[Coededgeme]

LA could support two teams easily. If one team moved there, the NFL would still have that leverage.

Agreed, but there is no reason to. NFL revenue is national tv revenue. Local revenue is not that big of a deal for the league(for the individual team of course that is different) The ability to exploit the local cities is ultimately more profitable for the teams.

[FateHostera]

The NFL doesn't really want a team in LA. It's a much more lucrative bargaining chip to have the city available for other teams to use as leverage against their home cities.

LA could support two teams easily. If one team moved there, the NFL would still have that leverage.

[yxn2dC07]

LA could support two teams easily. If one team moved there, the NFL would still have that leverage.

Plus there is always Mexico City.

[Coededgeme]

The NFL doesn't really want a team in LA. It's a much more lucrative bargaining chip to have the city available for other teams to use as leverage against their home cities.

[VYholden]

Still think it will be Jacksonville at the end of the day.

[NeroASERCH]

The events of this week did provide us all one more answer about the future of the NFL in Los Angeles.

Simply, it doesn't involve the Vikings.

As for the rest of it, the league is no closer to returning to the nation's second-largest market. And the truth is, there's a good chance the NFL is still a long way from returning to a city it vacated -- twice over -- 17 years ago.

Where's the smart money on when the league will put a club there? (Not any time soon)

San Diego Chargers
San Diego has a three-month escape clause at the beginning of each calendar year at this point in its lease, and could leave next year by paying just $22 million in outstanding bonds. Still, there's a feeling that the Spanos family doesn't want to leave, the NFL doesn't want to lose the San Diego market and a reasonable stadium deal will keep the Bolts there.

They have the easiest out, and the shortest, most painless path, but they've already had the chance to go, and haven't. And they might not be the NFL's ideal answer to the L.A. question. Plus, there's the fact that -- and this effects the Raiders, too -- the California government won't be overly enthusiastic to help a stadium plan if it's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

St. Louis Rams
The team has submitted a proposal to renovate the Edward Jones Dome to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission. If it's accepted, the team's lease extends through 2025. If it's rejected, an arbitrator will work out a compromise plan, and the city accepting that one in December would also extend the lease to '25. If the city turns that one down, an out could be enacted in the Rams' lease in January 2015, pending some litigation.

What we know is owner Stan Kroenke has deep pockets and Los Angeles ties. The ball, for now, is in St. Louis' court to get the dome into the lease-prescribed "top 25 percent" of venues in the league.

Oakland Raiders
The Raiders' lease is up after 2013. Sharing the 49ers' Santa Clara digs, set to open in 2014, is an option. A better one for the team would be gutting the Coliseum, which is located on a plot of land in Oakland the team feels is ideal. But the central question with the latter plan -- and really the former one, too -- is whether or not the Bay Area can support two teams, from a corporate standpoint, from a suite-selling standpoint, and -- if they were to play in separate venues long term -- from a naming-rights standpoint.

While some speculation exists that estate taxes will eventually force Mark Davis to sell the team, my understanding is that a plan is in place for the club to remain in the family. But that doesn't mean the family won't eventually see greener pastures in its old area code if its current region simply doesn't have room for two clubs to thrive financially.

Jacksonville Jaguars
The bottom line here is that Jacksonville simply hasn't grown the way the NFL envisioned when it awarded the city a franchise in 1995. But the club has been creative in trying to make its challenging conditions work. And with new ownership, the Jags probably aren't going anywhere for a while. One reason is the team's lease, which runs through 2030.

There is an out, but a tough one to enact. The Jaguars would have to prove they lost money three years in a row -- not an easy feat now, and one that might be tougher when the new TV deals kick in -- and then pay a significant fee on top of that. Also, Wayne Weaver put additional penalties for moving the team into his deal to sell the club to Shahid Khan, making it even more costly to do so. For now, Khan seems committed to making it work in Jacksonville. And really, for the time being, he doesn't have a choice.

