(01-06-2016 09:34 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I want to tread lightly because my thoughts might stir up some political conversation, however:

In terms of pure capitalism, I believe nfl owners should have a right to move where ever/whenever, assuming contracts with stadiums are fulfilled or appropriately bought out.

With that in mind I feel like the rams should have more votes as as best I can tell the Inglewood stadium is more privately financed? (Excuse my ig orance if I am incorrect)

I dont think another "middle of the night" move is coming but it would be an owners right, especially if a stadium was financed without public money.

In this case, that might mean the rams move and the chargers or raiders become tenants of that stadium.

Stanley Enos Kroenke needs massive public money to build a new stadium in Saint Louis, but is going to build a $2 billion stadium in Inglewood out of his own pocket with no public money. He does not want tenants. Well, he did make a most generous offer to Spanos. The Chargers could pay for half the cost of building, operating and updating the stadium, but the Rams would receive all revenue from parking, concessions, advertising, etc. The Chargers would most generously be allowed to keep all their ticket revenue.

(01-05-2016 04:09 PM)bluesox Wrote:  It is pretty funny with the Rose Bowl and Coliseum that LA is building a 3rd stadium. I guess USC and UCLA would have no interest leaving their spots though. I will go with 2 in LA and 1 in Santa Clara or St louis from these 3.

The Coliseum might as well be the Roman one. It's in better shape than the Astrodome and the Pontiac Silverdome for whatever that's worth but its an old stadium with some structural issues that come with that.

The Rose Bowl is also extremely old for what that's worth. No NFL team is gonna set up shop in either except on a very temporary basis. It's one thing to try and extend the life of a relatively young stadium but both would have long had their AARP cards had they been people.

(01-05-2016 04:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You say that like it is a bad thing (for them). Having one or two open desirable cities is exactly what the NFL wants, so they can keep getting whatever they want from current cities, in terms of freebies. It no longer works with the major markets, but it very much is a concern to the mid sized markets (relative to NFL teams, not cities in general). Assuming one of San Diego and St. Louis becomes vacant, or both, they make for good bargaining chips the next time a city needs work done on their stadium that was just built.

Cities that have lost NFL teams since 1982
Oakland 1982
Baltimore 1984
St. Louis 1988
LA 1995
LA 1995
Houston 1997
St. Louis 2015?
Oakland 2015?
San Diego 2015?

It is funny to note that Cleveland appears on this list 5 times, and Los Angeles is on this list three times, with STL probably about to join them. Oakland could also become a repeat offender. Teams have moved from Ohio cities 8 times. Also, historically, if your name is "Texans," you will have problems.

San Diego isn't, in this discussion, a lucrative market it's basically an extension of LA especially if it gets two teams and especially if the Chargers are one of those teams. Oakland is the less populous, poorer side of San Francisco Bay, which isn't as rich as it used to be compared to other areas. St. Louis would have the stigma of losing two teams in a less than 30 year span.

And any move before the merger needs to be looked at in the context it's in. Fanbases weren't as rabid and owners weren't as financially driven as they are now with few exceptions. You think Dallas is an awful NFL town for losing the Texans/Chiefs? You could probably move a second team to the area and have it succeed better than a San Antonio team.

As a lifelong (since 1973) Rams fan who has never lived within 600 miles of the cities they have been based in during that time, I would love to see them back in LA. That's the team I fell in love with.

(01-05-2016 10:28 PM)Maize Wrote:  The Browns have a ironclad lease with the city of Cleveland and it is a very sweet deal for Jimmy Haslem...plus they just finished Phase 1 of the remodeling First Energy Stadium in Cleveland...they are under lease agreement with the city until 2028

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/100022...m-upgrades

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/arti...7a41b84a81

I don't think people know the hell it would take to move the Browns a second time. The first time it happened, it seemed like World War III almost broke out.

(01-06-2016 08:08 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I still think you're going to see the Jags eventually relocate to London, and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see another team relocate to the European market to help make that more feasible/viable for the NFL.

You wouldn't necessarily need another team in Europe, just make sure to schedule a bye the week before for any team that's scheduled to play over there and schedule games in blocks of 3-4 for the London team in the US.

Can the Jaguars get out of there lease with a payment? I mean if it takes $100-150 million payment to Jacksonville that's chump change from the LA relocation fee of $550 million per team. Let the Rams payoff jacksonville lease and move the jaguars to the st louis with the rams going to LA.

As a lifelong Cleveland fan, any suggestion of the Browns moving anywhere is crazy talk. Considering their futility of the franchise since they returned in 1999, they still enjoy wide support from the fan base and city. Cleveland is a football town first, period. They only moved the first time because Modell lost a ton of money when Cleveland built the Gateway project (Jacobs Field and Gund Arena) and hightailed it to Baltimore for what he felt was a better deal (Cleveland was dragging their feet on a referendum to remodel the old stadium...while Baltimore was offering a new one). That type of scenario no longer exists in Cleveland.

In my opinion, it's not entirely a coincidence that that Indians dominating years in the 90's were also the years there was no NFL team in Cleveland. Of course they had a core nucleus of young talent and a new stadium, but they were selling out that stadium and had the finances to support a large payroll. More importantly, they had the mindshare of the Cleveland-area fans who were willing to spend money on the team. They were simply borrowing the market until the Browns returned. Their 2015 payroll doesn't even match their payroll from 2001. Their 2001 attendance was ~40k. Now it's ~18k.

Getting more off topic, I believe Cleveland as a metro area has shrunk to the point where it can only support two major pro sports. I think the Indians are a greater risk for relocation or contraction if it ever happens, especially with all the controversy around the team's name and the Chief.

(01-05-2016 10:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The biggest issue I see is Fox would be very unhappy with two teams in LA both in the AFC, as they would only get four games a year featuring the LA teams, and that's assuming none of them get picked for Monday Night, Thursday Night, or Sunday Night football.

Just a note, that is less of an issue with the latest modified TV agreements that allow for games to be shown on the other network as needed. Case in point, the CBS Thanksgiving game this year featured two NFC teams.

Two teams in the same division has some issues, but I don't think TV is a big one, since they would probably simply designate one of them as a "Fox property" in that scenario, and one NFC team as a "CBS property", going forward, or just split them in terms of numbers.

Though not a big deal, one issue that will come up is Shared media market scheduling situation, where the teams can never be scheduled to play at the same time (other than rare occasions) unless playing each other. Being west coast teams complicates that, because none of their home games, and most of their division road games cannot be played in the 1:00 window.

More information on the scheduling policy can be found here.

(01-05-2016 10:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 05:14 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 05:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I wouldn't be stunned if Kroenke ends up doing a franchise swap.

Meaning the St. Louis Rams move to San Diego and begin playing as the Chargers, trading branding with a new LA team? That crossed my mind.

I thought the Raiders were looking at San Antonio a year or two ago. Any chance of that?

I think its more Kroenke would own the Chargers or Raiders, and then move them to Los Angeles. A new owner would take over in Saint Louis.

The biggest issue I see is Fox would be very unhappy with two teams in LA both in the AFC, as they would only get four games a year featuring the LA teams, and that's assuming none of them get picked for Monday Night, Thursday Night, or Sunday Night football.

My understanding of the way the NFL TV contract works is that if both the Raiders and Chargers move to LA, one of those teams would be swapped to the NFC West, with an NFC West team moving to the AFC.

Essentially the way I read the TV contract, If the two teams were to play in the same conference, they could never play at home the same week unless one game is on Thursday or Monday Night, and they could never play at the same time because NFL rules guarantee each team is broadcast on an over the air station affiliated to main Network provider of the conference.

At one point, I had heard discussions that if the Raiders and Chargers moved to LA, the Raiders would be shipped to the NFC West, while Seattle was given to the AFC West.

