Columbus would never IMO get a pro football team.  They have to put 110,000 people in the shoe on Saturdays, then 75,000 in a Stadium for pro on Sundays.  Would never happen.  Something would have to give. 

Just because I'm wondering: Are the only Major league teams to have left Ohio the Cleveland Browns and Cincinnati Royals (Kings)?

The "Browns" never technically left.  The players were transferred to a new NFL franchise.

 

The NFL Rams started in Cleveland and moved to LA in 1945

 

Cleveland also had a shot lived NHL team in the late 1970's called the Barons.  That franchise merged with the North Stars after two seasons

 

In the late 19th century, Cleveland had an MLB NL team called the Spiders.  They were a victim of NL contraction in 1899 after their owners transferred their star players to a St Louis club they also owned.

 

 

Naw, the NFL wouldn't work here. Columbus is not a football town as people think. It's an OSU town. There's not nearly the high school football madness that you see in Cincy or up north. If Columbus was as football-mad as people think, the streets would flow red with the blood of Bengals and Browns fans slitting each others' throats. Instead, there's all of a sudden a bunch of Steelers fans around (didn't see that when I was a kid), with fans of a smattering of other teams such as the Colts, Packers, Redskins, Raiders, Eagles and Jets. There's 5 other teams within a 200 mile radius. Mainly though, Columbus is a hobby and interest town. Tons of people race/mess with cars, hunt, play paintball, golf, have boats, do hobby store stuff like R/C cars/planes, model trains and slot cars. There's also lots of motorcyclists, gamers of all types, horse people etc. Other cities all have that stuff, but the degree to which they happen in and around Columbus is astounding. In almost all the things that I mentioned, Columbus has the largest support system for them in the state or in some cases the entire region.

 

In Cincy, it seemed like all that stuff took a back seat to the Reds (not just watching them, but thinking about them and their history) and, to a lesser degree, the Bengals. It's probably about the same in Cleveland.  Buckeye games are mostly on Saturdays when the weather is crappy.

I do feel Columbus and central Ohio could support a NFL team but really that's a moot point because in my opinion the only way Columbus could get a team is if the Bengals relocated.

 

Interesting on what grounds/research?

I guess the grounds I'm referring to are more hypothetical than anything else. I'm not saying that the bengals are actually going to relocate but I could see a time in the future where bengals fans become so disgruntled with the mike brown family that they would not be willing to pony up money for a new stadium or upgrades to paul brown. I find it hard to believe that the NFL would be interested in columbus with 5 nfl markets within a 3hr drive and 2 already in the 7th largest state. Thats why I feel that columbus could support a team in the short term and possibly the long term with success in central ohio's growing population base but it would make it much more fiscal sense and make it much more attractive to the NFL if they had only one competitior in ohio and a larger population base to draw from.  Certain conversations I have had with people in the know in the past have given me the impression that the brown family is extremely loyal to cincy and ohio. Relocation to columbus was supposedly an option that at least was brought up in passing prior to the bengals securing paul brown stadium as a way for the bengals to keep at least some fan base and stay in ohio. Again, the people I spoke with I feel are very credible but take that for whatever its worth.

LA seems to be the main target right now for the NFL as it probably should be. San Antonio has a NFL ready stadium currently sitting there and the NFL has really been pushing to make the game a international game so I feel if they think they can make toronto or mexico city work they will go for it. If they go to Europe I feel it would be with multiple teams.

Naw, the NFL wouldn't work here. Columbus is not a football town as people think. It's an OSU town. There's not nearly the high school football madness that you see in Cincy or up north. If Columbus was as football-mad as people think, the streets would flow red with the blood of Bengals and Browns fans slitting each others' throats. Instead, there's all of a sudden a bunch of Steelers fans around (didn't see that when I was a kid), with fans of a smattering of other teams such as the Colts, Packers, Redskins, Raiders, Eagles and Jets. There's 5 other teams within a 200 mile radius. Mainly though, Columbus is a hobby and interest town. Tons of people race/mess with cars, hunt, play paintball, golf, have boats, do hobby store stuff like R/C cars/planes, model trains and slot cars. There's also lots of motorcyclists, gamers of all types, horse people etc. Other cities all have that stuff, but the degree to which they happen in and around Columbus is astounding. In almost all the things that I mentioned, Columbus has the largest support system for them in the state or in some cases the entire region.

 

In Cincy, it seemed like all that stuff took a back seat to the Reds (not just watching them, but thinking about them and their history) and, to a lesser degree, the Bengals. It's probably about the same in Cleveland.  Buckeye games are mostly on Saturdays when the weather is crappy.

I do feel Columbus and central Ohio could support a NFL team but really that's a moot point because in my opinion the only way Columbus could get a team is if the Bengals relocated.

 

Interesting on what grounds/research?

I guess the grounds I'm referring to are more hypothetical than anything else. I'm not saying that the bengals are actually going to relocate but I could see a time in the future where bengals fans become so disgruntled with the mike brown family that they would not be willing to pony up money for a new stadium or upgrades to paul brown. I find it hard to believe that the NFL would be interested in columbus with 5 nfl markets within a 3hr drive and 2 already in the 7th largest state. Thats why I feel that columbus could support a team in the short term and possibly the long term with success in central ohio's growing population base but it would make it much more fiscal sense and make it much more attractive to the NFL if they had only one competitior in ohio and a larger population base to draw from.  Certain conversations I have had with people in the know in the past have given me the impression that the brown family is extremely loyal to cincy and ohio. Relocation to columbus was supposedly an option that at least was brought up in passing prior to the bengals securing paul brown stadium as a way for the bengals to keep at least some fan base and stay in ohio. Again, the people I spoke with I feel are very credible but take that for whatever its worth.

LA seems to be the main target right now for the NFL as it probably should be. San Antonio has a NFL ready stadium currently sitting there and the NFL has really been pushing to make the game a international game so I feel if they think they can make toronto or mexico city work they will go for it. If they go to Europe I feel it would be with multiple teams.

 

Population does not equal market or market share.

 

There are so many variables.

Naw, the NFL wouldn't work here. Columbus is not a football town as people think. It's an OSU town. There's not nearly the high school football madness that you see in Cincy or up north. If Columbus was as football-mad as people think, the streets would flow red with the blood of Bengals and Browns fans slitting each others' throats. Instead, there's all of a sudden a bunch of Steelers fans around (didn't see that when I was a kid), with fans of a smattering of other teams such as the Colts, Packers, Redskins, Raiders, Eagles and Jets. There's 5 other teams within a 200 mile radius. Mainly though, Columbus is a hobby and interest town. Tons of people race/mess with cars, hunt, play paintball, golf, have boats, do hobby store stuff like R/C cars/planes, model trains and slot cars. There's also lots of motorcyclists, gamers of all types, horse people etc. Other cities all have that stuff, but the degree to which they happen in and around Columbus is astounding. In almost all the things that I mentioned, Columbus has the largest support system for them in the state or in some cases the entire region.

 

In Cincy, it seemed like all that stuff took a back seat to the Reds (not just watching them, but thinking about them and their history) and, to a lesser degree, the Bengals. It's probably about the same in Cleveland.  Buckeye games are mostly on Saturdays when the weather is crappy.

I do feel Columbus and central Ohio could support a NFL team but really that's a moot point because in my opinion the only way Columbus could get a team is if the Bengals relocated.

 

Interesting on what grounds/research?

I guess the grounds I'm referring to are more hypothetical than anything else. I'm not saying that the bengals are actually going to relocate but I could see a time in the future where bengals fans become so disgruntled with the mike brown family that they would not be willing to pony up money for a new stadium or upgrades to paul brown. I find it hard to believe that the NFL would be interested in columbus with 5 nfl markets within a 3hr drive and 2 already in the 7th largest state. Thats why I feel that columbus could support a team in the short term and possibly the long term with success in central ohio's growing population base but it would make it much more fiscal sense and make it much more attractive to the NFL if they had only one competitior in ohio and a larger population base to draw from.  Certain conversations I have had with people in the know in the past have given me the impression that the brown family is extremely loyal to cincy and ohio. Relocation to columbus was supposedly an option that at least was brought up in passing prior to the bengals securing paul brown stadium as a way for the bengals to keep at least some fan base and stay in ohio. Again, the people I spoke with I feel are very credible but take that for whatever its worth.

LA seems to be the main target right now for the NFL as it probably should be. San Antonio has a NFL ready stadium currently sitting there and the NFL has really been pushing to make the game a international game so I feel if they think they can make toronto or mexico city work they will go for it. If they go to Europe I feel it would be with multiple teams.

