Expansion inevitable

[BAMAPHIN 22]

The NFL is spending $10 million to help Los Angeles and Anaheim with their plans for bringing the league back to the nation's second-largest media market.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue announced the decision on Tuesday after a day-and-a-half of meetings focused on the desire to put a team in the area vacated by the Rams and Raiders after the 1994 season.

That was part of a series of moves that became known as "franchise free agency."

Tagliabue said the decision to spend the money puts the NFL as close as it has been to getting back to Los Angeles since 1999, when the league owners approved a resolution to put an expansion team into the area. That plan fell through when two conflicting groups in the Los Angeles area could not agree on a site and financing.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/05/23/nfl.meetings.ap/index.html

 

[zach13]

This is great. The NFL absolutely needs to expand into the LA market. Even if it means that the NFL must fund a lot of the effort.

 

[ganooch]

This is great. The NFL absolutely needs to expand into the LA market. Even if it means that the NFL must fund a lot of the effort.

why?

 

[Caps]

I don't want any more expansions.

 

[Mike13]

Expansion is probably a long shot. New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch noted that adding a 33rd team would lead eventually to a 34th.

Dallas' Jerry Jones was more emphatic.
"Expansion does not make sense for the NFL at this juncture. It just doesn't." Jones said. "It just doesn't. We don't improve anything by expanding, we water it down

I agree with them.

 

[aquawave]

Its not going to be an expantion, they are talking about a relocation, and the options so far are the Chargers, Bills, Rams and somebody else that I cant remember right know.
Hopefully the Bills so we dont have to play at Bufalo in December anymore.

 

[zach13]

why?

From a business perspective:

It is the largest TV market in the nation (or 2nd largest), therefore it makes no financial sense to not have a team located there.

A good part of the revenues for the NFL are tied to TV contracts and the fact that the NFL does not have a team in LA is losing them money on these contracts. Here is a good synopsis of this argument from an article on the subject:

"With the league about to open negotiations on its next television contract--the current one expires in 2006--the lack of a team in the nation's second-largest market is a major embarrassment. While television ratings for the NFL have declined at a slower rate over the last few years than ratings for other sports, they have declined nonetheless, and boosting ratings in Los Angeles is one of the few things the NFL could do to raise ratings overall. At this point it is well understood that the NFL needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles needs the NFL"

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=sports&s=schatz061004

 

[ganooch]

From a business perspective:

It is the largest TV market in the nation (or 2nd largest), therefore it makes no financial sense to not have a team located there.

A good part of the revenues for the NFL are tied to TV contracts and the fact that the NFL does not have a team in LA is losing them money on these contracts. Here is a good synopsis of this argument from an article on the subject:

"With the league about to open negotiations on its next television contract--the current one expires in 2006--the lack of a team in the nation's second-largest market is a major embarrassment. While television ratings for the NFL have declined at a slower rate over the last few years than ratings for other sports, they have declined nonetheless, and boosting ratings in Los Angeles is one of the few things the NFL could do to raise ratings overall. At this point it is well understood that the NFL needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles needs the NFL"

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=sports&s=schatz061004

I knew you would say that and unfortunately those are the only reasons for it. There is no groundswell of support for a team out there. There are many football fans out there but LA is an area where a great deal of people move there from other regions of the country. THese people also bring their allegiances with them. Your last quoted line sums it up best that the NFL needs LA more than LA needs the NFL.

 

[Smoke]

I'm all for it. Being from California I miss having a team in L.A. I know we already have 3 teams but we're talking about Los Angeles here. This will also give me another opportunity to catch Dolphins games out here. The thing i'm not looking forward to are the insanely rude fans in L.A.

 

[Roman529]

I see two teams in LA...just so that you won't have an "uneven" number of teams in the League. You have 14 million people in SoCal....you should be able to get 70,000 people to a game.

 

[NastyNas]

y'all need to wake up!!!!! the nfl aint expanding anything. First of all if they expand, it ruins the division format, the nfl already has 8 division with 4 teams and balanced schedules, second of all why would the owners want a new team to get a piece of the tv money from the networks?? makes no sense, 100% pure garbage.

 

[Agent51]

y'all need to wake up!!!!! the nfl aint expanding anything. First of all if they expand, it ruins the division format, the nfl already has 8 division with 4 teams and balanced schedules, second of all why would the owners want a new team to get a piece of the tv money from the networks?? makes no sense, 100% pure garbage.

:rolleyes2

 

[ZolarZ_GoPhins]

I seriously doubt an expansion will occur.

There are plenty of teams that need new stadium deals and have problems selling out there current stadiums, or are just in a small market area. The one that is in the best position to move and the worst position finacially will be moved. SD and SF seem to be the best fits so far. For some reason it seems that the LA team will be an NFC team. Therefore SF is a big possiblity.

It always seems wierd when a team moves but that is a much better solution then expansion.

 

[Kinzua]

I think that if there's going to be a team in LA in the foreseeable future, it's more likely to be an expansion team than an existing one, primarily because none of the current NFL owners are interested in moving their teams to LA. I think the plan was to make it worthwhile for a small market team to move to SoCal but now that's less likely to happen thanks to Ralph Wilson. New Orleans is unlikely to move in the next few years with public pressure to stay. More importantly, the Saints' owner wants to go to San Antonio not LA.

Minnesota, and San Diego are frequently mentioned as teams with stadium issues that might move, but right now, it seems that these are more likely to be worked out than not, especially given the uncertainty of the LA stadium situation. In Jacksonville, a small market team with fan support issues, the owner has been trying hard to make the team more regional.

I guess that leaves the San Francisco 49'ers. Supposedly, somebody is to buy the team and move it to LA because, again, of stadium issues. The problem with this scenario is that LA doesn't have a stadium, and can't seem to get its act together to even designate a site for a new venue.

The NFL's efforts to help SoCal get a franchise actually undermine its ability to move an existing franchise, I think. Unless an existing owner wants to move to LA, it's unlikely the league will have any leverage with owners, and lawsuits by state and local governments to stop such a move gain stature when the league enters the picture of one city trying to lure another city's team away. If Baltimore offers Art Modell a bribe to move the original Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore that's not very nice, but legal. If the NFL had helped Baltimore with money or expertise, it's "restraint of trade", and the NFL then faces its old bugaboo, anti-trust action.