If we build it, will they stay? Jacksonville City Council looks at Jaguars’ nonrelocation agreement

Image via Jacksonville Jaguars.

One of the selling points of Jacksonville Jaguars stadium renovation is that it should, in theory, keep the NFL franchise in town for three more decades.

On behalf of the Jaguars, Megha Parekh, the senior vice president and chief legal officer, noted that the team would have to play within 205 miles of Jacksonville in the event the “stadium of the future” is not available (such as in a hurricane), and described the “very heavy penalties” in play in case the team decided to “breach” the agreement.

The proposal advanced by the team and Mayor Donna Deegan would penalize the Jaguars $775 million if it moved within 15 years of the stadium renovation’s conclusion in 2028, with an amortized decreasing team obligation of 6.5% every year if the team left between years 16-30 of the deal.

Michael Huyghue, the City Council negotiator, further addressed the “burn off” rate of the declining team obligation over time in case they “default” on the lease.

He also suggested that “Orlando or Gainesville or some other place like that” would be the move, a statement consistent with speculation of where the team may play during 2027, the year the current stadium would be unavailable during renovations.

International games, including in London, would also be part of the package even after renovation, with one home game in England and potentially two out of market/country games once every four years.

If the league somehow adopted a 20-game schedule, which is highly unlikely given it’s currently at 17 (with some talk of moving to 18), that condition could change further, Huyghue suggested.

Jaguars President Mark Lamping called the relocation agreement “one of the most robust” in NFL history, suggesting that’s a measure of continued good faith by the franchise. He also noted that the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce, which backs the stadium deal, sees international play as a business recruitment opportunity, and that the NFL sees the Jaguars playing overseas as a value add for the small market franchise.

“At a minimum, you will always have seven regular season home games every year,” Lamping promised.

Council members had their questions, and at least some of those inquiries await clarification.

Republican Will Lahnen wanted to see a comparison of Nashville’s “sliding scale” for team costs related to potential early lease termination, and that’s something that he will get eventually, he was assured.

Republican Nick Howland pressed for details on whether amortization would include interest, wanting a “hypothetical” schedule that reflected borrowing costs. That too wasn’t readily available.

Republican Mike Gay offered what he called a “simple observation” regarding the London game, saying that it could be taken from the “away game” stack.

“We’re giving up all this and we’re still doing away games,” Gay groused.

While Gay seeks “reconsideration” of that point, precedent tells us that’s not likely to be something the league would embrace.

Republican Raul Arias has no issue with a London game, but does question the second potential international home game in the four-year cycle. However, Lamping noted that the NFL ultimately decides who gets it.

“We can’t have an agreement that flies in the face of NFL regulations because they’ll never approve the lease if that exists,” Lamping said.

Republican Ken Amaro noted, meanwhile, there’s no language protecting the city if the team takes the “highly unlikely” option of relocation during stadium construction. Parekh confirmed that would be a default of the agreement and the city would get its full $775 million if that happened.

Republican Terrance Freeman noted that the Council is outside the negotiating loop between the Mayor’s Office and the team, and that he doesn’t want to be “reactive” and forced to propose changes during the night of the vote.

Lamping assured him that just as with previous deals between the team and the city, legislators could communicate with the team regarding potential amendments ahead of introduction, or they can expect a “forthright” response on the floor regarding a potential “material change” to the proposal.

Weinstein cautioned that “the movement of one item” could “affect the other 150 items as well,” which didn’t give Freeman total confidence.

Freeman said he could “keep a secret” regarding changes in the negotiations, which would seem to be a violation of the Sunshine Law, but which is in line with the deal overall, which was conceptualized and largely finalized outside of the public view.

After some inquiries along these lines from Council President Ron Salem, Lamping noted that the international games would be of great interest to the Council, and he worried that the “London accommodation” would provide an impasse earlier in negotiations.

“It was a specific discussion between the Mayor and Shahid Khan,” Lamping noted, referring to the Jaguars’ owner.