When Do You Approve of Teams Moving?

[tigermaskxxxvii]

Pulling up stakes to move a professional sports team is seen as the worst thing an owner could do. Especially if they moved because they couldn't get their previous city to buy them a new stadium, and used the threat of moving as leverage to get said tax payer financed stadium. But are there instances in which you approve of teams moving? Well, other than when you're city/closest media market is the beneficiary of said team's move. That is an obvious example. But what other instances in which you approve of teams relocating?

[Session Moth is over]

Teams should NEVER move. It's what I despise most about American sport.

[bigalbass86 AKA Smokin Vokoun]

I think it depends.

Because there some places like say most teams in Florida where pro sports are generally not followed as hard as college sports. I mean the Tampa Bay Rays were good for years and no one came to games unless they were in the playoffs. Florida is really a blase pro sports state compared to most of the country. So usually if a team doesn't have that much support, then I guess moving is okay.

But it's devastating to watch when a team moves from a place where historically they've had great support and were major parts of the community. Watch documentaries on the Brooklyn Dodgers, and when you get to the part where they move to Los Angeles and it is incredibly sad. Same with the old Cleveland Browns moving to Baltimore. The Baltimore Colts moving to Indianapolis. The Seattle Supersonics moving to Oklahoma City, it seems devastating to the city that loses that team.

So it depends on the city.

[Hit Girl]

In Britain, never.

[Deleted]

When the team is bleeding the league out of hundreds of millions of dollars dry effecting all franchises, is a horrible market for a team, been around for a while to be shown as a proven failure, and more deserving markets with passionate canvases are available

[Muskrat]

Oct 17, 2015 9:36:48 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

When the team is bleeding the league out of hundreds of millions of dollars dry effecting all franchises, is a horrible market for a team, been around for a while to be shown as a proven failure, and more deserving markets with passionate canvases are available

ie the Phoenix Arizona Coyotes

[Cyno]

I'd be ok with any team considering a move with no local support and garbage stadiums/arenas.

Or if the team's owners delivering an ultimatum by strongarming a city into paying 100% for a new stadium/arena by threatening to move if they don't. Studies have shown again and again that publicly-funded arenas and stadiums are huge money pits that never pay themselves back. So if a team tries to do that, let them move.

[fw91]

when they don't have a strong invested fanbase in their current city. Like the Atlanta Thrashers moving to Winnipeg was okay

[Lupin the Third]

It happens quite a bit in indoor/arena football. Usually they move to a different city if the current one isn't reciprocating the appreciation for the team, or the team folds all together. There are only a few handful that have started in one city, and have stayed there: the Sioux Falls Storm, the Sioux City Bandits, the Omaha Beef, the Green Bay Blizzard, the Tri-Cities Fever, and the Spokane Shock, to name a few.

[Mayonnaise]

Oct 17, 2015 10:44:02 GMT -5 Cyno said:

I'd be ok with any team considering a move with no local support and garbage stadiums/arenas.

Or if the team's owners delivering an ultimatum by strongarming a city into paying 100% for a new stadium/arena by threatening to move if they don't. Studies have shown again and again that publicly-funded arenas and stadiums are huge money pits that never pay themselves back. So if a team tries to do that, let them move.

This is it for me. To look at two examples:

Oakland Raiders: They have the fan support no doubt but the city seems to have no problems with them playing in a literal shithole. They have no support from the city (not that I am saying the city should pay 100% or even close to it) in getting a building that doesn't flood when someone flushes.

St. Louis Rams: There is no reason for them to be leaving or threatening to. They have amazing fan support and a building that, while not top of the line, is a great one. This is an example of greedy ownership seeing dollar signs in LA and being dicks.

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

Oct 17, 2015 15:17:29 GMT -5 Mayonnaise said:

Oct 17, 2015 10:44:02 GMT -5 Cyno said:

I'd be ok with any team considering a move with no local support and garbage stadiums/arenas.

Or if the team's owners delivering an ultimatum by strongarming a city into paying 100% for a new stadium/arena by threatening to move if they don't. Studies have shown again and again that publicly-funded arenas and stadiums are huge money pits that never pay themselves back. So if a team tries to do that, let them move.

