]

24 is still a pretty easy number if there are owners desperate to get the league back into LA.

Jones probably wields enough influence to keep the Raiders out of Texas, and I imagine the Seahawks and 49ers would be happy with the status quo in Oregon, probably wouldn't be too difficult for them to convince 7 teams to vote with them.

The bigger thing to remember is that the owners collectively want the best situation for each team so as to maximize shared revenue etc. No owner is going to object much about a team moving even to San Antonio if collectively they feel that is the best option out of possible options. LA won't be a problem. Chargers might object say, because that's kinda considered theirs now with TV blackouts, but that's one out of 32.

If they feel Portland is the best Seahawks won't object anyway but if they did that's just one team again.

San Antonio you have two teams out of 32 object. Still passable.

Really they will all want the best spot for the Raiders regardless. If they feel Oakland city isn't going to happen they the owners will want the best spot for the Raiders.

Davis won't move to Texas anyway. LA is most likely. Almost a certainty.

 

[dlanod]

A rising boat lifts all boats. A team in LA might piss of SD, but 30 other owners are going to vote in favour because it bumps up their cut of the national TV deals next time around.

 

[Chadwiko]

A rising boat lifts all boats. A team in LA might piss of SD, but 30 other owners are going to vote in favour because it bumps up their cut of the national TV deals next time around.

There's no guarantee that LA is a cash-cow city for the NFL.

 

[Starburns_]

There's no guarantee that LA is a cash-cow city for the NFL.

Wasn't it mentioned though that Oakland is the market that brings in the leats money? All they have to do is improve on that really.

 

[Chadwiko]

Wasn't it mentioned though that Oakland is the market that brings in the leats money? All they have to do is improve on that really.

It's also one of the cheapest markets though.

LA overheads >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oakland.

 

[Starburns_]

It's also one of the cheapest markets though.

LA overheads >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oakland.

True, still reckon it'd make up the gap and then some though. The market is large enough, and there isn't the same apathy that there was 20 years ago.

NFL would be insane to put two teams there though.

 

[Chadwiko]

True, still reckon it'd make up the gap and then some though. The market is large enough, and there isn't the same apathy that there was 20 years ago.

NFL would be insane to put two teams there though.

Thing is, there's not really many 'new' fans to be won over in LA. There's already a bunch of 49ers, Rams, Chargers, and Raiders fans there. If you're in LA and like football, you already have a team.

There's an article in today's LA Times newspaper that makes a lot of good points. Highlighting for emphasis is mine;

On the 20th anniversary of the last pro football game played in Los Angeles, it finally seems like the path is clear for a team to relocate here … but heaven help us if that team is the Raiders.

The NFL won't say it, but it doesn't want them here. Sponsors won't admit it, but they wouldn't embrace them here. Fans might be screaming for them but, face it, any new team is going to sell out any new stadium here.

"For the Los Angeles market, the Raiders are the wrong team at the wrong time," said Rick Burton, professor of sports management at Syracuse University and former U.S. Olympic marketing boss. "As a business strategy for the NFL, it just doesn't work."

It's nothing personal. It's nothing against the Black Hole or Ice Cube or all those dudes wearing shoulder pads with skulls and spikes. Like Burton said, it's just business.

"The next team will be the last opportunity for the NFL to make its mark here, so it has to get it right, it can't compromise, it has to be a perfect situation," said Marc Ganis, longtime Chicago-based sports marketing executive who helped both the Rams and Raiders move out of town. "As currently constituted, the Raiders are limited."

Everyone has heard this before, but, as currently constituted, Los Angeles' real opportunity for an NFL team may have really arrived. At the end of the upcoming season, for the first time, there will be a perfect storm of three teams with expired stadium leases, and all three with Los Angeles ties — the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, and Raiders.

There is still the stadium issue here, but the most important green stuff is now in place — the Clippers' recent $2-billion purchase price has made the NFL owners understand this market's enormous financial potential. This realization has led a renewed effort to make a stadium deal happen either downtown, Hollywood Park, City of Industry, or even on Frank McCourt's parking lots — ouch! — in Dodger Stadium.

The Raiders don't belong here any more than the Rams, who have a longtime fan base, a far wealthier owner in Stan Kroenke, and a potential 60-acre stadium site near Hollywood Park.

The Raiders, who are run by Al Davis' son Mark, can't match the other two potential owners' bank accounts or potential business support, and then there's that tiny problem of perception.

"The Raiders don't bring the residual goodwill they would need to return to that market," said Burton.

The stories about the violent atmosphere around the Raiders and their games are tired, and dated, and really, in recent years there has been more trouble caused at Dodger Stadium. But when potential Los Angeles sponsors and partners see the Raiders colors, they still think Raiders trouble.

Folks still remember the Pittsburgh Steelers fan who was beaten into a coma by a Raiders fan in 1990. Folks still remember the Hells Angels' atmosphere at Coliseum tailgate parties for the Raiders. The folks at a middle school in El Segundo still remember a Raiders team that trashed the facility during the 13 years it served as their headquarters before leaving without paying the rent.

Yet even during a stretch of six consecutive losing seasons by the San Francisco 49ers, that edge wasn't enough to increase the Raiders' Bay Area footprint, with their stadium ranking last in NFL attendance and their team valuation ranking last in the NFL according to Forbes. They will forever be Northern California's second team, which should make one wonder, why does anyone think they have the smarts and sophistication to be the big guys down here?

There has been talk that the Raiders would be welcomed back if they changed their colors and re-branded their product, but that would be worse. The Raiders have to be Raiders. They just have to be them somewhere else.

 

[Starburns_]

Thing is, there's not really many 'new' fans to be won over in LA. There's already a bunch of 49ers, Rams, Chargers, and Raiders fans there. If you're in LA and like football, you already have a team.

I would consider it a generational thing, compare it to the Suns in the AFL. There'll be some new fans, and of the three most likely teams moving there there'll be existing fans too (you may even get a few who shift allegiances). But the big thing is the people who will be interested purely because it's a team in their town, they don't need to follow them, but they'll still likely pay attention. Then there's the kids who will choose the L.A. team because they have no significant attacment. It's got to be more than a short term thing.

There's an article in today's LA Times newspaper that makes a lot of good points. Highlighting for emphasis is mine;

All good points, I wouldn't be surprised to see the league push the Raiders in the direction of Portland or San Antonio if they reckon they can get the Chargers or Rams to L.A.

 

[Chadwiko]

All good points, I wouldn't be surprised to see the league push the Raiders in the direction of Portland or San Antonio if they reckon they can get the Chargers or Rams to L.A.

I personally think Portland makes more sense. Really continues to grow the NFL on the west coast, spreads the teams out more evenly along the Pacific, etc. Makes a lot more sense than LA or SA imo.

 

[Exe Gesis]

"The building blocks are there. There remain multiple sites available. So the focus is demanded."

-NFL executive VP Eric Grubman, on the league coming to Los Angeles

The NFL has appointed one of its top executives to lead the effort to bring a team back to the Los Angeles area. That could mean the league is closer than ever to returning to Southern California, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Eric Grubman spoke with the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday and reaffirmed that the NFL has made it a priority to return to the nation's second-largest media market. With the St. Louis Rams, Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers all on year-to-year leases, the stars seem to be aligning for an NFL return to Los Angeles for the first time since the 1994 season.

 

[Chadwiko]

The NFL has appointed one of its top executives to lead the effort to bring a team back to the Los Angeles area. That could mean the league is closer than ever to returning to Southern California, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Chargers say hi. You can't get much more 'Southern California' than San Diego.

 

[dlanod]

The Chargers say hi. You can't get much more 'Southern California' than San Diego.

They're really more North Mexico...

 

[LeverPuller]

Ed Hochuli accidentally referred to them as the Los Angeles Raiders today...

 

[Dagless]

Ed Hochuli accidentally referred to them as the Los Angeles Raiders today...

Based on his quality of refereeing, I'm willing to bet it's on account being senile and thinking it's the early 90s rather than any particular future prescience...

 

[Exe Gesis]

Raiders deal in S.A. not dead yet

By Josh Baugh and Tom Orsborn

September 3, 2014 | Updated: September 3, 2014 10:22pm

SAN ANTONIO — Hopes for an Oakland Raiders relocation to the Alamo City seemed to be doused Wednesday when news broke in the Bay Area that officials there had reached agreement on terms to retain the NFL team.

But San Antonio isn't out of the hunt yet.

City Manager Sheryl Sculley said late Wednesday that “we're still in conversations” with the team, despite Bay Area news reports.

Raiders operations people will be in town and plan to attend the University of Texas at San Antonio football game tonight, Sculley said.

“I'm not surprised that someone on the council (in Oakland) might make a proposal to them, but what I read in the article, it appeared that there hadn't been any discussion by the council, approval by the council, and certainly not approval by the Raiders,” she said.

Councilman Ron Nirenberg also discounted reports from Oakland that the football team is inching closer to a deal.

“It appears to be a textbook response from a community that is under fire for not getting their stadium situation figured out,” he said. “Until we are told that San Antonio is no longer an option for the Raiders, I believe we still have to line up all the elements that would make an NFL deal possible here.”