(01-06-2016 02:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 10:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 05:14 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 05:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I wouldn't be stunned if Kroenke ends up doing a franchise swap.

Meaning the St. Louis Rams move to San Diego and begin playing as the Chargers, trading branding with a new LA team? That crossed my mind.

I thought the Raiders were looking at San Antonio a year or two ago. Any chance of that?

I think its more Kroenke would own the Chargers or Raiders, and then move them to Los Angeles. A new owner would take over in Saint Louis.

The biggest issue I see is Fox would be very unhappy with two teams in LA both in the AFC, as they would only get four games a year featuring the LA teams, and that's assuming none of them get picked for Monday Night, Thursday Night, or Sunday Night football.

My understanding of the way the NFL TV contract works is that if both the Raiders and Chargers move to LA, one of those teams would be swapped to the NFC West, with an NFC West team moving to the AFC.

Essentially the way I read the TV contract, If the two teams were to play in the same conference, they could never play at home the same week unless one game is on Thursday or Monday Night, and they could never play at the same time because NFL rules guarantee each team is broadcast on an over the air station affiliated to main Network provider of the conference.

At one point, I had heard discussions that if the Raiders and Chargers moved to LA, the Raiders would be shipped to the NFC West, while Seattle was given to the AFC West.

Well that would make better sense then. I think logistically, it will have to be like the Giants/Jets where the two teams sharing the stadium are in different conferences.
Seattle going back home to the AFC West would be great.

(01-06-2016 02:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  My understanding of the way the NFL TV contract works is that if both the Raiders and Chargers move to LA, one of those teams would be swapped to the NFC West, with an NFC West team moving to the AFC.

Essentially the way I read the TV contract, If the two teams were to play in the same conference, they could never play at home the same week unless one game is on Thursday or Monday Night, and they could never play at the same time because NFL rules guarantee each team is broadcast on an over the air station affiliated to main Network provider of the conference.

At one point, I had heard discussions that if the Raiders and Chargers moved to LA, the Raiders would be shipped to the NFC West, while Seattle was given to the AFC West.

The TV contract isn't really the issue, because the same issues you describe above, exist purely from being in the same city. However, an issue was brought up by one of the other teams I never considered. They didn't like the idea of two teams in the same division sharing a stadium because it gave them an unfair advantage of only having seven road games (in terms of travel and logistics, not fan in the stands). Especially if you are the Chiefs, who brought it up, who have to travel more than any other team for division games (save for the Rams).

(01-06-2016 12:22 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Can the Jaguars get out of there lease with a payment? I mean if it takes $100-150 million payment to Jacksonville that's chump change from the LA relocation fee of $550 million per team. Let the Rams payoff jacksonville lease and move the jaguars to the st louis with the rams going to LA.

The Jaguars lease is over in a couple of years. They seem to be the team targeted for London.

(01-06-2016 02:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 02:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  My understanding of the way the NFL TV contract works is that if both the Raiders and Chargers move to LA, one of those teams would be swapped to the NFC West, with an NFC West team moving to the AFC.

Essentially the way I read the TV contract, If the two teams were to play in the same conference, they could never play at home the same week unless one game is on Thursday or Monday Night, and they could never play at the same time because NFL rules guarantee each team is broadcast on an over the air station affiliated to main Network provider of the conference.

At one point, I had heard discussions that if the Raiders and Chargers moved to LA, the Raiders would be shipped to the NFC West, while Seattle was given to the AFC West.

The TV contract isn't really the issue, because the same issues you describe above, exist purely from being in the same city. However, an issue was brought up by one of the other teams I never considered. They didn't like the idea of two teams in the same division sharing a stadium because it gave them an unfair advantage of only having seven road games (in terms of travel and logistics, not fan in the stands). Especially if you are the Chiefs, who brought it up, who have to travel more than any other team for division games (save for the Rams).

While you are right in a sense about the TV contract now allowing for NFC games on CBS and AFC on Fox, there is an exclusivity rule in play here.

Basically the rule is, that a team is guaranteed to be the only game on television in its own market at a particular time. For example...When the Chiefs played at home against the Browns in week 16 at noon, it was the Only NFL game allowed to be televised in Kansas City at that time...so Fox's Noon game was blacked out by rule.

The same applies in LA. The game's must be broadcast exclusively. If the Raiders and Chargers both move to LA, neither team could play a game at the same time. As West Teams, they have 10 games per year that must be played in the 4pmET timeslot. That makes it nearly impossible to set up a schedule where one team is playing on either Monday, Thursday, or a noon game while the other is playing a 4pm game.

I know someone is going to point out that the Jets and Giants both played Noon games this past Sunday, but Week 17 was given an exemption to this rule whenever the NFL decided to make that week all Divisional games.

While yes, the network thing can be worked out...the time slot cannot really. That's why they would have to shift conferences.

Not that the NFL will do the logical thing, but:
Logic would move the Rams and Raiders back to LA in the Ram's owner's stadium. Chargers go to St. Louis in a new stadium. Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs and Broncos remain in the same division. NFC and AFC both get an LA team.

The difficult thing about this relocation issue is the Rams Situation. Unlike San Diego and Oakland, which both have major stadium issues that are not getting better, St Louis has actually agreed to work with the Rams to ensure they get the upgrades to their stadium that they desire.

The problem is that Kroenke is dead set on moving the Rams to LA. He wants in that market badly. At the same time, the Chargers and Raiders appear to be partners in getting a stadium deal done, and would want to move together.

(01-06-2016 02:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not that the NFL will do the logical thing, but:
Logic would move the Rams and Raiders back to LA in the Ram's owner's stadium. Chargers go to St. Louis in a new stadium. Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs and Broncos remain in the same division. NFC and AFC both get an LA team.

Any team in St. Louis has to be in the NFC since the Chiefs are in the AFC because both teams share exclusive secondary markets. That's what makes this so complicated. The Antitrust Exemptions the NFL has requires certain things of the TV deal. There is no simple swap that can just be made.

The simplest solution would be to move the Rams and Chargers and tell the raiders they are screwed...but I don't see the NFL doing that.

(01-06-2016 02:48 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  While yes, the network thing can be worked out...the time slot cannot really. That's why they would have to shift conferences.

I am aware of what you are saying. I posted the rule above. It is in play in NY and the Bay area, and whenever possible in the Washington/Baltimore area. My point is this rule is not changed whether they are in the same division or not: it is being in the same city that puts it in play. The network issue is/was the concern. Now it may he harder to schedule that way with both in the same division, haven't really delved into it, but from that respect, being in the same division doesn't create a new problem not already created from being in the same city. That's what I am saying.

Kansas City being in the division makes it easier, since they can play road games in KC in the 1:00 window. If, for example, the Rams moved to LA and were sharing a stadium with an NFC West team, and there was no longer an NFC West team in the central time zone, yeah it would create a problem.

(01-06-2016 02:55 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 02:48 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  While yes, the network thing can be worked out...the time slot cannot really. That's why they would have to shift conferences.

I am aware of what you are saying. I posted the rule above. It is in play in NY and the Bay area, and whenever possible in the Washington/Baltimore area. My point is this rule is not changed whether they are in the same division or not: it is being in the same city that puts it in play. The network issue is/was the concern. Now it may he harder to schedule that way with both in the same division, haven't really delved into it, but from that respect, being in the same division doesn't create a new problem not already created from being in the same city. That's what I am saying.

Kansas City being in the division makes it easier, since they can play road games in KC in the 1:00 window. If, for example, the Rams moved to LA and were sharing a stadium with an NFC West team, and there was no longer an NFC West team in the central time zone, yeah it would create a problem.

The reason there is a Central Time zone team in both of the West Divisions is because of the Bay area situation. By having the Chiefs and Rams in separate divisions, both the 49ers and Raiders had at least one guaranteed divisional game per year in a 1pm market. It helped significantly with scheduling. Both are also guaranteed a Thursday or Monday Night game on separate weeks as well.

