[bubbaramfan]

snackdaddy is on the right tract. They're going to string it along til winter so they can put butts in the stands.

[den-the-coach]

None of us really knows what's going on but i don't know that there is a debate. I think Snack has it right.

If the NFL knows the Rams are moving to L.A. after 2015, what are they going to do? Announce it now? That doesn't seem very likely.

The play would be to keep telling St. Louis the NFL likes what they're doing and they want to see more. They would also tell SD and OAK that Carson is legit so they better get their act together if they want to keep their teams.

If the Rams are staying in St. Louis, we might hear that sooner rather than later bu if they're leaving, we won't likely hear anything but scary news until December or so.

None of this speculation proves anything but things are going pretty much how you'd expect them to if the Rams are indeed moving.

Along those lines, i doubt we'll get much news (least of all good news) from the August meeting...

I concur and it's all about gamesmanship and I understand that and over the years my filter has been on, however, now it's very close and I can taste it especially with such a palatial venue that will be the top stadium in the NFL plus when the Rams come back it will be their 50th year.

Guess I'm just getting anxious, however, the NFL has to make it look like they've done their due diligence including making one side look better than the obvious. In the end we know Carson is not an option and the St. Louis plan seems now like a triple threat...Trip, stumble & fumble and in the end there will only be on clear option.

[snackdaddy]

snackdaddy is on the right tract. They're going to string it along til winter so they can put butts in the stands.

They don't want a PR nightmare painting SK and the NFL as the evil ones evicting kids out of an orphanage during the season. That would make for a difficult season for everyone involved. Better sit on it and wait till the season's over. Can you imagine if Joe Buck did any Rams games this year?

[Elvis]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... money-are/

NFL teams eventually could go where the people, money are

Posted by Mike Florio on July 12, 2015, 1:42 PM EDT

The NFL’s stance regarding Los Angeles has pivoted from luxury to necessity for one primary reason: The well of taxpayer money for stadium construction and renovation has gone drier than ever.

While there’s a chance the pendulum could swing the other way at some point in the future, the current cycle feels more than temporary. If so, and absent efforts by local leaders to finagle public money without elections that are likely to fail if they ever happen, teams that want their stadiums to be replaced will either have to find a way to do it with private money in their current locations — or they’ll have to move to a city where they can.

Which means that the league inevitably will be looking at the bigger cities, where a greater concentration of fans and a greater opportunity to consistently fill a venue would mean a greater flow of cash that would be used to pay for the stadium.

For starters, get used to the idea of two-team markets. The norm in New York since the merger, L.A. (which went from two teams to none 20 years ago) eventually will have a pair of franchises sharing a stadium in Carson or Inglewood. And Chicago already has made noise about an NFL equivalent of the Cubs/White Sox dynamic. If/when the time comes to replace Soldier Field, the Bears plus another team would be in much better position to pay for a new stadium without public funds than the Bears alone.

Major international cities would also become more viable without American tax dollars, especially if the citizen in foreign countries would be more willing to allow public money to be used to lure the NFL. It’s been known for years that England could eventually host one, and possibly two, teams. Toronto remains in the mix as well, despite the failed Bills experiment there.

And is it a coincidence the NFL suddenly is interested in returning to Mexico? More than 100,000 fans showed up there a decade ago for a game between the Cardinals and 49ers. With or without public assistance, the pesos would be plentiful for building a swanky new home for a Mexican NFL team.

Three cities with NFL teams currently aren’t in the top 50 U.S. television markets, based on the 2014 Official NFL Record & Fact Book: Buffalo, Green Bay (Milwaukee is No. 34), and New Orleans. Jacksonville ranked 48th, and Kansas City (No. 31) and Cincinnati (No. 35) trailed greater Orlando (No. 18), Sacramento (No. 20), Portland (No. 22), and Raleigh-Durham (No. 24). If it’s going to take private money to build stadiums, market size becomes far more important to finding private money.

Although the size of a market hardly becomes a guarantee of future relocation (the Packers surely will never leave Green Bay, and the Bills seem to be destined to stick around Buffalo), it becomes a major factor if a franchise hopes to finance a new or renovated stadium and can’t get money for nothing from the politicians.

The cycle still could shift, especially if the abandonment of San Diego, Oakland, and/or St. Louis serves as a wake-up call to other cities that could face losing their teams in the future. For now, though, NFL teams that want new or improved stadiums will have to pay for it themselves — which will make markets with more people and more money necessarily more attractive.

[OldSchool]

I was reading that article Elvis thanks for posting it here. One thing I would add to that final paragraph is that we are likely to see 2 other changes and they both affect ownership. I think we'll see ownership changes more often in coming decades. Owners such as Mark Davis and even Dan Rooney have a comparatively small net worth, $500 million each. Bidwell and Brown of the Bengals also are below the billion dollar mark. With the shift away from public funding and shift towards private money these types of owners when stadiums need to be rebuilt will find themselves in a difficult situation. Davis has already said he's likely going to have to sell a minority stake to afford any new stadium especially as the cost of these start to skyrocket. The last thing the NFL needs or likely wants is complicated deals involving ownership to finance stadiums. We also see families that pass down ownership over generations lose wealth over those generations and like when Georgia passed away we will likely see kids inherit that not only can't afford to own the team but don't have the desire to own. I'd wager in the next decade or two we see 4 or 5 clubs that have an ownership change.

