More Evidence the Jaguars Aren't Leaving

by silencecs on Jul 15, 2008 12:00 AM EDT in Jacksonville Jaguars News

Sam Farmer of the LA Times did an interview with 1010xl Monday on why the Jags won’t move to LA. 1010xl has the interview available for on-demand listening and I’ve linked to it below.

http://www.stationcaster.com/stations/wjxl/index.php?d=AM# Just click the play now button.

Here’s a compilation of Sam Farmer’s main points.

-San Diego has a new clause with the city where they can leave after January 2009 if no agreement is made on tax payer funded stadium improvements. They are the most likely candidate to move to LA, with St. Louis a close second. Sam notes that no team is likely to move there until the stadium issue is resolved.

-Sam senses apathy for the NFL in the LA marketplace, and notes they have lost two teams already.

-The Jaguars’ stadium deal requires the Jaguars to show three straight years of documented losses to avoid being sued by the city for breach of contract in an attempted move.

-Metropolous apparently made an offer far below the Jaguars’ current value, and would have taken over the team in 3 years. The breakdown is as follows: 30% the first year, 30% the second year and 40% the third year. A measly 750 million was all the supposed mogul could offer. Farmer speculates the reason the offer was so low was that the team would have to stay in Jacksonville even under new ownership, something Metropolous doesn’t want to do, but would for the right price. In other words, even if Weaver sold, the team would have to stay in Jacksonville. I’d imagine that isn’t to appealing to potential suitors, so finding the right successor is a key to Weaver selling. He wants to keep the team here and isn’t ready to release the reins quite yet.

-Metropolous is also on a short list of potential outright buyers for the St. Louis Rams. He has no intentions of being a minority owner; it is clear this guy wants a team of his own.

-LA, and the rest of California to boot, is so riddled with debt that paying for any part of a new stadium is not a possibility. The NFL would have to set a precedent and build a stadium without taxpayer support, and the NFL has no intention of going down that road. No stadium, no team.

-Collin

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

solid

Great news here. I think thr NFL should be careful in what they wish for. 2 franchises left LA, what makes them think another will stick?

by RockSteadyFreddy on Jul 15, 2008 10:38 AM EDT reply actions

The biggest reason the Raiders and Rams left

was because of stadium issues. Those stadium issues still exist today and that’s why the city has no team. LA would only get a team if the stadium issue was resolved and with a stadium the team would stick. Making a team stick isn’t the issue, it’s resolving the stadium issue to get the team in LA in the first place.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jul 15, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions

rye,
It is kind of a catch 22 with LA then. What comes first the stadium of the franchise?
A team won’t come to LA without a stadium, and a stadium won’t be built until a franchise commits.
As long as the Jags stay in Jax, I don’t care.

by RockSteadyFreddy on Jul 15, 2008 4:07 PM EDT reply actions

RockSteady
It doesn’t matter if a franchise is already committed, if a state of the art NFL ready stadium is built in LA, I gurantee you some team will call LA home within 5 years. However, I’ve begun to wonder if LA is really just a boogeyman now by the owners?

by Jonathan Loesche on Jul 15, 2008 6:03 PM EDT reply actions

i just don’t see the city of LA or some individual ponying up a couple hundred million to build a stadium without a 100% guarantee that someone will move there.
FS blue, good point about the boogeyman.

by RockSteadyFreddy on Jul 15, 2008 9:11 PM EDT reply actions

I have to say ditto on the “boogyman reference”. I worked in new orleans for 3 years and listened to Benson make the same threat of the Saints moving to LA if he did not get tax incentives for staying in the city. The city conceeded.

All in all I think it does come down to the stadium issue, but saying that, I believe the LA market can bear much more expensive seating and would receive higher media exposure generating the expected revenue an owner would be looking for.

I am only handicapped by distance from owning 4 season tickets and probably average the nation’s blue collar income.

To end this talk, I think prices have to increase or the covered seats have to sell. See you October 26!

by Jaghomer on Jul 17, 2008 11:25 AM EDT reply actions