It's partly why the Rams can't really move. St. Louis has to have an NFC Franchise. Even if we go with Two LA teams in separate conferences, there still has to be a Central Time Zone team in the NFC West to help with that scheduling. If the Rams moved to LA, that would mean that one of those divisions would now specifically be filled with West Coast teams, which is a problem for the NFL.

Also, while Flex scheduling allows Fox and CBS to carry games from other leagues, that rule was designed so both networks would have a chance to broadcast meaningful games. The Chiefs/Raiders were flexed to Fox this past week because the AFC West was on the line, and it enabled both the Broncos and Chiefs to play at the same time, and allowed Fox to have a meaningful game.

You can't really just designate one team for a specific network because that's not the intent of why the rule was changed. Many may forget, the Rule was changed a few years back when there were multiple situations in which an AFC late game was between two top teams, but Fox had Doubleheader rights for that week. The Flex rule allowed for that game to be flexed to Fox to ensure that Fox got a strong game for it's DH. It wasn't created so that a single team could be just given to a Network. That would violate a lot of contracts.

Seattle back in the AFC would be lame. You can't break up those rivalries at this point. Just doesn't sit well with me. Raiders in the NFC? Nah...

I say go with Inglewood, move the Raiders to San Antonio. There is your central time zone. San Antonio Spurs/Raiders has a nice ring to it. Colors match at the very least.

(01-06-2016 03:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The reason there is a Central Time zone team in both of the West Divisions is because of the Bay area situation. By having the Chiefs and Rams in separate divisions, both the 49ers and Raiders had at least one guaranteed divisional game per year in a 1pm market. It helped significantly with scheduling. Both are also guaranteed a Thursday or Monday Night game on separate weeks as well.

That is not true. That is a happy coincidence. It is not like there are any AFC teams west of KC who are in the wrong division to allow KC to be there. It was not that long ago Oakland was in the AFC West, sharing a city with the Rams, with 3 other teams in the division who were in the Mountain or Pacific time zone, plus KC (the Rams were in the West with only one other Pacific time zone team, one in the central, and one and later two in the eastern time zone).

(01-06-2016 03:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  You can't really just designate one team for a specific network because that's not the intent of why the rule was changed. Many may forget, the Rule was changed a few years back when there were multiple situations in which an AFC late game was between two top teams, but Fox had Doubleheader rights for that week. The Flex rule allowed for that game to be flexed to Fox to ensure that Fox got a strong game for it's DH. It wasn't created so that a single team could be just given to a Network. That would violate a lot of contracts.

The rule was changed last year, not a few years back. It was changed purely because of logistics with the Sunday Night Flex schedule, whcih was needed due to protections and whatnot, and how it affected games flexed back. Nothing more, nothing less, not the reason you listed. Since then, it has been used more liberally, for example the Thanksgiving schedule, and when one network had too many games, and the other not enough. So the rules have already been modified for otherwise meaningless games (or non marquee anyway).

And the rule could be amended if needed, just as listed above. They "could" just flip two teams for assignment purposes (that was just something I threw out there), which really doesn't work because TV rights are by visiting team. Likely each network would simply get a split of the LA broadcast home games (not in primetime), and be assigned a pick order before the season, similar to how ESPN and Fox do PAC 12 and Big 12 football games. In exchange CBS would get to pick off a few more NFC road games, to compensate for the games lost.

(01-06-2016 02:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 12:22 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Can the Jaguars get out of there lease with a payment? I mean if it takes $100-150 million payment to Jacksonville that's chump change from the LA relocation fee of $550 million per team. Let the Rams payoff jacksonville lease and move the jaguars to the st louis with the rams going to LA.

The Jaguars lease is over in a couple of years. They seem to be the team targeted for London.

The Jaguars' stadium contract expires in 2030. The buyout is almost $100,000,000.

None of the owners including Khan wants a team in London. That is Goodell's wet dream.