[The Ripper]

I was reading that article Elvis thanks for posting it here. One thing I would add to that final paragraph is that we are likely to see 2 other changes and they both affect ownership. I think we'll see ownership changes more often in coming decades. Owners such as Mark Davis and even Dan Rooney have a comparatively small net worth, $500 million each. Bidwell and Brown of the Bengals also are below the billion dollar mark. With the shift away from public funding and shift towards private money these types of owners when stadiums need to be rebuilt will find themselves in a difficult situation. Davis has already said he's likely going to have to sell a minority stake to afford any new stadium especially as the cost of these start to skyrocket. The last thing the NFL needs or likely wants is complicated deals involving ownership to finance stadiums. We also see families that pass down ownership over generations lose wealth over those generations and like when Georgia passed away we will likely see kids inherit that not only can't afford to own the team but don't have the desire to own. I'd wager in the next decade or two we see 4 or 5 clubs that have an ownership change.

Dean Spanos is the perfect example. His net worth is less than Davis and he shares 60% equally with his 4 siblings. Alex owns the rest and there's also minority owner that owns a small share. It will get very interesting over the next few years when the parents pass away.
.

[bubbaramfan]

Thx elvis. Great article by Florio. A lot of real stuff in there. The economy is forcing the eventuality of teams moving to bigger markets and owners with bigger pockets. There are a lot of latino's in So Cal that like football. I can see the NFL in Mexico City.

[kayfabe]

Just finished watching HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. The whole show was dedicated
tonight to Stadiums and all the issues with private/public partnerships. If Chargers/Raiders were
watching it can't be good for Carson publicity. Don't have a link (it's on HBO Now and should show
up on the LastWeekTonight YouTube page in a few days if not a HBO subscriber
(https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight) but he didn't hold back at all. Here's an
article on the show from the Daily Beast --

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... s-off.html

John Oliver: How Sports Teams Are Ripping Us Off
The witty host of HBO’s ‘Last Week Tonight’ aired an eye-opening segment on how professional sports teams exploit public money for financial gain.

After a week off, John Oliver and his award-worthy HBO program Last Week Tonight are back, and this time, they’re targeting one of America’s favorite pastimes: pro sports.

But first, a disclaimer. “I love sports. In fact, the only times I’ve cried as a grown man have been while watching actors playing coaches deliver inspirational speeches set to stirring music,” announced Oliver.

Then the Brit launched into a fascinating segment targeting the stadiums of professional sports teams, which he said “nowadays look like they were designed by a coked-up Willy Wonka,” pointing to the Jacksonville Jaguars’ in-stadium cabanas and swimming pools, and the Miami Marlins’ massive aquariums behind home plate. Unfortunately, taxpayers are footing the bill for these extravagances.

“The vast majority of stadiums are made using public money,” said Oliver, citing a report from 2012 stating there’s been “$12 billion spent on the 51 new facilities opened between 2000 and 2010.”

“Which begs the question: Why?” he asked. “Sports teams are wealthy businesses with wealthy owners and they still get our help. Two years ago, Detroit got approval to spend more than $280 million in taxpayer money for a new arena for the Red Wings just six days after the city filed for bankruptcy—even though the Red Wings owner is Mike Ilitch, the founder of the Little Caesar’s pizza chain, who’s worth an estimated $5.1 billion. That’s a little hard to swallow.”

To make matters worse, the sports teams get to keep all the revenue the stadiums produce—including naming rights—and the replacement rate for stadiums is more than 90 percent. Many teams “get their stadiums funded through tax-exempt municipal bonds,” said Oliver, including the Miami Marlins, who were granted $500 million in public money toward their new stadium in 2008 after claiming they couldn’t afford to build it themselves. The Major League Baseball team refused to open its books when questioned by city officials, and leaked documents later revealed the team had generated $50 million in profits over the previous two years.

“Pretending you’re poor is wrong. It wasn’t OK when Mary-Kate Olsen went through her hobo phase, and it’s not OK now!” screamed Oliver.

This chicanery is so thoroughly ingrained in sports culture that it’s even featured in the “owner” mode of the Madden NFL 15 video game. In real life, NFL teams the Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams, and San Diego Chargers are all threatening to leave their cities unless they get new stadiums, and in Madden NFL 15, the easiest way to get a new stadium is to choose to relocate your team—and the best city choice for stadium relocation is Los Angeles since, according to the game, “they’ll pay for $783 million of your stadium costs.”

Pro sports teams have even manipulated the public into believing the onus is on the city to keep these pro arenas in town, with rapper C-Siccness going so far as releasing the rap song “Save Our Bolts” pleading to keep the San Diego Chargers in town, and the Milwaukee Bucks’ recent TV ads explaining how much economic prosperity a new stadium would bring to the city. But the theory that building a new stadium boosts a city’s economy is, according to an economic study cited by Oliver, a total myth. “A major review of almost 20 years of studies shows economists could find no substantial evidence that stadiums had increased jobs, incomes, or tax revenues,” he said.

Recently, Hamilton County in Cincinnati, Ohio, spent more than $50 million on stadium debt service and other costs in 2014 for the Cincinnati Bengals and Reds, even though the county has had to sell a public hospital, cut 1,700 jobs, and delay payments for schools because of budget gaps. The NFL’s Bengals even have a deal whereby if 14 other teams’ stadiums introduce a new feature, they must, too—no matter how unnecessary it is or how exorbitant the cost.

“The Bengals have a deal whereby if someone invents holographic instant replay in the future, the county has to buy it for them,” said Oliver. “Teams get these deals because they know politicians will capitulate and give them whatever they want.”

“We have to come to our senses and stop signing these deals.”

[bubbaramfan]

And in St. Louis, where they voted to build a stadium 20 years ago, they're being told they have to foot the bill for another one, only this time they have no choice.

[Elvis]

Hot off of YouTube: