NFL may tighten relocation window, limiting potential postseason distractions

Posted by Mike Florio on November 10, 2014, 11:02 AM EST
Getty Images

As the potential relocation of a franchise to Los Angeles looms, the league apparently will be taking steps to reduce the potential distraction arising from a team trying to move.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the NFL is considering shrinking the window for submitting relocation applications from January 1 through February 15 to February 2 through February 15.

Not February 1.  February 2.  Coincidentally (or not), the Super Bowl will be played on February 1.

It’s an obvious move to ensure that news of the Rams, Raiders, or Chargers relocating to L.A. won’t eclipse or undermine the postseason.  If a team moves, folks in the city to be abandoned will be upset.  Why have that dark cloud looming over the playoffs?

“It never made sense to me that the window to apply for relocation began right at the start of the playoffs,” former Raiders president Amy Trask told Kaplan.  “I understand why the league would want to take away the distraction of a relocation application, or applications, during arguably what is the most exciting part of the football season.”

Of course, there was no need to change the window is no one would be moving.  Now that relocation is becoming more likely, the changing of the window could be the clearest piece of evidence yet that a change of address is coming for at least one NFL team.

Permalink 42 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

42 responses to “NFL may tighten relocation window, limiting potential postseason distractions”

  2. I fail to understand why the chargers are continually mentioned in the LA discussion. Spanos has made it abundantly clear he wants to stay where he is and not only that, but is opposed to any team moving to LA because of it’s potential for infringing on his current market. It’s Oakland, St Louis or expansion. That’s it.

  3. Only the NFL lets talk of teams moving become national headlines. If a team wants to move, then do so.

    But then if the headlines weren’t made, Goodelll couldn’t threaten cities with the choice of new stadium-at tax payer costs-or no team.

  4. @iloveagoodnap Because he has to say that to keep people and leaders in San Diego interested in getting a deal done. At the end of the day he and Mark Davis are in the same boat. Ten+ yrs of trying to get stadium deals done in the cities they prefer to be in but local government hasn’t helped much if at all. Something has to give and if he can’t get a deal done in SD then LA isn’t to far away and is his best option after his personal preference. Not to mention he’s one of the NFL owners that has spoken with the mayor of Inglewood about potential relocation.

  5. I’ve been through this before when the Raiders left Oakland and now am stuck paying for the renovations to the stadium as a taxpaying homeowner (thanks Al!) when they moved BACK to Oakland. Now, as a resident of LA, I’d hate for another community to have their team ripped out from them just to give us a team in LA. That said, nor should the taxpayers be threatened and forced into building lavish palaces for these multi billionaires and the greedy NFL.

    I want an NFL team here in LA, but am not willing to give even one single cent of taxpayer money to multi billionaires of a billion dollar team in a league worth tens of billions of dollars. They can afford to build their own stadium.

  6. I’m sure that if a team wanted to announce a relocation to London on February 1st, Goodell would not only allow it but would also cancel the Super Bowl halftime show in order to devote time to promoting it.

  9. One or more teams may or may not move. Unless you live in the city losing or gaining a team it doesn’t make a difference.

    I’ll believe a team is moving when it is actually announced. The NFL has a big incentive to keep talking about the subject so taht ESPN, NBCSports, and others to keep running stories about possible NFL team moves to put pressure on localities with teams to put up money to subsidize new stadiums for those teams. Even saying that the application window for teams that want to move may shrink is a way to get ESPN, NBCSports and other sports news organizations to give more coverage to NFL teams moving.

  12. Moving to LA means a stadium. Without a stadium it will fail before it gets started. You’re going to tell me a city who has had 3 professional football teams in it’s history (none of whom are still there or exist anymore) is goingt o pony up the cash to build facilities for what amounts to another experiment?

    Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

  14. I’m sure a silly London move would get pushed to the front of the line no matter how good/bad the timing is.

  15. If the Raiders and Rams move to L.A, San Diego is going to be in quite the predicament. Spanos will wish he’d been more pragmatic when he’s out of options.

  16. It’s going to be SO SWEET to have an NFL team move to LA….and then leave 5yrs later. -__-

  17. MLS teams wouldn’t play on dirt infields, why should any franchise in a 10 billion dollar a year NFL do that ever again? Surely after nearly 30 years of broken promises, no one could blame the Raiders seeking a grass field where they could play NFL games.

  18. Wait a second……Move Raiders or Rams to LA thus effecting the revenue for Chargers in such a way that within two years they would be ripe for them to be convinced to move to London….

    …..I see through your trickery, Rog.

  19. iloveagoodnap says:

    I fail to understand why the chargers are continually mentioned in the LA discussion. Spanos has made it abundantly clear he wants to stay where he is and not only that, but is opposed to any team moving to LA because of it’s potential for infringing on his current market. It’s Oakland, St Louis or expansion. That’s it.

    We’re not his market. South Orange County, maybe, but that’s about as far as it goes. Most of us like the Chargers right where they are.

  20. Since an NFL team is not likely to be successful long term in LA, maybe this is the league’s plan to get their team for London.

    Move a team to LA and when it does poorly send it on its way to the UK.

  21. Go thunderdome. on them.

    Send both Oakland and StLouis to LA and whomever finishes the first season with the better record gets to move to London and the loser just gets to stay in LA.

  22. So eventually we’ll end up with the Los Angeles Jaguars, the Saint Louis Raiders, the Toronto Bills, the San Antonio Chargers, and the London Rams.

    Got it, Rog.

  23. San Diego is NOT losing the Chargers. I would challenge this site to show where Dean Spanos has ever stated that he is interested in relocating the team to LA. It’s a media driven premise. The team is actively working with the city of San Diego to keep the team in SD and get a new stadium. I hear progress is being made behind-the-scenes.

  24. There are a lot of folks that think it is wrong for taxpayers to foot any part of the bill for new football stadiums. Obviously, the idea that billionaires would need tax dollars to build their new stadiums doesn’t sit well with just about anybody.

    And that makes sense.

    But, it seems that most people forget how important a stadium can be to other businesses in the area of the stadium. Stadiums bring in a LOT of money. And that money does NOT necessarily go into the pockets of the team or the billionaires that run the NFL. Most of the money goes to surrounding businesses such as hotels, restaurants, stores, traditional tourist kind of stuff, etc.

    I think it would be wrong for taxpayers to dismiss these financial impacts. It is good for the taxpayer to have a stadium in town. So the taxpayer SHOULD be on the hook for part of it. But, then again, I also think that if you have directly paid taxes that went into the stadium, then you shouldn’t have to pay full price for tickets. Maybe a homeowners discount or something?

  26. The representative for adding a third Pennsylvania based franchise (in a location beginning with a “P”), was apparently unwilling to show his face at this time. “Talk to me at the end of the winter…”.

  27. After reviewing the application of the Punxsatawney Groundhogs, Commissioner Goodell expressed his reservations to the committee head.

    “Looks good on paper, Phil, but can we count on you to show up when the time comes?”.

  28. The state of MD spent more money trying to lure an NFL team back to Baltimore then it would have cost to build a new stadium for the Colts.

    It’s a business relationship, work together to keep the team’s in their city.

    The NFL should expand. Just go big with 8 additional teams bringing it to 40 teams , ten 4 team divisions.

  30. Phil’s argument for moving the Eagles or Steelers franchise from Philadelphia/Pittsburgh to Punxsatawney was simple and straighforward.

    “Have you been to those places lately? They are crime and smog ridden crapholes!”.

  31. For a league that says they want a team in LA they sure are taking a lot of steps to keep it from happening

  33. How about getting rid of the relocation fee??? If teams need money to operate and you take that money away from them what’s the point of the fee when being in LA boosts all the franchise values???

  34. One thing that people seem to forget when they say they don’t want any taxpayer money to build the stadium:

    If the owner builds it on his own dime, he controls all revenue and scheduling. The city then sees only indirect benefits from the venue, and they are subject to all the whims of the owner.

    In Indy, the stadium is run by the city. Both the team AND the city receive direct revenue from events there, and the city can land whatever tenants it wants.

  35. The Chargers and Rams will both move to LA to play in a shared privately financed stadium just like the Jets and Giants.

    Nothing is getting done in SD. Spanos knows the taxpayers aren’t going to give him the money or the land that he’s demanded.

    Farmers Field naming rights were $1 billion over 30 years for 2 teams, $700 mil for just 1 team. Add in 2 sets of PSLs and 2 sets of NFL loans and you’ve got a new stadium in LA.

  36. @renbutler

    That’s funny, It’s a fact that Indy actually lost money hosting the Super Bowl.

    There’s never any public profits in publicly funded stadiums.

  37. This is simple. Mark Davis is forced out and takes the cash, new owner moves Raiders to LA, Rams to LA too.

  39. The Rams back In Los Angeles is a no brainer. To the people of St. Louis, ONE WORD: KARMA!!! And the attendance, will be no problem. Trust and believe…….

  42. It’s an obvious move to ensure that news of the Rams, Raiders, or Chargers relocating to L.A. won’t eclipse or undermine the postseason.

    It’s already a distraction for these teams and fans…sounds like they just don’t want to do paper work during playoffs…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.