 

Population does not equal market or market share.

 

There are so many variables.

I understand. There are possibly aspects of central ohio that may make it feasible for the NFL to place a team there without any sort of movement by the surrounding competitors. My thought is that there are much bigger fish that the NFL is currently looking at that make columbus more of an afterthought at least currently.

The "Browns" never technically left.  The players were transferred to a new NFL franchise.

 

The NFL Rams started in Cleveland and moved to LA in 1945

 

Cleveland also had a shot lived NHL team in the late 1970's called the Barons.  That franchise merged with the North Stars after two seasons

 

In the late 19th century, Cleveland had an MLB NL team called the Spiders.  They were a victim of NL contraction in 1899 after their owners transferred their star players to a St Louis club they also owned.

 

 

That's some deep Cleveland sports history there Hts!  Thanks.

The "Browns" never technically left.  The players were transferred to a new NFL franchise.

 

The NFL Rams started in Cleveland and moved to LA in 1945

 

Cleveland also had a shot lived NHL team in the late 1970's called the Barons.  That franchise merged with the North Stars after two seasons

 

In the late 19th century, Cleveland had an MLB NL team called the Spiders.  They were a victim of NL contraction in 1899 after their owners transferred their star players to a St Louis club they also owned.

 

 

That's some deep Cleveland sports history there Hts!  Thanks.

In the 70's there was a rival league to the NHL called the WHA in which the Cincinnati Stingers and the Cleveland Crusaders played. The crusaders moved to minnesota when the barons came to cleveland. The stingers where actually included in a merger plan with the NHL in 1977 in which the NHL rejected. The WHA then merged with the NHL in 1979. The stingers were left out and disbanded.

The "Browns" never technically left.  The players were transferred to a new NFL franchise.

 

Is this right?  I thought the team (i.e., the legal entity and franchise) did leave, but only the rights to the name stayed behind as a concession.  I could be wrong though.

We kept all the history too.  Its somewhat playing semantics and was definitely a unique situation, but "the Browns" never moved to Baltimore like the Colts moved to Indy, or the Cardinals moved to Zona.  The owner left and took all the player and management contracts with him, but the franchise itself stayed here.

The World League of American Football's (later NFL Europe) Ohio Glory played one season at the 'Shoe in 1992 and finished 1-9. I think they just dissolved. Kind of an asterisk, but a pro team nonetheless.

^^Emotionally it was different from the Colts, that's for sure, and that's what matters, agreed.  But you were asking for it by starting your post with "technically"...  [because technically, the franchise did move.] :)

 

Leaving the name behind is definitely the classy way to go for a moving team.  It's happened twice to the Washington Senators; one team moved and became the MN Twins in 1961 and then a replacement Senators moved and became the Rangers ten years later.  I think a lot of people were surprised that the Expos didn't reclaim the name once again to connect to the earlier teams, but I guess 30 years was too big a gap.

Again, this was about more than just leaving the name behind.  I guess it depends on how you define "franchise" in the context of professional sports.  In my opinion,"the Cleveland Browns" are the franchise, not any particular group of players or the owner or coach.  Think of it like this..... who holds the franchise record for most rushing yards in a game?  Is it Jamal Lewis and the 295 he put up after the team was moved to Baltimore..... or is it Jerome Harrison and the 285 he put up a few years back.  Along those lines, if Peyton Hillis stays healthy, he may challenge Jim Brown for the franchise record for rushing yards.  Apply those same circumstances to the Colts and Ravens, and the records don't apply.  Colts franchise records can come from the modern era in Indy or their time in Baltimore.  Ravens records started in the 90's.  And changing names is not the determining factor either, because the Titans are the same franchise that used to be in Houston.

The "Browns" never technically left.  The players were transferred to a new NFL franchise.

 

The NFL Rams started in Cleveland and moved to LA in 1945

 

Cleveland also had a shot lived NHL team in the late 1970's called the Barons.  That franchise merged with the North Stars after two seasons

 

In the late 19th century, Cleveland had an MLB NL team called the Spiders.  They were a victim of NL contraction in 1899 after their owners transferred their star players to a St Louis club they also owned.

 

 

That's some deep Cleveland sports history there Hts!  Thanks.

