Two more reasons that LA is nothing more than the NFL's "Boogeyman"...

[BLeonard]

http://www.law.villanova.edu/sportslaw/?p=1627



In the forty-nine states not named California, workers’ compensation claims are centered on specific injuries, and a set amount of money is usually awarded or agreed to in a settlement. California, however, allows for “cumulative trauma” claims. Cumulative trauma encompasses all wear-and-tear injuries suffered from constant overuse on the job. Claims in the other states have been mostly manageable, because NFL clubs and their insurers have a fairly accurate idea of their average annual liability based on the most common and obvious specific injuries suffered by players.

With cumulative trauma cases, however, the potential liability is limitless, subject to the whim of California judges. Retired player benefits have already been calculated at more than $1 million per year. Further, this applies to any player who has ever played for a team based in California, regardless of whether the player was employed elsewhere before retiring. With ever-increasing health costs and the fact that benefits extend to the full life expectancy of the player, the potential liability of a team based in California is enormous.




Therefore, any team that voluntarily relocates into California must be willing to bear the severe workers’ compensation financial burden that is guaranteed to result.

In addition to the added workers’ compensation liability, any owner considering relocation into California must also bear in mind the state’s newly passed Proposition 30, which raises the state income tax rate on individuals earning more than $1 million from 10.3% to 13.3%, the highest rate in the country.

In order for such a move to be financially prudent, the relocating club must conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether its profits will increase to such an extent as to cover all liability incurred by its increased workers’ compensation exposure and tax hike. In doing so, the club must not be short-sighted; it must be confident that once the shimmer of a new team in town fades, the club can maintain consistent profits for decades to come, despite the inevitable ebbs and flows of fan support and the team’s on-field performance. It must also remember that with every player it signs to a California contract comes the potential for a lifetime of medical coverage liability.




What remains to be seen is how the league office will react when only one team applies for relocation to Los Angeles. The commissioner’s June memo makes it clear that the NFL wants two teams in the City of Angels, and it will be very interesting to see whether a single club is permitted to move there and inhabit Farmer’s Field without a co-tenant.

Due to the financial risks posed by a current NFL team relocating to Los Angeles, it appears unlikely that any franchise will make the move. As stated above, it appears that the most feasible means of NFL entry into the Los Angeles market is a league expansion to thirty-four teams. While a number of current clubs may prefer Los Angeles to their current homes, the logistics of relocation appear to render the move entirely inadvisable at this time.


-Bill

[swiper]

The argument would make sense, perhaps, if there were no other current teams managing there. But if other teams can manage it, so could a Los Angeles team. This is not why LA does not have a team.

[don137]

I think the NFL and its owners love having no team in LA. It has been proven already that there is not a huge NFL following in LA thus causing teams to move. However, being such a large city it appears to be an attractive landing spot for an NFL team to relocate.
Thus the threat of moving to LA has generated hundreds of millions if not billions of tax dollars to be used on new stadiums or renovations across the NFl. Owners have used the threat to move the team to LA countless times and politicians everywhere cave giving owners tax dollars so they do not have to spend their own dollars on stadium or get tax relief such as low leases to locally owned stadium or lower their property taxes on owner owned stadiums. This raises profits and raises the value of the team.

IMO, the NFL does not want a team in LA because the owners would not be able to use the threat of relocating to LA thus not able to swindle as much from politicians thus having to use more of their money for new stadiums, renovation, have a higher lease and/or higher property taxes.

[jimmifli]

There isn't much room to improve TV ratings except for moving a team to LA, they cover almost all of the top 50 American TV markets. It's their largest source of revenue, they'll want a team there by the time the new TV contract is up.

It's probably the only way for them to keep expanding TV revenue.

[Historian]

Even if they get a team, they will probably get some sort of exemption from these laws.

Why? Because It's the NFL.

[OpIv37]

It all comes down to this: will an NFL team in LA make more money- even with these potential lawsuits- than they will in their current city?

If the other team is Dallas, well, absolutely not. If the other team is Jacksonville, well, maybe.

The NFL will have some really smart people crunch the numbers and come up with an answer.

Oh, and San Fran went to the Super Bowl this year. So, the taxes and potential lawsuits don't seem to be hurting the teams that are there now.

[BLeonard]

The argument would make sense, perhaps, if there were no other current teams managing there. But if other teams can manage it, so could a Los Angeles team. This is not why LA does not have a team.

The point behind the article is, any current team moving to LA would have to start playing by California laws... Something that they don't have to do in their current locales.

