NFL, LA (and Disney) style

[c_hawkbob]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jas ... d-chargers

Looks like there's a possibility we could see the LA Chargers, LA Raiders and the London Rams ... I could live with that, as long as the Rams were no longer in the NFC West.

[RiverDog]

My understanding was that the league didn't want the Raiders moving until they got their ownership issues straightened out, and if they say no to the Raiders, it would put in jeopardy the deal struck between them and the Chargers. Also, St. Louis is way ahead of the other two cities as far as getting a new stadium deal done, so my guess is that they stay put. Kroeneke would be really challenged to move if St. Louis came up with a very good stadium offer.

If London does get a team, it would almost have to be located in a division with east coast teams. Otherwise, a 6 hour flight turns into a 9 hour flight. But I don't think they're at the point of putting a team there just yet and are comfortable, for the time being, of having a traveling circus concept with teams playing in multiple locations around the UK.

[c_hawkbob]

Did you read the article?

[RiverDog]

Yes, I did. What gave you the impression that I hadn't? The Raiders ownership problems? StL's stadium proposal?

[c_hawkbob]

Your telling me what your understanding was. The whole point is that this new element to the situation has drasticly altered that landscape and those previous understandings now have reason to be altered.

[RiverDog]

Your telling me what your understanding was. The whole point is that this new element to the situation has drasticly altered that landscape and those previous understandings now have reason to be altered.

"Drastically" altered? It for sure puts some big time firepower into the Chargers/Raiders bid to move to LA for sure but there was already a pretty good chance that those clubs were on the move before this announcement, so I don't know what part of our understanding needs altering. The article said that Davis still hasn't found a minority partner, which from my understanding, is a prerequisite to his moving to LA.

IMO the league's recent agreements with two separate stadiums in London indicates to me that they are thinking of the traveling circus concept, not moving a team, at least not within the next 5 years. If they intended to move a team over there, why sign agreements with two separate venues that might complicate efforts if someone like the Rams wanted to move there? I still think that the Rams stay in StL.

[c_hawkbob]

Yes, drastically altered.

We're talking about the CEO of Disney (You know Disney, the owners of ABC and ESPN?) agreeing to spearhead the project, for a mere $1M/year and a guaranteed option to buy into one of the teams (how's that for a potential partner?). They are thought to have between 16 and 20 of the needed 24 votes before this announcement, I think it's nearly a slam dunk now for this to get them the votes in the January owners meetings to push this through.

No one can put on a show like Disney, no one likes to put on a show like the NFL, it's a match made in LA heaven. I can't help but think this is more than enough to push the vote through. Especially since Kroenke's stadium plans ares facing problems with the FAA now: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl ... story.html

[Seahawks4Ever]

I don't know how Seattle has avoided both playing in London or appearing on Hard Knocks but I see our good luck running out.

I HATE the whole London angle. Once they start placing teams out side of North America I am afraid they are going to lose me. I know nobody cares whether I watch or not but once they move a team to London I for see many more rule changes to "spice" things up. I t already is increasingly hard to watch.

OT-Fantasy leagues started out as a fun way to kind of be a participant in the NFL. Now with the advent those two new gambling sites I am completely disgusted that the NFL would be a part of that. But people can do what they want to do.

I got to see us win a championship and I at least got to experience that. I am glad we destroyed Denver doing it too!

[HumanCockroach]

As long as Seattle isn't forced to change divisions again whomever they put in LA means little to me. Two conference swaps is enough for one team, find another fat kid to pick on.

[NorthHawk]

I don't know how Seattle has avoided both playing in London or appearing on Hard Knocks but I see our good luck running out.

I HATE the whole London angle. Once they start placing teams out side of North America I am afraid they are going to lose me. I know nobody cares whether I watch or not but once they move a team to London I for see many more rule changes to "spice" things up. I t already is increasingly hard to watch.

OT-Fantasy leagues started out as a fun way to kind of be a participant in the NFL. Now with the advent those two new gambling sites I am completely disgusted that the NFL would be a part of that. But people can do what they want to do.

I got to see us win a championship and I at least got to experience that. I am glad we destroyed Denver doing it too!

