A lawsuit would make this even more fun and nostalgic.bosockboy said:Would the NFL approve a 3rd Texas team in the 37th market? Would be hard to not allow it with Jacksonville in the league.
Red McCombs too I believe. The difference is Oakland doesn't have the money. It's not happening. They are going somewhere.BigSoxFan said:Most fans in SA are Cowboys fans with a smaller subset of Texans fans as well. It'd be a bad spot to grow a fan base. The Alamo Dome is a bit of a dump so it'd probably have to be demo'd. This looks like a clear negotiation ploy to me. Tom Benson, who has SA ties, did the same with the Saints a few years ago.
kenneycb said:I've heard LA bandied about, especially once Davis' wife dies and a nice estate tax comes due to the kids. Pretty sure Breer talked about this on T&R last week or sometime around there if anybody more vividly recalls the talking points.
The Raiders have publically stated that Al Davis and the Raiders engaged in detailed estate tax planning prior to Al Davis' death to maintain the team in the Davis family. Most likely, this estate planning involved the purchase of life insurance policies by Al Davis for both himself and Carole Davis. Al Davis likely funded these expensive life insurance policies through a 20% sale of the Raiders to three financiers in 2007. This 20% equity sale was for $150 million. http://www.footballphds.com/2011/12/28/nfl-in-la-oakland-raiders-and-estate-tax-planning-scenarios/
Gunfighter 09 said:This is a move to get Jerry Jones & Bob McNair on Marc Davis' side when he tries to go to LA. The Chargers have made it very clear they will vote against any team in LA. I take Kraft's talk about "two teams" as Marc Davis having the influential Kraft's vote on his side. Getting the equally influential Jones & McNair on his side probably gets the Raiders close to the number they need. This is all about the Raiders trying to line up 24 owners to allow them them to go to LA.
When the Raiders to LA vote happens it is going to be really interesting to see how the Bowlens and Hunts vote. Will they vote to prevent a franchise from failing, or vote to ensure one of their division rivals is rarely competitive?
Marc has about $400M and roughly 10% of the Raiders to offer (he owns 47% and needs ~35% to retain controlling interest) to investors to get something built. I don't think that is enough to get into downtown, but I think it is enough to get into Roskiville in the inland empire (Diamond Bar, specifically). Moving to a non-downtown spot in LA also leaves the crown jewel of leverage open for the other owners to use. The other wild card is that while the Davis' are poor by NFL owner standards, the three holders of the largest (20%) minority stake in the franchise are billionaires, so their might be an alternate source of cash for them to tap. Their recent actions either indicate that getting cash from the minority owners is not an option, or this is all an elaborate dance to get back to LA.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24658264/a-possible-raiders-move-to-la-gathering-steam-and-jerry-jones-might-be-on-board
OXNARD, Calif. -- Perhaps it was all mere coincidence. It was just quirky timing that, with his franchise again a free agent after the season, and his efforts to get a stadium in Los Angeles taking on a more fevered pitch, and with him openly flirting with San Antonio to up the relocation ante, now, of all times, Mark Davis's Oakland Raiders happened to travel to Southern California for two days of practices with the Cowboys.
But, as they stood on a field at a training complex roughly 60 miles from downtown LA, it was surely no coincidence that as soon as practice was over Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, as slick of a media maven as they come, sought out a robust gathering of reporters, and threw his arm around Davis and Hollywood mogul Michael Ovitz. Then he launched into a soliloquy about his deep relationship with Davis, and his high esteem for an LA stadium model that Ovitz conducted and its viability to house an NFL franchise (or two, ultimately, if the NFL gets its way with this market).
This seemed like anything other than an improv act – nothing from the Actor's Studio – but rather more akin to in-your-face performance art, as the overtones of Raiders-back-to-LA were impossible to miss. Oh, and Magic Johnson (who knows a thing or two about ownership and was once represented by Ovitz) happened to be standing a few yards away, and Tommy Lasorda was sitting at a sideline-chair in a VIP area off to the side. Jones was all smiles, and the vocal – and borderline manic – Raiders fans who outnumbered Cowboys fans here and screamed as the team busses pulled up and chanting "Cowboys suck" for a good part of the afternoon made for quite the sonic backdrop to a fairly surreal scene that at times seemed like an infomercial for the NFL in LA.
Jones waxed nostalgic about Ovitz's stadium model, which cost "seven figures" to produce. He and Ovitz joked that model remains "the only stadium anyone is playing (football) in," while Davis stood on the opposite side of Jones, somewhat awkwardly. Taking the bait after the line of questioning turned to the Cowboys' recent minor transactions and Orlando Scandrick's drug suspension, I asked Jones, "Could that model still serve as a viable option for an NFL team in LA?"
