urbanSTL

Listened to a pretty good discussion on bloomberg radio on how the Washington Redskins are pathetic team but from a business perspective they are killing it in terms of profit and the bottom line revenue which all revolves around TV and the shared model.   What I didn't realize is that the away team gets 40% of the gate sales on each game.

Going back to DpgtownBnR comments, I do believe Chargers will have a new home outside of LA at some point in the next 5-10 years.   Where is that?   Who knows but if you look in terms of current NFL markets & media markets I don't see any reason why the NFL would want Chargers to stay in LA.   

Heck, you can also make argument from a business perspective that NFL should look at moving Chargers and either Giants or Jets out of NY-NJ metro area - send Chargers to Mexico City and Giants or Jets to London.    Two teams for two international cities with more tv revenues while keeping the same number of teams/same number of billionaires sharing more wealth while at the same time every team having its own major metro market to itself     

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑

Nov 27, 2019

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Nov 26, 2019

Since nobody else has mentioned it yet, I would just like to take this opportunity to observe that Los Angeles, with it's two NFL teams, will have exactly as many "home" teams in the playoffs as St. Louis this season...    

It's crazy how quickly teams can go up and down in the NFL - last year both the Rams and the Chargers had excellent teams, both teams made the playoffs and won at least one game each when they got there (with the Rams getting all the way to the Super Bowl), and this year... they're both utterly craptastic.

Not surprising with the Rams.  At best, they made no effort to field a team capable of winning consistently for several seasons prior to moving to LA.  At worst, they intentionally made decisions to field a consistent loser.  When they committed to the move, they quickly tried to reverse course and build a team capable of making a splash for their first season in their new stadium (which was supposed to be this season, now 2020), by overpaying star players and giving up most of their future draft picks.  This may result in a couple good seasons (2 out of 4 so far), but will be devastating over the long-term for a team that lacked talent to start, and now has far fewer options to replace what they lose.

intern222 wrote: ↑

Nov 27, 2019

Just to have fun with this...  we STL get all rights, logos, records, intellectual property and Trophies for the Rams Organization... that’s a knife in Stan’s side and HUGE FU to LA ...

To be fair, the Rams were in LA for 48 years before moving to STL in 1995. They were only here for 20 years. 

framer wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

intern222 wrote: ↑

Nov 27, 2019

Just to have fun with this...  we STL get all rights, logos, records, intellectual property and Trophies for the Rams Organization... that’s a knife in Stan’s side and HUGE FU to LA ...

To be fair, the Rams were in LA for 48 years before moving to STL in 1995. They were only here for 20 years. 

To be fair, we should have changed the name to something else as the Tennessee Titans did.  After just a few years, all players and coaches from the old team have completely changed and virtually any claim of beloved longing for their old team evaporates, especially if they get another team.  Baltimore stopped longing for the Colts, when they got the Ravens.  Cleveland didn't need the old Browns team when they got a new one.  LA tried to get an expansion team but failed when Houston got it.  If they had gotten an expansion team, their false longing for their 20 year absent Rams would have been exposed as non-existent.  It's just a trick to get a team.  Any team.

dredger wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

Heck, you can also make argument from a business perspective that NFL should look at moving Chargers and either Giants or Jets out of NY-NJ metro area - send Chargers to Mexico City and Giants or Jets to London.    Two teams for two international cities with more tv revenues while keeping the same number of teams/same number of billionaires sharing more wealth while at the same time every team having its own major metro market to itself     

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell you could ever get either the Giants or the Jets to move to London. And unlike the Rams/Chargers stadium situation, the Giants and Jets are truly equal partners in Metlife Stadium (which was the only way the Jets would agree to continue sharing a new stadium with the Giants).

gary kreie wrote:They are now saying the new Rams stadium in LA may cost as much as $6 billion.  To get back all that money, they would have to sell out the 70K stadium at $100 per seat every week for 16.5 years.  Not sure Stan will live to see that day.  I think he sees it as a monument to himself, or possibly mausoleum -- not a money making engine.

One small issue with that. The true money may be in the surrounding economic development. LA is still a market that runs hot in that regard. Stan wanted his take. He just didn’t dream in a million years the overruns could be this much.

All he really had to do was build a similar stadium to MetLife. But ego got in the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Interesting bit of Super Bowl host trivia I just discovered... in order for any stadium to be considered as a potential host site, the city's average high temperature in early February must be at least 50°F. Climate-controlled indoor stadiums are exempt from the rule. Of course, Metlife Stadium hosted Super Bowl XLVIII in February 2014, and East Rutherford, NJ clearly doesn't have an early February average high temperature 50°F, but they were given an exemption - obviously because the game was being held within the metropolitan area of the largest media market in the country. It's unlikely any other northern city with an outdoor stadium would ever be given the same exemption, because no other northern NFL city is within the NYC metro.