I believe that if a team makes the playoffs they don't have to go on Hard Knocks, so if we don't get a WC or better spot, we might make an appearance.
If I were PA, I would make it known in no uncertain terms to the other owners that I wasn't in favor of going to London.
It's 2 days of missed practice just traveling to and from the West Coast let alone time change issues. For east coast teams it's like us going to play them (for the most part), but for us it's double the travel. Not only that, but it's a 06:30 start for us fans.

[Zorn76]

Sigh.

What a mess, lol.

Putting any team in London and thinking they will be success on the field is a Joke, not that the NFL cares.

Seriously, who would want to play for the London Rams if they, in fact, relocate there? They'll field a team, but good luck re-signing great players or attracting FA prospects. Travel and time logistics will put them at at incredible disadvantage for road games, which are tough to begin with.

It amounts to eternal franchise hell. Win 6 or so games at home, maybe 2 or 3 on the road, and become stuck in football purgatory forever.

Good luck with that, Kroenke.

[RiverDog]

Yes, drastically altered.

We're talking about the CEO of Disney (You know Disney, the owners of ABC and ESPN?) agreeing to spearhead the project, for a mere $1M/year and a guaranteed option to buy into one of the teams (how's that for a potential partner?). They are thought to have between 16 and 20 of the needed 24 votes before this announcement, I think it's nearly a slam dunk now for this to get them the votes in the January owners meetings to push this through.

No one can put on a show like Disney, no one likes to put on a show like the NFL, it's a match made in LA heaven. I can't help but think this is more than enough to push the vote through. Especially since Kroenke's stadium plans ares facing problems with the FAA now: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl ... story.html

No need to get sarcastic, my friend. I know who Disney is. I just don't see the need to change my thinking. I already felt that they were a good bet to succeed, so what is it about my thinking that needs to be "drastically altered"? If I thought it wasn't going to happen, then I might need to change my thinking. I'm disagreeing with the terminology you're using, not the prospect of the Chargers/Raiders moving.

As far as Kroneke's plans, I've already stated that I think he's staying in St. Louis. The concerns about his stadium being in the flight path of a major airport were out there before, this just formalizes it. It actually gives a lot of wiggle room to resolve it and offers some suggestions. But the timing is bad, and could be the straw that breaks the camel's back as I do think we're going to get a decision by the end of the regular season.

I don't think a franchise in London happens for at least 5 years if then, but they're going to have a lot of football across the pond in the coming years, more than they would if they had a franchise. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the major colleges played a game over there. JMHO.

[c_hawkbob]

I wasn't getting sarcastic. At all.

[RiverDog]

I wasn't getting sarcastic. At all.

You were either being sarcastic or you think that I'm so stupid that I don't know who Disney is.

[jshawaii22]

One thing (at least) that the NFL has done is back themselves into a real nasty corner. By delaying this decision for years as to which team(s) should go, they now are going to royally screw either one or two of them. And I think that owner getting screwed will be Stan Kroenke, even though he has, by far, the better business model and a more central location for the stadium. (How are these teams supposed to stay where they are now, with totally pissed off fan bases?)

The read on Oakland/Diego Partnership in Carson is that it's not fully funded yet, either, as the Carson Design/Build Group has approached the NFL to kick in 250m to the project for the stadium. That is separate from the 1B (supposed) relocation fees that the NLF wants to charge the ownership of the teams. I doubt Oakland's kid owner has that kind of $$$. He's going to have to give up a big chunk of his team to fund this, IMHO.

I just don't get that part either... For the 1B, he could fund his own stadium in Oakland, where the team is beloved, and get his new stadium. I'll bet a lot of 49'er fans, who despise the Santa Clara "gem" would gladly drive over the Bay Bridge to a nice, shiny new stadium that actually was near a freeway. Tear down the O Coliseum, play at Berkley for a couple of years and rebuild it right there. Give the City the 1B with free rent for the life of the stadium or something.

Kronke has no such issues. He is planning on funding his own project 100% including the relocation fees. I really believe the NFL is out to get him for some reason. Who has he pissed off?