"It would make a beautiful stadium," Jones said, outright beaming. "Yes it would."
Davis, for his part, spoke of Jones almost like a father figure, in the same reverential tones both men spoke of Davis's father, Al, one of the game's great builders and a Hall of Famer. "It's a great relationship," Davis said of his bond with Jones. "I look to him for answers on everything." This was another instance in this briefing that begged for a follow up -- "Have you conferred with Jones about San Antonio?", a market Jones has dubbed as Cowboys Country.
"We haven't talked about that yet, but we'll see," Davis said.
Davis has no long-term viable options in the Bay Area, short of perhaps sharing Levi's Stadium with the 49ers, which he remains diametrically opposed to. He would love to move to Los Angeles and has intensified his desire to do so in recent months, spending oodles of time in the area, sources have said. The NFL, however, would prefer to give another ownership group the rights to Los Angeles -- make no mistake, the road to LA goes through the league office in New York -- as the Davis family already pulled out of Southern California once, and Davis doesn't have the real estate, marketing and overall business expertise the league would demand for the coveted market.
Of course, having Jones, maybe the most influential owner in the league, work with him to build a consortium of business giants and Hollywood elites might make that option more viable. Make no mistake, the sense of urgency of several parties to get to LA has increased, and will only consider to do so. The Rams are also lease free agents after the season and their owner, Stan Kroenke, already owns a huge parcel of land in LA that could house a stadium, and the Chargers, the franchise closest to Los Angeles, are not burdened by massive financial hurdles in their lease, either.
Jones is among the owners who continue to speak regularly about the importance of getting a team to LA -- imagine spinning one of the league's bottom three revenue generators into a top-five earner for the shared revenue pie? -- and don't expect that to change anytime soon. He looked comfortable as ever in the salesman role, and no doubt Davis loves having him as his wingman, doing the talking for him.
Maybe it amounts to nothing in the end, but Davis is clearly becoming increasingly visible and vocal about his dalliances with other locales, and no doubt he covets Los Angeles above San Antonio or anyplace else.
This also sort of explains it, doesn't it? With massive non-stadium revenues (tax exempt?), NFL teams can move easily to smaller markets without seriously impacting bottom lines. Baseball teams need to be closer to both higher populations and established fanbases to guarantee gate receipts.jose melendez said:It's absurd that teams in the NFL--where everyteam is basically guaranteed a massive profit due to TV and the salary cap, has teams not only crying poor but moving when they don't get what they want where baseball, where there really are vast revenue discrepencies that hurt teams' ability to compete has had one only one team move in the last what 40 years?
Do you think the votes are that tight here?Gunfighter 09 said:This is a move to get Jerry Jones & Bob McNair on Marc Davis' side when he tries to go to LA. The Chargers have made it very clear they will vote against any team in LA. I take Kraft's talk about "two teams" as Marc Davis having the influential Kraft's vote on his side. Getting the equally influential Jones & McNair on his side probably gets the Raiders close to the number they need. This is all about the Raiders trying to line up 24 owners to allow them them to go to LA.
When the Raiders to LA vote happens it is going to be really interesting to see how the Bowlens and Hunts vote. Will they vote to prevent a franchise from failing, or vote to ensure one of their division rivals is rarely competitive?
Marc has about $400M and roughly 10% of the Raiders to offer (he owns 47% and needs ~35% to retain controlling interest) to investors to get something built. I don't think that is enough to get into downtown, but I think it is enough to get into Roskiville in the inland empire (Diamond Bar, specifically). Moving to a non-downtown spot in LA also leaves the crown jewel of leverage open for the other owners to use. The other wild card is that while the Davis' are poor by NFL owner standards, the three holders of the largest (20%) minority stake in the franchise are billionaires, so their might be an alternate source of cash for them to tap. Their recent actions either indicate that getting cash from the minority owners is not an option, or this is all an elaborate dance to get back to LA.
SoxVindaloo said:Do you think the votes are that tight here?
Who cares what SD thinks? This is not a DC/Maryland deal like the with the Orioles or a Giants/A's thing with Fremont, Ca. There were once multiple teams in LA, and there will be again sometime. Is there some sort of quorum against LA having a team?