Considering all of the other costs associated with moving a team (relocation fee, buying out stadium lease, etc, etc) it's yet another cost that any owner would have to consider... A permanent cost, at that.

Anyone with half a brain also knows how fickle the LA fans can be... Currently, any NFL owner would be taking a big risk financially, at best, if they were to decide to try and move to LA... Since the NFL owners are businessmen, they're likley not going to take that risk, when they know they have a much more "sure thing" by staying in their current location.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

Oh, and San Fran went to the Super Bowl this year. So, the taxes and potential lawsuits don't seem to be hurting the teams that are there now.

Again, San Francisco has had to follow California laws since their inception... It's nothing new to them... To any team moving to California from another state, it would be something new...

-Bill

[OpIv37]

Again, San Francisco has had to follow California laws since their inception... It's nothing new to them... To any team moving to California from another state, it would be something new...

-Bill
But SF proves that NFL teams can still be successful in terms of both profits and winning under California law. It's a hurdle, but it's not an insurmountable one.

[BLeonard]

But SF proves that NFL teams can still be successful in terms of both profits and winning under California law. It's a hurdle, but it's not an insurmountable one.

San Francisco doesn't have the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings and Galaxy to compete with, either... Not to mention USC and UCLA.

You think a LA resident is gonna spend money to see a 2-7 NFL team, when the Lakers are starting their season...?

I'm not saying it can't be done... I'm saying, chances are, no current owner in their right mind is gonna take the risk, when they know they have a guaranteed profit by staying where they are.

-Bill

[OpIv37]

You think Jacksonville has a guaranteed profit?

[BLeonard]

You think Jacksonville has a guaranteed profit?

Guaranteed? Well, nothing is guaranteed... But, I do think that they have about as close to a guarnateed profit as is possible... Reason: Their lease is tied to it.

http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2011-11-30/story/jaguars-lease-makes-it-costly-leave-jacksonville-2030



If the Jacksonville Jaguars’ prospective new owner wants to move the team to a new city before 2030, he’d have to pay the city millions of dollars to get out of its lease for EverBank Field.

The team could avoid paying a lot of those penalties — which could total more than $100 million — if it lost money one year and was below the NFL’s revenue average the following two years.


So, since it's probably a safe bet that they fall under the league average revenue on a regular basis, that would mean, they essentially only need one season of losing money.

Now, former owner Wayne Weaver claimed that the team did lose money in two years between 2002 and 2004... So, that begs the question... Why didn't he buy out the lease and move to LA (or elsewhere) then?

My only logical guess: It would have cost him more, with no guarantee of being able to recoup that money in the new city.

Either that, or, in order to prove that they lost money, they would have had to open their books... Something that the NFL and it's teams really don't like doing.

In short, it wasn't worth the risk and cost to him to move, even if he did lose money in some years.

-Bill

[Mr. Pink]

San Francisco doesn't have the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings and Galaxy to compete with, either... Not to mention USC and UCLA.

You think a LA resident is gonna spend money to see a 2-7 NFL team, when the Lakers are starting their season...?

I'm not saying it can't be done... I'm saying, chances are, no current owner in their right mind is gonna take the risk, when they know they have a guaranteed profit by staying where they are.

-Bill

They just have the Giants, A's, Warriors, Raiders and Stanford and Cal.

That doesn't even take into account the San Jose teams. San Jose is about 45 minutes away.

[BLeonard]

They just have the Giants, A's, Warriors, Raiders and Stanford and Cal.

That doesn't even take into account the San Jose teams. San Jose is about 45 minutes away.

Average MLB attendances last year:

SF: 41,696
LAD: 41,040
LAA: 37,800
OAK: 20,729

Advantage: LA

Average NBA Attendances last year:

GS: 19,373
LAC: 19,226
LAL: 18,997

Advantage: LA

Average NCAAF Attendances:

USC: 87,945
UCLA: 68,482
Stanford: 43,344
Cal: 55,876

Advantage: LA

Average NHL Attendances:

LA Kings: 18,178
San Jose: 17,561

Advantage: LA... That's not even counting the Anaheim Ducks, who are even closer to LA than San Jose is to San Francisco.

The fan support is much higher in LA in every case, but, the problem is, they only show if the team is winning. Good luck finding an NFL owner of a winning team that is willing to risk moving to LA.

-Bill

[Night Train]

I'm still amazed that after all these years, we're still talking about a team "possibly" moving to LA. It's almost like the boy who cried wolf, then everyone stopped paying attention. Still seems like years away, if at all.

[BLeonard]

I'm still amazed that after all these years, we're still talking about a team "possibly" moving to LA. It's almost like the boy who cried wolf, then everyone stopped paying attention. Still seems like years away, if at all.

That's why I have believed for quite a while now that the threat of moving to LA is nothing more than the NFL's version of a boogeyman. Much like the infamous "Weapons of Mass Destrcution" in Iraq... Little more than a ploy to put fear out there, in order for the fear-mongerers to get what they want. In this case, the fear-mongerers are the NFL and the team owners wanting public funds for their football stadiums.

After reading this article, I believe the "boogeyman" theory even more than I did before. I didn't know about the Worker's comp laws in CA, nor did I know that the income tax rate goes from 10.3% to 13.3% on anyone making over a million a year... But, I'd be willing to bet that the NFL and the team owners knew of both of them, which is probably a big part of the reason why no owner has moved back to LA...

After all, it certainly didn't take the Colts, Cardinals, Rams, Raiders, Ravens and Oilers long at all to move. Those moves were all pretty much done in one offseason. If LA is such a great place to have a football team, why isn't anyone wanting to go?

-Bill

[Johnny Bugmenot]

I'm still amazed that after all these years, we're still talking about a team "possibly" moving to LA. It's almost like the boy who cried wolf, then everyone stopped paying attention. Still seems like years away, if at all.
In all fairness, there are only a couple of teams for which moving to Los Angeles actually made a lick of sense. Those were Buffalo and Oakland. Obviously, Buffalo is now off the table. (I still don't understand why.)

Oakland's lease expires after this year, and their stadium is clearly no longer NFL caliber. As we saw with the Oilers, if you have to drag out a departure by waiting out a lease, it is generally quite harmful to the attendance in the interim, and that is something they don't want to risk in most cases. The other thing with an Oakland-to-LA move is that it alleviates the burden on the NFL's schedulers.

The problem is that the two stadium proposers in LA have set their demands too high to be considered. They want ownership stakes, and the owners don't want to give that up. If they were to soften their demands, they might get a tenant.

The only reason the NFL has said it wants two teams there is to keep the threat alive if one still moves. The record shows the market cannot support two teams at once. It can, however, support one.

[better days]

There isn't much room to improve TV ratings except for moving a team to LA, they cover almost all of the top 50 American TV markets. It's their largest source of revenue, they'll want a team there by the time the new TV contract is up.

It's probably the only way for them to keep expanding TV revenue.

So you think people in LA do not watch the NFL on TV NOW? I doubt the numbers would be much greater if LA had a team.

[sukie]

Meh, The high profile celebrity types and uber wealthy don't want to tailgate with drunken regulars. The luxury box is cool but it gets old. They need to get in and get out not hang around for 3 plus hours. Luxury boxes pose another problem for the LA elite.... No photo ops like a sideline floor seat at a Lakers game.

The lure of football fails to mesmerize the uber elite and celebrities that have more important things to do like eat over priced fusion sushi and shoes.

[OpIv37]

the LA "boogeyman" effect is complete nonsense.

There are a good portion of NFL teams that are NEVER moving, ever. Dallas, Washington, NYG, NE, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, San Fransisco, Chicago, Denver, Green Bay, most likely Detroit, probably NYJ.

Those teams gain NOTHING from LA being an idle threat. In fact, most of those teams are contributors to revenue sharing. They'd be better off if a revenue-sharing recipient like Minnesota, Buffalo, Jacksonville or Arizona moved to LA, made more money, and stopped mooching off the NFL's welfare system. Sorry, but the Jones' and Snyders and Maras and Rooneys and Krafts of the league aren't going to turn down revenue so Ralph Wilson can have a slightly better bargaining position once every 10 years when he has to renegotiate his lease agreement with the county. That's stupid.

[DynaPaul]

Just give them an expansion team. The NFL is due to add a couple more teams to the mix.

[OpIv37]

Just give them an expansion team. The NFL is due to add a couple more teams to the mix.

I disagree. How can you justify expansion when Jacksonville can't even put asses in seats?

More importantly, the divisions are even right now. Any expansion would require total realignment and would result in uneven divisions, which would also require altering the playoff structure.

[DynaPaul]

I disagree. How can you justify expansion when Jacksonville can't even put asses in seats?

More importantly, the divisions are even right now. Any expansion would require total realignment and would result in uneven divisions, which would also require altering the playoff structure.

That's true op, but this could give them an opportunity to expand into the European and Canadian market. They'd sell way more tickets there than in LA.