Iger is not coming on-board or anything until the NFL has agreed to the terms of the Carson two-team move, and the fact that he's not coming in with any of Disney's money, this is more of a PR move then a big business move. (not that that's a bad thing) He is only coming in to work on the development of the land, working through the California legal / permitting system and help with the design/build of the stadium with a potential small ownership stake for himself. All in all, that's not much in the way of a commitment, but maybe it is enough for the NFL who sees 'stars' for their TV promos over what dull Kroenke would give them.

Personally, I don't know if I want Disney as the owner, anyway. The worst SB halftime shows were the ones by Disney that the NFL finally dumped along with UP With People.

[RiverDog]

To be clear, Disney isn't contributing a dime to this endeavor. It's their CEO that is the focus of this article, a man by the name of Bob Eger. He's acting as a private citizen, not as the chairman and CEO of Disney, which is a publicly owned company. Disney is no more involved in this project that Microsoft was involved in the purchase of the Seahawks.

[c_hawkbob]

To be clear, Disney isn't contributing a dime to this endeavor. It's their CEO that is the focus of this article, a man by the name of Bob Eger. He's acting as a private citizen, not as the chairman and CEO of Disney, which is a publicly owned company. Disney is no more involved in this project that Microsoft was involved in the purchase of the Seahawks.

Exactly. That's a good analogy. To clarify further however, he won't be involved as an owner the way Allen is, other than as a minority owner after his retirement from Disney. He'll be the guy organizing and directing the partnership between the teams, putting the entertainment packaging together and convincing the other NFL owners that this partnership is the way to bring the NFL back to LA in the grandest, most likely to succeed manner possible.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry, I have to ask the question. How many times does football have to fail in LA before the NFL figures out its a basketball town?

[kalibane]

Doesn't matter whether people fill the stadium. It's all about local media deals. There is more money in LA. Plus one of the primary issues was playing in the decrepit LA Colossium.

[jshawaii22]

HC,

Football didn't fail in LA because of a lack of fan support. Both for the Raiders and the Rams, at that time they moved, moved because the area lacked a viable stadium plan after promising both of them a new stadium and neither the LA Coliseum or the Rose Bowl were willing to pay to upgrade and the owners didn't want to pay for their own, as it was still vogue to have the tax payers fork out for it.

Now that the world has changed in the NFL, thanks to Jerry boy in Dallas, there is no reason to think that football would fail if a modern, up to date stadium were to be built. We're talking multi million population in the LA basin in potential, not to mention that many visiting teams travel very well now a days and LA is a prime city to enjoy a weekend as a visitor.

js

[RiverDog]

Doesn't matter whether people fill the stadium. It's all about local media deals. There is more money in LA. Plus one of the primary issues was playing in the decrepit LA Colossium.

There's also a larger corporate presence in LA, which is needed to buy luxury suites and club seats, and it's more of a destination, at least as far as Oakland and the east bay is concerned, that is needed to attract traveling fan bases. Who in their right mind wants to travel to Oakland to watch a football game?

I don't think there's any doubt that a franchise, or two franchises, in LA will work, unless they allow 3 teams to move in there, which is extremely unlikely.

[HumanCockroach]

Doesn't matter whether people fill the stadium. It's all about local media deals. There is more money in LA. Plus one of the primary issues was playing in the decrepit LA Colossium.

And the media will foot the bill with flagging fan support because why again?

Sorry, I don't buy the " the stadium was the only issue" in LA thing. Truth is, USC still packs that decrepit stadium weekly, plenty of piss poor stadiums due, including one one of these teams is trying to flee.

[RiverDog]

And the media will foot the bill with flagging fan support because why again?

Sorry, I don't buy the " the stadium was the only issue" in LA thing. Truth is, USC still packs that decrepit stadium weekly, plenty of piss poor stadiums due, including one one of these teams is trying to flee.

Advertising. In the second largest market in the country, the media deals will be in television and radio contracts. And I don't buy your thinking that fan support will be lagging. It's a different world out there nowadays than it was in the 90's when LA last had a team.

Besides, USC is currently in hibernation. They no longer own LA like they did a few years ago.