This is it for me. To look at two examples:

Oakland Raiders: They have the fan support no doubt but the city seems to have no problems with them playing in a literal shithole. They have no support from the city (not that I am saying the city should pay 100% or even close to it) in getting a building that doesn't flood when someone flushes.

St. Louis Rams: There is no reason for them to be leaving or threatening to. They have amazing fan support and a building that, while not top of the line, is a great one. This is an example of greedy ownership seeing dollar signs in LA and being dicks.

I agree about the Rams. Now I know a bunch of original LA fans will argue it and fine. The fact is St. Louis doesn't deserve the treatment they have gotten. The fact Silent Stan gives no shit about the team being here is wrong. Attendance dropped this year because St. Louis fans don't want to put Money is Stan's pockets. Why should we when he doesn't even speak to local media and never has. At less with the Cardinals and the Blues we know who the owner is and they are not afraid to be in the local public.

I do think it is wrong for any team and the NFL is the worst with doing this. Making the City spend Millions on a stadium and not put any money in it. Is showing loyalty to the City who for years spend tons of money to buy a ticket to watch that team play and you think they want to repay a little because it not like most NFL owners couldn't afford it. The fact Stan himself wants to build a stadium on his own in another City and just blows off St. Louis who clearly wants the team to stay and even as a design for it and a name for it. Yet nope nothing from him and a response. Honestly the NFL as a league needs to do something about the fact at St. Louis is getting crapped on. Even if there are 12 worst markets who do have a NFL team.

[lemonyellowson]

First time I remember this happening was when the Charlotte Hornets stopped being in Charlotte. Still not 100% sure what the reason was and are they the Pelicans or something now? Anyway, they were my 2nd team in nba jam so I was aware somewhat of them. Essentially though, it sickens me that sports teams are considered franchises in the states, the Browns ain't no McDonald's.

[Danimal]

The worst was the Browns leaving Cleveland to become the Baltimore Ravens. Yes they eventually got another Browns but they've been horrible

[Deleted]

The Boston Braves moving story is in Bill Veeck's book. It's hysterical and sad at the same time.

Bill wanted the territorial rights to Milwaukee (to move his St. Louis Browns) and offered Lou Perini $750,000 for it, plus the rights to Toledo.

Lou cried to baseball, saying he's being forced to move because of Bill's strong-arm tactics.

"Will somebody explain to him what I'm doing besides offering him a lot of money?" Bill said. "If he wants to move, why doesn't he? If he doesn't, then what's all the arguing about?"

[pegasuswarrior]

Oct 17, 2015 11:28:41 GMT -5 fw91 said:

when they don't have a strong invested fanbase in their current city. Like the Atlanta Thrashers moving to Winnipeg was okay

Yes. Was all for this. But only because they took it way from Winnipeg to begin with. So maybe I'm only ok with it because I wasn't ok with it.

[Reflecto]

When the current city isn't supporting the team- if they're struggling to fill up the arena as it is until rumors of the team relocating comes out, don't start crying "Save our Team!" now that you could lose them.

If the team is succeeding, but owners strongarm the city for a new stadium or arena [especially if the stadium's relatively new in the first place, that isn't a "move the team somewhere that will build that arena", but a "have the city use eminent domain to seize ownership of the team" (it didn't work when Baltimore tried doing it when the Colts left town, but that'd be a far more likely option for a city being strongarmed.)

...as far as the non-business move, my personal thought for a franchise relocation: A franchise can relocate wherever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want...UNTIL you've won a World Championship. Once you win the big one (the NBA Title, the Stanley Cup, the Super Bowl, or the World Series) in that city, the franchise is officially a core part of the town and you're there forever. They won't give you a new stadium? Well, Wrigley Field and Fenway Park are considered cathedrals of the game...one day your decrepit stadium will be too. The city's in decline? Green Bay is still considered Titletown, even if it's a two-bit town you're still there.

[Cyno]

The Green Bay Packers are a very unique case that will likely never be replicated again in major professional sports. In that the team is actually publicly owned by the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin and every citizen of the city is considered a shareholder. The team won't ever move unless it's sold to a private owner. And with how much Green Bay loves its Packers, the only way that happens is if the city collapses into a bloody orgy of anarchy.