Buffalo Bills
Owner Ralph Wilson, who is in his 90s, has said the team will not be moved while he's still living. The club's succession plan is to put the team in a trust and sell to the highest bidder. Still, the club is negotiating a new lease and renovation plan, and its regionalization efforts have been largely successful. Thirty-two percent of the club's tickets sales have come from Rochester, an hour away, and Southern Ontario, and the league is interested in continuing to cultivate the Toronto market.

Down the line, could a new deep-pocketed owner swoop in, and whisk the team away? It's not impossible. But chances are, that won't happen any time soon.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...hings-imminent

[yxn2dC07]

The events of this week did provide us all one more answer about the future of the NFL in Los Angeles.

Simply, it doesn't involve the Vikings.

As for the rest of it, the league is no closer to returning to the nation's second-largest market. And the truth is, there's a good chance the NFL is still a long way from returning to a city it vacated -- twice over -- 17 years ago.

Where's the smart money on when the league will put a club there? (Not any time soon)

San Diego Chargers
San Diego has a three-month escape clause at the beginning of each calendar year at this point in its lease, and could leave next year by paying just $22 million in outstanding bonds. Still, there's a feeling that the Spanos family doesn't want to leave, the NFL doesn't want to lose the San Diego market and a reasonable stadium deal will keep the Bolts there.

They have the easiest out, and the shortest, most painless path, but they've already had the chance to go, and haven't. And they might not be the NFL's ideal answer to the L.A. question. Plus, there's the fact that -- and this effects the Raiders, too -- the California government won't be overly enthusiastic to help a stadium plan if it's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

St. Louis Rams
The team has submitted a proposal to renovate the Edward Jones Dome to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission. If it's accepted, the team's lease extends through 2025. If it's rejected, an arbitrator will work out a compromise plan, and the city accepting that one in December would also extend the lease to '25. If the city turns that one down, an out could be enacted in the Rams' lease in January 2015, pending some litigation.

What we know is owner Stan Kroenke has deep pockets and Los Angeles ties. The ball, for now, is in St. Louis' court to get the dome into the lease-prescribed "top 25 percent" of venues in the league.

Oakland Raiders
The Raiders' lease is up after 2013. Sharing the 49ers' Santa Clara digs, set to open in 2014, is an option. A better one for the team would be gutting the Coliseum, which is located on a plot of land in Oakland the team feels is ideal. But the central question with the latter plan -- and really the former one, too -- is whether or not the Bay Area can support two teams, from a corporate standpoint, from a suite-selling standpoint, and -- if they were to play in separate venues long term -- from a naming-rights standpoint.

While some speculation exists that estate taxes will eventually force Mark Davis to sell the team, my understanding is that a plan is in place for the club to remain in the family. But that doesn't mean the family won't eventually see greener pastures in its old area code if its current region simply doesn't have room for two clubs to thrive financially.

Jacksonville Jaguars
The bottom line here is that Jacksonville simply hasn't grown the way the NFL envisioned when it awarded the city a franchise in 1995. But the club has been creative in trying to make its challenging conditions work. And with new ownership, the Jags probably aren't going anywhere for a while. One reason is the team's lease, which runs through 2030.

There is an out, but a tough one to enact. The Jaguars would have to prove they lost money three years in a row -- not an easy feat now, and one that might be tougher when the new TV deals kick in -- and then pay a significant fee on top of that. Also, Wayne Weaver put additional penalties for moving the team into his deal to sell the club to Shahid Khan, making it even more costly to do so. For now, Khan seems committed to making it work in Jacksonville. And really, for the time being, he doesn't have a choice.

Buffalo Bills
Owner Ralph Wilson, who is in his 90s, has said the team will not be moved while he's still living. The club's succession plan is to put the team in a trust and sell to the highest bidder. Still, the club is negotiating a new lease and renovation plan, and its regionalization efforts have been largely successful. Thirty-two percent of the club's tickets sales have come from Rochester, an hour away, and Southern Ontario, and the league is interested in continuing to cultivate the Toronto market.

Down the line, could a new deep-pocketed owner swoop in, and whisk the team away? It's not impossible. But chances are, that won't happen any time soon.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...hings-imminent

Sounds like a Major League scenario waiting to happen.