I would imagine only 1 of 2 of the Chargers and Raiders gets into LA. Doubt the NFL would want 2 LA teams in the AFC West, so I bet the Rams get one slot if indeed 2 teams go. Though with 2 games a year against each other, having the Chargers and Raiders both in LA may be fun.Tony C said:Why are the Raiders or Chargers waiting on Oakland/San Diego? A huge market awaits them in which they already have a fan base. There are 3 teams with a historic connection to L.A., each of which are in a bad stadium/fan base situation. Why they haven't been jumping over each other to get into a big/rich market is beyond me. It seems like St. Louis has made the first move, and if I'm San Diego I'm getting in while the getting's good as the 2nd team: either re-claim the old L.A. Chargers name or become the So Cal Chargers and try to stake a claim to the San Diego/Orange County/L.A. markets. Despite the L.A. Rams having been in L.A. the longest, it seems to me San Diego is the most familiar given they're on on tv all the time here, etc. They'll have an advantage over the Rams and, while the Raiders have a fan base, it's also a bit tainted by association with criminality, etc., so I imagine the Chargers will transition well.
On the other hand, if the Raiders become the 2nd L.A. team the Chargers will be left with no alternatives. The flip is true for Oakland -- the 49ers are the SF/Silicon Valley team -- the East Bay just isn't nearly that rich....what are they waiting on? If St L and SD get the L.A. market, the choice between Oakland and San Antonio relegates them to permanent 2nd class status.
If a stadium were to be built in Ferguson, we would come full circle.Harry Hooper said:Odds of the Raiders going to a vacated St. Louis?
Dan to Theo to Ben said:If a stadium were to be built in Ferguson, we would come full circle.
I can see the Chargers as a natural fit to go back to LA, along with the Rams. There is certainly historical significance and, as you suggested, San Diego is close enough where the current fan base might not feel like it really is a move from the region (slightly similar to the proposed Patriots Hartford move, although the Chargers would also be moving from the 28th television market to the 2nd in LA). This move solves the Chargers stadium issues, and might actually bring back more historical fans in the LA area. I see the same with the Rams...I imagine that there are a good amount of historically "Rams fans" in the LA area, so having both teams back in LA seems less like a forced fit.Tony C said:Why are the Raiders or Chargers waiting on Oakland/San Diego? A huge market awaits them in which they already have a fan base. There are 3 teams with a historic connection to L.A., each of which are in a bad stadium/fan base situation. Why they haven't been jumping over each other to get into a big/rich market is beyond me. It seems like St. Louis has made the first move, and if I'm San Diego I'm getting in while the getting's good as the 2nd team: either re-claim the old L.A. Chargers name or become the So Cal Chargers and try to stake a claim to the San Diego/Orange County/L.A. markets. Despite the L.A. Rams having been in L.A. the longest, it seems to me San Diego is the most familiar given they're on on tv all the time here, etc. They'll have an advantage over the Rams and, while the Raiders have a fan base, it's also a bit tainted by association with criminality, etc., so I imagine the Chargers will transition well.
On the other hand, if the Raiders become the 2nd L.A. team the Chargers will be left with no alternatives. The flip is true for Oakland -- the 49ers are the SF/Silicon Valley team -- the East Bay just isn't nearly that rich....what are they waiting on? If St L and SD get the L.A. market, the choice between Oakland and San Antonio relegates them to permanent 2nd class status.
Grimace-HS said:I can see the Chargers as a natural fit to go back to LA, along with the Rams. There is certainly historical significance and, as you suggested, San Diego is close enough where the current fan base might not feel like it really is a move from the region (slightly similar to the proposed Patriots Hartford move, although the Chargers would also be moving from the 28th television market to the 2nd in LA). This move solves the Chargers stadium issues, and might actually bring back more historical fans in the LA area. I see the same with the Rams...I imagine that there are a good amount of historically "Rams fans" in the LA area, so having both teams back in LA seems less like a forced fit.
Oakland is currently in the #6 market, with St. Louis #21 and San Antonio #33. I know television markets isn't everything, but they've developed the core of their fan base along the California coast between Oakland and LA, so it just doesn't make a lot of sense to leave there unless they go to a city very hungry for a team. With San Antonio not exactly the biggest market, I'd assume that there are a lot of Cowboys or Texans fans there (anyone living out there might definitely know better). If Oakland can't get settled where they are, then looking a bit more inland into the Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto market (#20) may make more sense. Or even Portland (#23)...stay on the coast and be geographically rivaled with the Seahawks and 49ers.
And St. Louis just seems to be in a very awkward situation. On paper the market looks decent, yet they've recently either lost the Cardinals or on the verge of losing the Rams. Kansas City seems to do well with fan interest even when the team struggles. But then again, the baseball Cardinals do as well. I would be very hesitant to move a team there.