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2015 2:25:44 GMT -5 Reflecto said:

When the current city isn't supporting the team- if they're struggling to fill up the arena as it is until rumors of the team relocating comes out, don't start crying "Save our Team!" now that you could lose them.

If the team is succeeding, but owners strongarm the city for a new stadium or arena [especially if the stadium's relatively new in the first place, that isn't a "move the team somewhere that will build that arena", but a "have the city use eminent domain to seize ownership of the team" (it didn't work when Baltimore tried doing it when the Colts left town, but that'd be a far more likely option for a city being strongarmed.)

...as far as the non-business move, my personal thought for a franchise relocation: A franchise can relocate wherever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want...UNTIL you've won a World Championship. Once you win the big one (the NBA Title, the Stanley Cup, the Super Bowl, or the World Series) in that city, the franchise is officially a core part of the town and you're there forever. They won't give you a new stadium? Well, Wrigley Field and Fenway Park are considered cathedrals of the game...one day your decrepit stadium will be too. The city's in decline? Green Bay is still considered Titletown, even if it's a two-bit town you're still there.

Yeah but they got renovations over the years. Then you look at the New York Islanders, who have one of the most memorable dynasties in history. The Nassau Coliseum was vastly outdated and was in dire need of a facelift, but the locals wouldn't approve of any renovations to get the area up-to-date. Even when the owner stated that a no-vote would force the team to relocate, the county still said no. The following year they announced that they were moving to Brooklyn, which is where they play today.

The move was the right call because frankly, Nassau didn't care for the team.

[Reflecto]

Oct 18, 2015 11:03:24 GMT -5 @vyse said:

Yeah but they got renovations over the years. Then you look at the New York Islanders, who have one of the most memorable dynasties in history. The Nassau Coliseum was vastly outdated and was in dire need of a facelift, but the locals wouldn't approve of any renovations to get the area up-to-date. Even when the owner stated that a no-vote would force the team to relocate, the county still said no. The following year they announced that they were moving to Brooklyn, which is where they play today.

The move was the right call because frankly, Nassau didn't care for the team.

Even then, though, the move of the Islanders to Brooklyn is one of those gray areas, simply because it's the "New York" Islanders. Even if they were really Long Island's team, the only place they were referred to as "Long Island" was in NHLPA '93. As such, moving from Long Island to Brooklyn and still calling themselves the "New York Islanders" isn't 'really' a move, when it comes down to it- much like if a team builds a new stadium in a suburb of the city for the room to build a stadium, they didn't really MOVE to that city.

Oct 18, 2015 10:56:47 GMT -5 Cyno said:

The Green Bay Packers are a very unique case that will likely never be replicated again in major professional sports. In that the team is actually publicly owned by the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin and every citizen of the city is considered a shareholder. The team won't ever move unless it's sold to a private owner. And with how much Green Bay loves its Packers, the only way that happens is if the city collapses into a bloody orgy of anarchy.

But both of those instances are kind of unique cases- the Packers will never be replicated again (and the NFL has a rule banning public ownership of a pro team)...but the situation where the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis in the dead of night will also never be replicated again, given the requirement to get the rest of the owners to approve of a move beforehand meaning a team can't move independently with any semblance of immediacy either. With those things, it's more likely to assume "the relocation process takes enough time that some city is able to use eminent domain to seize a pro team before that happens.

[tigermaskxxxvii]

Oct 18, 2015 10:56:47 GMT -5 Cyno said:

The Green Bay Packers are a very unique case that will likely never be replicated again in major professional sports. In that the team is actually publicly owned by the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin and every citizen of the city is considered a shareholder. The team won't ever move unless it's sold to a private owner. And with how much Green Bay loves its Packers, the only way that happens is if the city collapses into a bloody orgy of anarchy.

I always thought it'd be funny if whenever the owners voted on a team relocating, if Green Bay* always voted in favor of teams moving. Just because they know their team is not going anywhere!

* How does Green Bay vote on things among owners when they are community owned? Share holders meeting? Or an executive board of some kind to vote on how they're gonna vote as a franchise