 

Pfffff any true Cleveland sports fans knows this stuff!  :-D

Again, this was about more than just leaving the name behind.  I guess it depends on how you define "franchise" in the context of professional sports.  In my opinion,"the Cleveland Browns" are the franchise, not any particular group of players or the owner or coach.  Think of it like this..... who holds the franchise record for most rushing yards in a game?  Is it Jamal Lewis and the 295 he put up after the team was moved to Baltimore..... or is it Jerome Harrison and the 285 he put up a few years back.  Along those lines, if Peyton Hillis stays healthy, he may challenge Jim Brown for the franchise record for rushing yards.  Apply those same circumstances to the Colts and Ravens, and the records don't apply.  Colts franchise records can come from the modern era in Indy or their time in Baltimore.  Ravens records started in the 90's.  And changing names is not the determining factor either, because the Titans are the same franchise that used to be in Houston.

 

Mea culpa, you are totally right.  I finally stopped flapping my, er, fingers, and actually checked some sources and the Browns arrangement was far funkier than I had thought.  By agreement, the Ravens are considered the expansion team, preserving official continuity for the Browns as a single franchise, as you explained.  Definitely unique, as you pointed out.  I still think it's a stretch to say the Browns didn't leave; it's more like everyone just agreed that they would never describe it that way.  But I didn't sign those papers. So there.

just heard some discussion re nfl expansion on the nfl today pregame show. they talked about la, where there are two sites around there under consideration, and....london. the topic is to be on the agenda for an oct 11th owners meeting. stay tuned!

just heard some discussion re nfl expansion on the nfl today pregame show. they talked about la, where there are two sites around there under consideration, and....london. the topic is to be on the agenda for an oct 11th owners meeting. stay tuned!

 

Yeah on the previous page I mentioned that I have heard some rumblings about London, too.  I have no idea how that might work.  They should also consider other international cities.

the tampa bay rays owner said the team has such serious financial problems it could "vaporize" (they did not sell out the final playoff game with texas). he then said they could move the team "anywhere."

 

there is a rumor of...connecticut?

 

well i can see the rays leaving i cant imagine mlb, or any of the big three major league sports for that matter, would allow a new team in that state.

just heard some discussion re nfl expansion on the nfl today pregame show. they talked about la, where there are two sites around there under consideration, and....london. the topic is to be on the agenda for an oct 11th owners meeting. stay tuned!

 

Yeah on the previous page I mentioned that I have heard some rumblings about London, too.  I have no idea how that might work.  They should also consider other international cities.

 

London?  London isn't an option nor is it financially viable?  where did you "hear" this?

It was likely heard from the Commissioner of the NFL who is on record as saying he would like to expand to London.

It was likely heard from the Commissioner of the NFL who is on record as saying he would like to expand to London.

 

Key words "would like".  I would love it if someone could find that information.

It's fairly common knowledge that is confirmed by the internet site Google.

That, to me, qualifies as rumblings...which is what you were disputing.

It's fairly common knowledge that is confirmed by the internet site Google.

 

Please provide a link.  I, like the whippersnappers, dont feel like searching for it.

 

That, to me, qualifies as rumblings...which is what you were disputing.

No, I'm asking for a link.  Period.

Again, this was about more than just leaving the name behind.  I guess it depends on how you define "franchise" in the context of professional sports.  In my opinion,"the Cleveland Browns" are the franchise, not any particular group of players or the owner or coach.  Think of it like this..... who holds the franchise record for most rushing yards in a game?  Is it Jamal Lewis and the 295 he put up after the team was moved to Baltimore..... or is it Jerome Harrison and the 285 he put up a few years back.  Along those lines, if Peyton Hillis stays healthy, he may challenge Jim Brown for the franchise record for rushing yards.  Apply those same circumstances to the Colts and Ravens, and the records don't apply.  Colts franchise records can come from the modern era in Indy or their time in Baltimore.  Ravens records started in the 90's.  And changing names is not the determining factor either, because the Titans are the same franchise that used to be in Houston.

 

Mea culpa, you are totally right.  I finally stopped flapping my, er, fingers, and actually checked some sources and the Browns arrangement was far funkier than I had thought.  By agreement, the Ravens are considered the expansion team, preserving official continuity for the Browns as a single franchise, as you explained.  Definitely unique, as you pointed out.  I still think it's a stretch to say the Browns didn't leave; it's more like everyone just agreed that they would never describe it that way.  But I didn't sign those papers. So there.