[swiper]

The point behind the article is, any current team moving to LA would have to start playing by California laws... Something that they don't have to do in their current locales.

Considering all of the other costs associated with moving a team (relocation fee, buying out stadium lease, etc, etc) it's yet another cost that any owner would have to consider... A permanent cost, at that.

Anyone with half a brain also knows how fickle the LA fans can be... Currently, any NFL owner would be taking a big risk financially, at best, if they were to decide to try and move to LA... Since the NFL owners are businessmen, they're likley not going to take that risk, when they know they have a much more "sure thing" by staying in their current location.

-Bill

I understand the point of the article. Thanks.

[OpIv37]

That's true op, but this could give them an opportunity to expand into the European and Canadian market. They'd sell way more tickets there than in LA.

Canada is a possibility. I still think Europe is a pipe dream because of the travel distance and time, plus the time zone difference.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

That's true op, but this could give them an opportunity to expand into the European and Canadian market. They'd sell way more tickets there than in LA.

Based on what exactly? The only market even half as large as LA is Toronto, and Toronto wasn't averaging 24k in its own building last year (http://stats.cfldb.ca/league/cfl/2012/attendance/)

[PromoTheRobot]

And yet California has 3 other NFL teams.

PTR

[better days]

And yet California has 3 other NFL teams.

PTR

ONE LESS than they used to have.

[Mike]

San Francisco doesn't have the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings and Galaxy to compete with, either... Not to mention USC and UCLA.

You think a LA resident is gonna spend money to see a 2-7 NFL team, when the Lakers are starting their season...?

I'm not saying it can't be done... I'm saying, chances are, no current owner in their right mind is gonna take the risk, when they know they have a guaranteed profit by staying where they are.

-Bill

The Bay Area has its share of teams:
NFL: 49ers & Raiders
MLB: Giants & Athletics
NBA: Golden State Warriors
NHL: Sharks
College: Standford, Etc...

That's 2 NFL teams and 6 major league teams! None of them have a major issue wit CA laws.

Moving a team to LA is a no brainer! Simply by moving a team like Jacksonville to LA will increase the value of the team from $760M to over 1.2B! It would not surprise me if it doubled the value of a team.

Further, this would be executed when a current lease is up. LA area is about 20M in population with a very healthy wealthy class. For court side seats to a regular season Lakers games these customers are paying upwards of 10k per seat! Imagine what a luxury box would go for in LA? What about a playoff game or even a SB? Think about the potential!

For an LA NFL team, I would expect them to instantly rival the top 5 in revenues by an NFL team and with enough time (10 years) rival the top 3 markets: Dallas, Washington, & Boston. With such an upside and virtually no downside (eg Detriot is losing $) it's a no brainer. I wish I could buy a team & move them to LA.

[better days]

The Bay Area has its share of teams:
NFL: 49ers & Raiders
MLB: Giants & Athletics
NBA: Golden State Warriors
NHL: Sharks
College: Standford, Etc...

That's 2 NFL teams and 6 major league teams! None of them have a major issue wit CA laws.

Moving a team to LA is a no brainer! Simply by moving a team like Jacksonville to LA will increase the value of the team from $760M to over 1.2B! It would not surprise me if it doubled the value of a team.

Further, this would be executed when a current lease is up. LA area is about 20M in population with a very healthy wealthy class. For court side seats to a regular season Lakers games these customers are paying upwards of 10k per seat! Imagine what a luxury box would go for in LA? What about a playoff game or even a SB? Think about the potential!

For an LA NFL team, I would expect them to instantly rival the top 5 in revenues by an NFL team and with enough time (10 years) rival the top 3 markets: Dallas, Washington, & Boston. With such an upside and virtually no downside (eg Detriot is losing $) it's a no brainer. I wish I could buy a team & move them to LA.

Well, after you PAID the money to buy the team & the relocation costs, WHERE would you play in LA? In the Streets?

[Johnny Bugmenot]

Well, after you PAID the money to buy the team & the relocation costs, WHERE would you play in LA? In the Streets? In the interim, the Coliseum, Rose Bowl, Anaheim Stadium or Dodger Stadium are all capable of the task.

In the long-term, you cut a deal with Roski or Lieweke.

The stadium issue is the least of the problems.

[better days]

In the interim, the Coliseum, Rose Bowl, Anaheim Stadium or Dodger Stadium are all capable of the task.

In the long-term, you cut a deal with Roski or Lieweke.

The stadium issue is the least of the problems.

WRONG. The Stadium is the BIG problem.