Not everyone in San Antonio is convinced, however, that there's still a deal to be made — at least with the Raiders.

Mike Sculley, Bexar County's expert on professional sports, said he wasn't surprised by news from Oakland and suggested that there's more potential for Major League Soccer in San Antonio.

“There's a market here,” Mike Sculley said of MLS. “The corporate sponsorship level would be a lot lower (than the NFL), tickets would be less expensive. It's a better economic and demographic fit.”

Billionaire businessman B.J. “Red” McCombs said he was disappointed by the news of a potential deal in Oakland that would result in the construction of a new stadium, but that shouldn't stop San Antonio from trying to attract other NFL teams seeking to relocate.

“Anytime we lose one it's a disappointment, of course,” McCombs said. “We just have to keep working at it. Without a doubt, we have something good to offer (NFL teams seeking to relocate).”

The Raiders met with McCombs and other San Antonio leaders in July to explore the city as a relocation option if it fails to reach a deal in the Bay Area.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday that a new Raiders stadium offer worked out by Oakland Mayor Jean Quan's development team calls for giving free land to the Raiders and for city and Alameda County taxpayers to pay off $120 million the team still owes from renovations made in the 1990s to the current Raiders stadium, which would be demolished.

Although Raiders owner Mark Davis reportedly hasn't signed off on the deal, McCombs said he's heard nothing out of the Bay Area that indicates the team is leaning toward moving to San Antonio.

McCombs told Davis in July that he would be willing to become an equity partner if it would help push the Raiders from Northern California to South Texas.

Former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros spearheaded the city's efforts to woo the Raiders. McCombs said he wants Cisneros to continue to lead the Alamo City's NFL charge.

“Henry is the best shot we have toward getting a team in here,” McCombs said. “Sorry we didn't land this one, but we'll still be looking.”

Jim Greenwood, the vice president of governmental affairs for Valero Energy Corp., said he hopes the city will take a proactive approach to attracting an NFL team. Other teams with stadium issues pondering relocation include the San Diego Chargers and the St. Louis Rams.

“I think it is appropriate at this time to put together a committee that can be best positioned to take advantage of an opportunity for San Antonio to get an NFL team,” Greenwood said. “We need to have the business community in the loop.”

Nirenberg suggested San Antonio is a much different city than it was in 2011, when the California-based Premier Partnerships consulting firm reported that San Antonio wasn't quite ready for an NFL team.

If the Raiders do eventually solidify a deal in Oakland, Nirenberg said, all the work San Antonio has done “makes us that much more prepared for when a real deal comes along.”

 

[FootyJunkie]

Regarding London, what about a relocation to both Canada and UK using one team?

4 home games in London, Ontario
4 home games in London, UK

Buffalo Bills become the London Bills. Get to expand their North American fan base into Ontario while satisfying the NFL's expansion into the UK.

The red streak on the Bills' logo can be extended to form the Union Jack on the helmet for the UK games, have the right colours for it.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Regarding London, what about a relocation to both Canada and UK using one team?

4 home games in London, Ontario
4 home games in London, UK

Buffalo Bills become the London Bills. Get to expand their North American fan base into Ontario while satisfying the NFL's expansion into the UK.

You need a concerted fanbase, a home. You cant have a roaming "buffalo globetrotters" in the NFL. Dissipated. Both those regions wont be passionate about an American football team playing a handful of games a year, and especially when the team has a down decade or two. Upper New York state is the spiritual home and they're as mad about the Bills as the fans in Wisconsin about the Packers. Better to see Goodell suspend himself indefinitely and scotch the notion of a UK team.

 

[LeverPuller]

Yeah Bills are unlikely for mine. I still have the Rams in the box seat...and the other one no one is talking about is the Chargers.

 

[Starburns_]

Bills won't go anywhere, at worst they'd start playing an extra game in Canada and perhaps rebrand only slightly into a more region-focused team.

If a London team ever happened, they'd have to be fully based there, it'd be hard enough to generate support there without giving them a nomad team.

 

[Shupe]

I just don't see how a London team would work. Ignoring everything else, how about the players? I'm not sure there would be too many willing to up and move from their families for half the year. Player retention would also be tough - as soon as they're free agents, then they will jump at the opportunity to return home.

 

[LeverPuller]

I just don't see how a London team would work. Ignoring everything else, how about the players? I'm not sure there would be too many willing to up and move from their families for half the year. Player retention would also be tough - as soon as they're free agents, then they will jump at the opportunity to return home.

If you were going to do it it would be with a US base. The season would be split in two for London IMO. First half of the year all away, second half all home (or vice versa). Team would have a facility in London and on the East Coast - probably in the New York area due to the ease of flights.