 

The things I hate about normal franchise relocations is that they take the history and name. So you would hear that Jim Brown was the best Baltimore Browns running back of all time. And that the Baltimore Browns won four NFL Championships, and four AAFC Championships. Also Otto Graham was a Baltimore Brown. The thing is though, those players, and those championships had nothing to do with Baltimore. Those players played in Cleveland for Cleveland residents. Cleveland celebrated those wins not Baltimore. So people who think the franchise is linked to the current owner at the time is bullshit to me. Its the city which makes the franchise in my opinion. And names are often associated with the city the team originates. Thats how me got the UTAH JAZZ?????? Cause everyone knows Jazz is huge in Utah! LOL

Again, this was about more than just leaving the name behind.  I guess it depends on how you define "franchise" in the context of professional sports.  In my opinion,"the Cleveland Browns" are the franchise, not any particular group of players or the owner or coach.  Think of it like this..... who holds the franchise record for most rushing yards in a game?  Is it Jamal Lewis and the 295 he put up after the team was moved to Baltimore..... or is it Jerome Harrison and the 285 he put up a few years back.  Along those lines, if Peyton Hillis stays healthy, he may challenge Jim Brown for the franchise record for rushing yards.  Apply those same circumstances to the Colts and Ravens, and the records don't apply.  Colts franchise records can come from the modern era in Indy or their time in Baltimore.  Ravens records started in the 90's.  And changing names is not the determining factor either, because the Titans are the same franchise that used to be in Houston.

 

Mea culpa, you are totally right.  I finally stopped flapping my, er, fingers, and actually checked some sources and the Browns arrangement was far funkier than I had thought.  By agreement, the Ravens are considered the expansion team, preserving official continuity for the Browns as a single franchise, as you explained.  Definitely unique, as you pointed out.  I still think it's a stretch to say the Browns didn't leave; it's more like everyone just agreed that they would never describe it that way.  But I didn't sign those papers. So there.

 

The things I hate about normal franchise relocations is that they take the history and name. So you would hear that Jim Brown was the best Baltimore Browns running back of all time. And that the Baltimore Browns won four NFL Championships, and four AAFC Championships. Also Otto Graham was a Baltimore Brown. The thing is though, those players, and those championships had nothing to do with Baltimore. Those players played in Cleveland for Cleveland residents. Cleveland celebrated those wins not Baltimore. So people who think the franchise is linked to the current owner at the time is bullsh!t to me. Its the city which makes the franchise in my opinion. And names are often associated with the city the team originates. Thats how me got the UTAH JAZZ?????? Cause everyone knows Jazz is huge in Utah! LOL

 

What?  that will never happen with the Cleveland franchise.  Most franchises that have relocated, like the colts have footnotes that indicate what city the team was in when x record/milestone was reached/achieved.

Ask and ye shall recieve - http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=NFL+london+expansion

^^Again, you can't compare the relocation of the Colts (or Rams, or Cardinals, or Oilers, or really any other team) to what happened with the Browns in the 1990's.  Totally different circumstance.  Totally different result.

Don't be silly, no one except the Canton museum and Cleveland Browns fans ever mention "Championships."

^^Again, you can't compare the relocation of the Colts (or Rams, or Cardinals, or Oilers, or really any other team) to what happened with the Browns in the 1990's.  Totally different circumstance.  Totally different result.

100% Agree!

Don't be silly, no one except the Canton museum and Cleveland Browns fans ever mention "Championships."

 

Or anyone over the age of 35.

 

Are you saying they should only be called Super Bowls? For half of the NFL's history, they were called "championships" only -- a word that still applies to the Super Bowl too.

 

This bugs me -- like ESPN only referring to NFL stats going back to "the merger" as if the first half of the NFL's history didn't matter. Most NFL players today couldn't hold Chuck Bednarik's jockstrap, let alone play offense and defense like he did for 60 minutes a game. And if he laid out a pretty-boy player today like he did to Frank Gifford, he would have been suspended for forever by this pansy league where the referees want as much as face time as the players.

 

OUT.

It's fairly common knowledge that is confirmed by the internet site Google.

 

Please provide a link.  I, like the whippersnappers, dont feel like searching for it.

 

That, to me, qualifies as rumblings...which is what you were disputing.

No, I'm asking for a link.  Period.

 

You nitpick over the most minor details sometimes.  :whip: Anyways:

 

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-09-27/nfl-to-keep-london-on-season-itinerary-second-game-possible

It's fairly common knowledge that is confirmed by the internet site Google.

 

Please provide a link.  I, like the whippersnappers, dont feel like searching for it.

 

That, to me, qualifies as rumblings...which is what you were disputing.

No, I'm asking for a link.  Period.

 

You nitpick over the most minor details sometimes.  :whip: Anyways:

 

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-09-27/nfl-to-keep-london-on-season-itinerary-second-game-possible

 

Really I dont and you're only posting something that came from my world.

 

There has even been talk of a relocated team or expansion franchise playing in London, though that is not on the NFL agenda for now.

 

Due to logistics no team will be in Europe.  It's hard enough on team from the west coast to play on the east coast as it is now.

 

MOVING ON....... ::) ::) ::)

 

Well I guess MTS has spoken, so there will be no NFL franchise in London and we should probably find another topic of franchise relocation to discuss.

TV would be the ultimate decision maker and you're right MTS would know.

TV would be the ultimate decision maker and you're right MTS would know.

 

They'd probably have to play all of their games on Sunday evenings (London time).

Well I guess MTS has spoken, so there will be no NFL franchise in London and we should probably find another topic of franchise relocation to discuss.

Don't be a JackHole.

Gentlemen.... Cut it out.

Overseas sports team owners certainly don't look at money the same way as Americans. They will spend, spend, spend, lose tons of money and not care. American sports team owners will lose a little money for a while then move, shut down, sell or whatever.

Overseas sports team owners certainly don't look at money the same way as Americans. They will spend, spend, spend, lose tons of money and not care. American sports team owners will lose a little money for a while then move, shut down, sell or whatever.

I disagree as the finances are different.  What sport in Europe parallels MLB, NFL or the NBA?  Soccer, Lacrosse, Rugby, crickett, Field Hockey, Volleyball & curling barely register a blip on the sports radar screen in the States.  Also, in Europe the travel and insure is much higher than it is for our sports leagues.

Overseas sports team owners certainly don't look at money the same way as Americans. They will spend, spend, spend, lose tons of money and not care. American sports team owners will lose a little money for a while then move, shut down, sell or whatever.

I disagree as the finances are different.  What sport in Europe parallels MLB, NFL or the NBA?  Soccer, Lacrosse, Rugby, crickett, Field Hockey, Volleyball & curling barely register a blip on the sports radar screen in the States.  Also, in Europe the travel and insure is much higher than it is for our sports leagues.

 

They don't play much lacrosse in Europe. Also, European soccer, particularly the EPL, is quite popular in the United States.

Overseas sports team owners certainly don't look at money the same way as Americans. They will spend, spend, spend, lose tons of money and not care. American sports team owners will lose a little money for a while then move, shut down, sell or whatever.

I disagree as the finances are different.  What sport in Europe parallels MLB, NFL or the NBA?  Soccer, Lacrosse, Rugby, crickett, Field Hockey, Volleyball & curling barely register a blip on the sports radar screen in the States.  Also, in Europe the travel and insure is much higher than it is for our sports leagues.

 

They don't play much lacrosse in Europe. Also, European soccer, particularly the EPL, is quite popular in the United States.

 

Correction I should have said "outside of the US".  Soccer is popular in the US, but still not a top tier sport.  It's less popular than Hockey and Nascar/Auto Racing.

Read the book Soccernomics by Kuper and Szymanski, MTS.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7134190/roger-goodell-says-some-nfl-teams-london-regulars

nba news -- here is a link to a discussion with stern regarding sacramento, seattle and the kings. that franchise move is to be decided in april at an nba owners meeting and it will be a tough decision for them:

 

http://espn.go.com/nba/allstar2013/story/_/id/8955571/david-stern-says-sacramento-kings-staying-sacramento-plausible?

Stern: Kings' staying in Sacramento 'plausible'

 

In other news, Charlotte is building a new stadium in Uptown for its Triple A baseball team.  I couldn't believe that the City was using such prime real estate for a minor league baseball team, but the word down there is that the new stadium will be major league caliber and that they will try to lure a major league team once the stadium is complete.  Marlins?

^ If they're playing the long game I guess that sounds plausible, but it's definitely your typical minor league stadium capacity wise, and the lot is certainly too small to support a 40k seat park.

 

Also, Miami has probably a decade and a half to fully implode and work years off their lease.