As for St. Louis and San Antonio, keep them open in case Jacksonville ultimately decides to move or expansion comes up again.
Grimace-HS said:
Oakland is currently in the #6 market, with St. Louis #21 and San Antonio #33. I know television markets isn't everything, but they've developed the core of their fan base along the California coast between Oakland and LA, so it just doesn't make a lot of sense to leave there unless they go to a city very hungry for a team. With San Antonio not exactly the biggest market, I'd assume that there are a lot of Cowboys or Texans fans there (anyone living out there might definitely know better). If Oakland can't get settled where they are, then looking a bit more inland into the Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto market (#20) may make more sense. Or even Portland (#23)...stay on the coast and be geographically rivaled with the Seahawks and 49ers.
You can't really do this in St. Louis (or London) for much of the yearMorning Woodhead said:
For Jacksonville, owner Shahid Khan has ties to St. Louis. You'd have to imagine if the Rams flee to LA, and St. Louis want to land a new team with a new stadium deal, Jax has to be at the top of the list.
Raiders have decent demographics in CA, even competing with the 49ers and the Chargers. In New Mexico, he has poorer per capita income, smaller market, plus your team in the North, AZ to the west, and Cowboys to the east. SA is 400 miles from the NM border. And is Texans and Cowboys country. It would be a better move for the Titans to move there than the Raiders.j-man said:the raiders have to go somewhere San Antonio couild work if they can get a footprint into new mexico hispanic base
i think SD and STL LA
Oak = SA
Jax London
Goddell and kraft and J Jones wants a london team
This is interesting....I hadn't known about the connection and it also sounds very familiar to the James Orthwein / Stan Kroenke connection before Kraft bought the team. It is funny how teams in flux always seem to have a St. Louis connection.Morning Woodhead said:
For Jacksonville, owner Shahid Khan has ties to St. Louis. You'd have to imagine if the Rams flee to LA, and St. Louis want to land a new team with a new stadium deal, Jax has to be at the top of the list.
[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Yes, the Nielson rankings seem to group San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose together as one market. I can also see your thinking in that the overall region is likely more dominated by the 49ers, partly due to their more consistent success, but I'd also guess that the previous move to LA and constant flirting with other cities wears thin.[/SIZE]Tony C said:
That interesting...you mean the Bay Area as a whole is the #6 market? Or the Oakland/East Bay part of it is? Part of the assumption informing my argument is that the 49ers are the #1 team in that market and also the #1 team in its richest parts -- i..e, SF and the Silicon Valley, with the Raiders sort of a ne'er do well lesser cousin. But that is an assumption and you're right that it's a big market as well as a rich market, so can definitely agree that St. L and San Diego make the most sense in terms of moving to L.A..
Grimace-HS said:This is interesting....I hadn't known about the connection and it also sounds very familiar to the James Orthwein / Stan Kroenke connection before Kraft bought the team. It is funny how teams in flux always seem to have a St. Louis connection.
[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Yes, the Nielson rankings seem to group San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose together as one market. I can also see your thinking in that the overall region is likely more dominated by the 49ers, partly due to their more consistent success, but I'd also guess that the previous move to LA and constant flirting with other cities wears thin.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]I will try and put the link in for that ranking....it definitely was educational...I had no idea that New Orleans was actually only #51.[/SIZE]
http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf
Of course it is. Like my favorite team is the Red Sox and whatever team is playing the Yankees. What's so wrong with that?Bosoxen said:Do those represent "my favorite team is whatever team that's playing the Cowboys" douches? Yes, that's a thing.
Curt S Loew said:Of course it is. Like my favorite team is the Red Sox and whatever team is playing the Yankees. What's so wrong with that?
Gunfighter 09 said:The thing that is being left out of this conversation is the fact that the Raiders are by far the most popular team in Southern California.
Bosoxen said:...
I'm curious what those white spots represent in the second map. Do those represent "my favorite team is whatever team that's playing the Cowboys" douches? Yes, that's a thing.
Tony C said:
I doubt it, given that some of those white spots are in Texas, but I'm curious, too -- maybe it's just areas where it's close to 50/50? Could explain Texas, since maybe in some sparsely populated areas there might be as many Texan fans as Cowboy fans (odd that the Saints have one tiny dot in Texas, too -- Katrina refugees?). i always thought the "America's Team" thing was more marketing slogan than anything else, but the Cowboys do seem to have the widest spread of fans.