Relocation

[James in PA]

I want the Rams back in LA so bad. If not, it should be mandatory that all the home games they play against NFC West opponents start no earlier than 1pm Pacific Time. If this team has to be in a "West" division, they should have to play by the "rules" the other teams in the division play by. This league loves giving the Hawks as many 10am Pacific starts as possible. So sick of it.

 

[Threedee]

I hope the Chargers and Raiders stay put and the Rams move back home. Then the Cardinals can move back to STL if they want.

 

[SuperMan28]

Who knows what will happen, but a payoff to Stan makes sense. He's in line for a free stadium in STL with added money from the relocation fee. It's pretty unheard of to not have to pay a dime for a stadium in STL. The latter is paying upwards of 2 billion in LA. Gonna be very interesting to see what happens at that meeting.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

And so it begins:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/684224450062118914[/tweet]

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

Would like to see the Rams and Raiders move there. As long as we don't get put back in the AFC again. If its Chargers and Raiders, surely the Rams and Chargers should swap conferences given St Louis isn't exactly in the west coast (most AFC West teams aren't other than the Raiders)

 

[RedAlice]

Who knows what will happen, but a payoff to Stan makes sense. He's in line for a free stadium in STL with added money from the relocation fee. It's pretty unheard of to not have to pay a dime for a stadium in STL. The latter is paying upwards of 2 billion in LA. Gonna be very interesting to see what happens at that meeting.

Wait. How is it "pretty unheard of to not have to pay a dime for a stadium in STL"?

Remind me of how the current Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis was built please. Oh, right - it was built with no team paying for it and for free to lure a team.

"The stadium, previously known as the Trans World Dome from 1995 to 2001, was constructed largely to lure an NFL team back to St. Louis and to serve as a convention center."

And, the current StL plan only provides $300m from StL for a $1.1B stadium - the rest is required from private funds. Well, plus the phantom $100m that doesn't exist that Peacock added in.

No free stadium is being offered in St. Louis.


I have no idea who will be approved to move to LA, but your facts are simply wrong.

 

[RedAlice]

And so it begins:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/684224450062118914[/tweet]

It's as expected. This means no team is backing down and no team accepts the proposals from their home cities.

it also implies that all three think they have the 9 votes required to block the opponent (Rams v Charger/Raiders).


Ongoing schedule:

Kroenke, Davis, Spanos meet in NY this week with the NFL LA, Stadium and Finance Comittees. Then, vote of 32 owners will happen in Houston Jan 12-13.



Rams official statement:

“The St. Louis Rams informed the National Football League today that the Rams propose to relocate to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. The relocation would be effective for the 2016 NFL League Year.”



More reading from Sam Farmer at the LA Times if you are interested:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html

 

[Throwdown]

So if... If they do get approved where do they play in 2016?

I want the Rams to move to LA btw, correct the wrong and less travel for my hawks

 

[Scottemojo]

And now it is up to the alliances they build behind closed doors.

Raiders and Chargers are banking on the NFL wanting 2 teams in LA. Merge their alliances.

Kroenke is banking on a plan with balls behind it. He can show the most tangible actual product, land and a plan that looks like a moneymaker even without the football.

This is a rare glimpse into the politics of billionaires. Who likes who, who is greediest, who has built a powerbase. The other 29 owner groups have to love it, they have 3 groups bidding for 2 items.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

I'd love to see the Rams back in L.A. where they were originally. I'd be okay with the L.A. Raiders, as there's some history there, but they really belong in Oakland. I'd prefer to see the San Diego Chargers stay the San Diego Chargers.

Just seems appropriate to me.

 

[Osprey]

I'd love to see the Rams back in L.A. where they were originally.
Just seems appropriate to me.

Cleveland actually, franchise movement is nothing new. Rams back in LA would be great from a travel perspective.

Chargers / Raiders combo scares me a bit due to the potential for conference realignment.

 

[themunn]

Cleveland actually, franchise movement is nothing new. Rams back in LA would be great from a travel perspective.

They played nearly twice as long in LA as they have Cleveland and St Louis combined though, and a significantly large proportion of NFL fans won't have actually been around to every actually see them in Cleveland.

 

[Spleenhawk2.0]

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the next few weeks.....

To me, it appears that the Kroenke (Rams) proposal is far superior, and makes a whole lot more sense. The Rams move seems to be somewhat of a done deal at this point.

1) The Rams proposal is already in the permitting stage of development at the old Hollywood Park Racetrack site. The city is already fully behind it, and the proposal includes a full site development - offices, restaurants and shops. It would be completed prior to the 2018 season

2) The Chargers/Raiders proposal is for a fairly traditional "Stadium only" site, without the surrounding offerings. The Chargers/Raiders site in Carson also have a major hurdle ahead - the proposed site is on a former landfill. Lots of cleanup cost and studies ahead......

3) The Rams site is also considerably larger - 70,000 capacity with 100,000 for any future Super Bowl. The Chargers/Raiders stadium would be 65.000/75,000

4) A Chargers/Raiders relocation would likely require conference realignment. The Rams proposal does not involve two teams - though a second team could move at a later date - and would allow alignment to remain as is.

5) I think the league would prefer to keep a team in San Diego, along with 2 teams in LA. I think they would prefer the Rams and Raiders back in the market, while keeping the growing San Diego market as a location of a second World Class Stadium to host future super bowls....

I cannot see how the league could not approve the Kroenke plan

 

[Basis4day]

No city should lose their team. We almost lost the Hawks in the 90's and the sonics move is still painful.

 

[chris98251]

Raiders Chargers gets approved, Rams does not, Dr Kavorkian moves them anyway and pisses off everyone.

 

[seedhawk]

What the hell! Move all 3 and let em fight it out.

 

[RedAlice]

So if... If they do get approved where do they play in 2016?

I want the Rams to move to LA btw, correct the wrong and less travel for my hawks

The UCLA Coliseum. The NFL sent out an RFP to all the options, and they are the only ones who agreed - for one team only. USC refused, as did the baseball stadiums and stubhub.

-----

Too busy to get through it yet, but Kroenke has let two bits of info be released.

1. His Relocation Application.

It includes 3 points:

1. Inglewood as the best opp for NFL and the member teams
2. Rams have a contract right to move from StL
3. Relocating the Rams from StL to LA will strengthen the NFL

Summaries say it slams the StL stadium proposal as not acceptable to any team and is truely very anti-StL in all ways.

Here is the document-
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2016 ... 180540.pdf

And here is the LA Times (Sam Farmer) article -
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html


2. He will build his stadium in Inglewood even without NFL approval as a stadium for the World Cup or whatever. This one is just a StL journalist saying it - no confirmation.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... t-nfl.html

 

[RedAlice]

And now it is up to the alliances they build behind closed doors.

Raiders and Chargers are banking on the NFL wanting 2 teams in LA. Merge their alliances.

Kroenke is banking on a plan with balls behind it. He can show the most tangible actual product, land and a plan that looks like a moneymaker even without the football.

This is a rare glimpse into the politics of billionaires. Who likes who, who is greediest, who has built a powerbase. The other 29 owner groups have to love it, they have 3 groups bidding for 2 items.

Well put.

They are a unique little group, the 32 who own what we and millions love.

 

[Ramfan128]

I was surprised by Kroenke's slamming of the city, but he's mostly spot on IMO.

That the people of St. Louis are so butt-hurt by it makes me laugh a little though...I've said from the beginning: the NFL is a business, and it doesn't care how bad a team is. In any sport, there will be bad teams...there has to be. Teams have to lose in order for other teams to win.

So IMO you can throw out the "fans don't go to the games because the team sucks" argument. In fact, you could argue that it indicates that St. Louis is just full of fair weather fans and thus, the Rams should move.

On top of that, St. Louis FAILED to honor the contract that they signed. It stated that by 2015 the Rams would have a top 8 stadium - we clearly do not.

If you live in that city and you don't want your team to move, it's simple: go to the games.

 

[Ramfan128]

And then there's this to consider from the "west coast" modification of the NFL schedule:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... lar_season



"West Coast" modification[edit]

Under the original 2002 formula, half of the teams scheduled to play all the AFC West clubs had to travel to both Oakland and San Diego in the same season, while half of the clubs playing the NFC West had to make their way to both San Francisco and Seattle. In years in which a division was scheduled to play both AFC and NFC West teams, two clubs (such as the New England Patriots and New York Jets in 2008) each had to make cross-country trips to all four of the aforementioned west coast teams.

As a result, after all of the teams had cycled through playing against each other both home and away by the end of the 2009 season, the NFL modified the pairings to relieve teams from having to travel to the west coast more than twice in a season. Under the modifications implemented in 2010, clubs now only have to travel to play one team based on the west coast (either Oakland or San Diego) in years they play the teams in the AFC West, and only one such team (either San Francisco or Seattle) in years they play the NFC West.[11]


If the Rams move to LA, teams that play our division would have to travel out west twice every other cycle.

Stupid that they force Seattle and SF to do it but not teams from the East.