Anyway, when Kansas City did their massive renovations to the Truman Sports Complex a few years back, they had wanted to build a massive roof which could slide along tracks between Arrowhead and Kauffman Stadiums, and had they built the roof, they would have been awarded a Super Bowl. But... they couldn't get the tax funding approved by the voters, and no roof was built - so they'll never get the Super Bowl in Arrowhead's current configuration. I remember when we thought we had a shot of keeping the Rams here and the riverfront stadium was being pitched, some people salivated at the idea of St. Louis getting to host a Super Bowl. Except we would never have gotten to host one with that stadium, even if everything worked out and the Rams stayed in town. Minneapolis and Detroit have both hosted Super Bowls in the last 15 years, but both cities have climate-controlled indoor stadiums. Other than those two and East Rutherford, NJ, no other northern city has hosted this century.

DTGstl314 wrote:

Fraydog wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

gary kreie wrote:They are now saying the new Rams stadium in LA may cost as much as $6 billion.  To get back all that money, they would have to sell out the 70K stadium at $100 per seat every week for 16.5 years.  Not sure Stan will live to see that day.  I think he sees it as a monument to himself, or possibly mausoleum -- not a money making engine.

One small issue with that. The true money may be in the surrounding economic development. LA is still a market that runs hot in that regard. Stan wanted his take. He just didn’t dream in a million years the overruns could be this much.

All he really had to do was build a similar stadium to MetLife. But ego got in the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That specific stadium is THE reason why his plan got approved and the Carson plan got rejected. Had he pitched something less grandiose and more like Metlife Stadium, the owners probably go with the Carson stadium proposal, and LA's two football teams today are the Raiders and the Chargers. Heading into the meetings, it looked like Carson had the edge, but the Inglewood stadium design blew all of the owners away and put them in Kroenke's corner.

Given how flawed the process was... I wouldn’t even make that assumption. I suspect the owners were in Kroenke’s corner no matter what.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Wolfpaw wrote: ↑

Nov 27, 2019

I would welcome the NFL back on these conditions.  1 build the stadium yourselves
2 whichever to comes here will have to sign a 500 year lease and there’s no signing out of the lease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the NFL wants to come back and can find someone to privately finance a stadium with zero taxpayers expense, I have no problem with them having no lease whatsoever. Stadium leases generally only occur with publicly-financed stadiums - the idea being that since the team doesn't own the facility, they are committing to using it for a considerable amount of time so the taxpayers who financed it didn't just waste a ton of money on a facility that isn't going to be used very long.

If a private individual or group finances a stadium without taxpayer money, and they also own the team, they're under no obligation to adhere to any lease (unless it is at the behest of other investors who are providing the financing).

Anyway, long story short, I'm fine with the NFL coming back and then leaving again all they want - as long as it doesn't cost taxpayers a dime.

^^i don’t think anybody can predict the outcome of this suit. While billions are unlikely, the outcome will hurt StanK for sure. It’s hurting him now. Regarding the NFL returning here, nobody can predict that either. Look at the unpredictable, bungling process that got the Rams to LA. Lots of teams are facing the dilemma of aging venues, old owners and expired leases. Nobody can claim they know the future plans of this greedy cartel. It’s all about money and if an opportunity arose here, they pounce on it if they can extract money from a region.

Ps- Word is that Jax has 1st right of refusal regarding London. Shad already owns Fulham. IF any, he’s the most likely owner to go to London. Mexico City is a terrible idea! That leaves STL, Toronto and some smaller metros that IMO are not good options... ie.., OKC, Omaha, etc.

^No one can predict anything about the future plans of the NFL, except me, who can predict that Jacksonville will move to London.

^   Was that a prediction? I don’t think so!
Do some research on the subject. The information is out there.

Does anyone with knowledge of the judicial process have an estimate as to when we’d start to hear the details and a verdict? Late 2020?

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

Ps- Word is that Jax has 1st right of refusal regarding London. Shad already owns Fulham. IF any, he’s the most likely owner to go to London. Mexico City is a terrible idea! That leaves STL, Toronto and some smaller metros that IMO are not good options... ie.., OKC, Omaha, etc.

Austin/San Antonio (if HOU/DAL quit objecting to it), Portland, Sacremento. 
If the owner is going to have to pay full freight (like he would here) then San Diego is added to that list.

Jerry Jones will never allow Austin or San Antonio in the league.   I doubt Houston would allow that either. Sacramento is focused on soccer and that is 49er country. They would not allow it.   Now that the Raiders are gone, the 49ers are own the market and want to keep it that way.  

San Diego and St. Louis are both great options but the NFL cannot expect to get a dime from either market.   The only difference is the fact that St. Louis has a much greater opportunity to hammer the league and Rams with their lawsuit.  

I’ve never heard Portland or Sacramento mentioned as an NFL destination,  nor do I think there’s ever been a desire there.

framer wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

intern222 wrote: ↑

Nov 27, 2019

Just to have fun with this...  we STL get all rights, logos, records, intellectual property and Trophies for the Rams Organization... that’s a knife in Stan’s side and HUGE FU to LA ...

To be fair, the Rams were in LA for 48 years before moving to STL in 1995. They were only here for 20 years. 

What does the Trophy say?
St. Louis Rams... that’s my point.

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

Jerry Jones will never allow Austin or San Antonio in the league.   I doubt Houston would allow that either. Sacramento is focused on soccer and that is 49er country. They would not allow it.   Now that the Raiders are gone, the 49ers are own the market and want to keep it that way.  

San Diego and St. Louis are both great options but the NFL cannot expect to get a dime from either market.   The only difference is the fact that St. Louis has a much greater opportunity to hammer the league and Rams with their lawsuit.  

I’ve never heard Portland or Sacramento mentioned as an NFL destination,  nor do I think there’s ever been a desire there.

Now that the Raiders are leaving I think it increases Sacramentos chances. Google Portland NFL and there are plenty of articles saying they would be a good fit. Sports Illustrated, sb nation, bleacher report, etc. They only have one pro team besides MLS, are much larger than other metros with NFL teams (and aren't that far behind STL), and are growing pretty quickly. Sacramento is the same size as Portland and the same points apply to it, albeit a little less buzz. People say Jerry will keep a team out of Austin/San Antonio but it may come to a point where there is too much money to make there that is can't be ignored over any other options. Jerry Jones is also 77. So if we are talking 10 years from now, who knows if he will still even be around. 

The only reason STL even gets mentioned is because of the lawsuit, but unless they drop the lawsuit for a team (which they won't and I am not sure it will be offered as a real option anyway) it isn't going to happen. I can't see the NFL saying, you sued us and got millions from us, so now we are going to find a way to get you a team. I would think if anything, it would be the opposite. 

^ So you’re saying that the NFL was a failure in St. Louis?   STL would not be a good market? That would be completely untrue. There were a significant number of owners that did not want to abandon the St. Louis market.   Even the cartel members that schemed the move know that St. Louis was a good market. They just wanted the riches of LA more than anything. St. Louis was collateral damage.

And for the record, I completely disagree with you with regards to St. Louis only being mentioned because of the lawsuit.

Also, I think if you Google just about any viable metro area without a team, along with “NFL expansion” you could find articles.

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

Ps- Word is that Jax has 1st right of refusal regarding London. Shad already owns Fulham. IF any, he’s the most likely owner to go to London. Mexico City is a terrible idea! That leaves STL, Toronto and some smaller metros that IMO are not good options... ie.., OKC, Omaha, etc.

I'm curious why you think Mexico City is a terrible idea.   I look at these facts

- Mexico City is in the Central Time Zone, no change in schedule to play games.  It is a 4 hour flight or less for a lot of teams (certainly shorter than London)
- Largest city in North America with some pretty significant wealth if you haven't been there
- Huge TV media market
- NFL already has a huge latino fan base on either side of the border (think of NFL teams in Cali, FL, AZ, and TX)
- No competing college market but go to Mexico City and you will see American football fields all over the place

^ Even more so than London, what free agent is going to sign there and live there half the year? Mexico, fair or not is perceived as a very dangerous place. Good luck convincing players to go there. I’ve been to MC. It’s a nice City to visit.

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

Lots of teams are facing the dilemma of aging venues, old owners and expired leases.

I wouldn't say it's "lots" of teams... 22 of the current stadiums were opened in the last 23 years, and 2 more will be joining that list next year. That leaves 6 NFL stadiums that are more than a quarter century old - Soldier Field, Lambeau Field, Arrowhead Stadium, New Era Field, Mercedes-Benz Superdome, and Hard Rock Stadium. Four of those six stadiums have undergone massive renovation projects ($200M+) in the last 20 years - Solider Field and Hard Rock Stadium are effectively new stadiums when compared to their original build outs. That leaves Lambeau Field and New Era Field. The former is an institution in itself, and is never going to be replaced, though it is always being upgraded. New Era Field in Buffalo is the only stadium in the NFL demanding near immediate replacement.