Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Relocation, relocation, relocation
- This topic has 39 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
Zooey.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 20, 2015 at 2:17 am #24951
znModeratorNFL to expedite relocation timetable
By Jim Thomas
SAN FRANCISCO • As first suggested at the March owners meeting in Phoenix, the NFL is prepared to move up its timetable on relocation to Los Angeles.
Although exact dates won’t be set, team owners will leave San Francisco on Wednesday at the conclusion of a day and a half of meetings with the understanding of an expedited schedule. More precisely, that there will be a shortened window to file for relocation to Los Angeles as well as a shortened time frame between the end of that filing period and an actual vote, according to league sources.
Current league guidelines call for a Jan. 1 through Feb. 15 period in which to file for relocation, followed by a vote at the league’s March meetings traditionally scheduled for the third week of March.
But the revised timetable is expected to shorten the relocation-filing period by several weeks from the current six-week period (Jan. 1 through Feb. 15) and also shorten the approximately five-week gap between the end of the filing period and a league vote on relocation.
Under the revised timetable, it’s possible the relocation filing period could begin as early as late December, according to the league.
Why the move-up?
“It’s good for everybody,” said a league official speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s not only good for the clubs. It’s good for the league. And frankly, it’s better for the home markets to know where they are.”
Better for the home markets?
“If you’re going to keep your team, you want to know sooner,” said the source. “If you’re going to lose your team, why continue to be aggravated?”
Commissioner Roger Goodell, who will address reporters here Wednesday but was not available Tuesday, said at the NFL’s March meetings that an expedited timetable would give the team (or teams) moving to Los Angeles time to move and get settled in the new market.
And in terms of filing for relocation, there no longer is any mystery on who might be doing so. Barring an unexpected turn of events over the next several months, the Rams, Oakland Raiders, and San Diego Chargers all will be filing for relocation.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke has aggressively worked on a plan to build a stadium in Inglewood, Calif. Meanwhile, the Chargers and Raiders have joined forces on a rival LA plan in the Carson area.
The league’s thinking, then, is that it won’t take six weeks for those three clubs to file for relocation. In addition, much more is known about the Inglewood and Carson plans than was the case even months ago.
The same can be said for plans in the so-called “home markets” of St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland, all of which are attempting to keep their NFL franchises.
Before the league meetings conclude Wednesday, there will be brief updates by representatives of each of the three home markets — with the updates expected to take less than an hour combined.
What’s interesting is that these updates will be made by team officials of the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers, not by local political or civic leaders. In the case of St. Louis, that means no update by Dave Peacock or Bob Blitz but by Rams executive vice president of football operations Kevin Demoff instead.
“We’re going to provide an update on the St. Louis home market,” Demoff said Tuesday. “The (three) clubs are each responsible for giving a home market update. The league will have an overview from their perspective, but it’s really a general update. This is really more focused on the home markets than any potential markets.”
In fact, the expectation is that the Inglewood and Carson plans won’t really be discussed in any detail at these May meetings.
It’s no secret that the NFL had to do some initial arm-twisting to get the Rams to engage with the St. Louis task force on its plans for a $985 million riverfront facility on the north edge of downtown. So the prospect of Demoff speaking on the topic may make those wishing for the Rams to stay in St. Louis nervous.
But the updates will deal more with the history of trying to get a stadium built in each of the three markets, and an assessment on the probabilities of getting a stadium built, according to league sources. This isn’t expected to be a setting where architectural designs or artists’ renderings of stadium plans are showcased.
In that vein, conspiracy theorists might say that Wednesday’s update is more a chance for the Rams, Raiders and Chargers to state their cases for meeting the league’s relocation guidelines than to trumpet the cause for staying in their current markets.
Speaking of the stadium plan spearheaded by Peacock and Blitz, Demoff said Tuesday: “I’ve said countless times, they’ve made great progress since November, when they first started meetings, and since January, when they announced the plans. I think if you look at their actions over the past few months, their work speaks for itself.
“We’ve all been involved in these discussions, and where the process has been over the past few months beginning in November. We’ve been involved in the meetings with them. We’ve been involved in the design process.
“It’s our job to understand everything that’s going on in St. Louis, what the options are, and make sure we work with Dave (Peacock) to achieve the best possible outcome.”
At a public speaking appearance last week in St. Louis, Peacock raised the possibility that Kroenke may not be the Rams owner over the long haul, fueling speculation that Kroenke might sell the team if the league pushes for the team to remain in St. Louis.
Demoff laughed off a question regarding a team sale.
“I wouldn’t answer any questions that are speculative,” Demoff said. “My goal here is to answer questions on the St. Louis process. That’s all I’m focused on.”
It’s not known whether Kroenke is attending these meetings. He wasn’t seen Tuesday.
May 20, 2015 at 2:18 am #24952znModeratorFor now at least, Raiders owner saying ‘no’ to St. Louis
By Jim Thomas
SAN FRANCISCO • Raiders owner Mark Davis was as blunt as could be Tuesday on the possibility of moving his franchise from Oakland to St. Louis, as has been widely rumored.
“Absolutely no interest,” Davis said. “No. That’s just not where the Raiders belong. It’s not gonna be St. Louis.”
Two months ago in Phoenix at the NFL’s March owners meetings, Davis at first issued a similar reply when asked about St. Louis. But later during the same March conversation, he said: “We’ll listen to anybody.”
He left no such wiggle room Tuesday. Whether he was posturing or not remains to be seen.
“We’re working as hard as we can to stay in Oakland,” Davis said Tuesday.
That’s obviously option No. 1. Option No. 2 is Southern California, more specifically the Carson area of Los Angeles. The Raiders and San Diego Chargers have teamed up in an attempt to share a stadium there. On Monday night, the Chargers and Raiders gained control of the land in Carson to build a stadium.
Additionally, former longtime San Francisco 49ers executive Carmen Policy has been hired to spearhead the Carson plans and serve as a spokesman on that front for both the Chargers and Raiders.
With Policy working on Carson, Davis said he can concentrate on trying to get a stadium built in Oakland and Chargers ownership can do the same in San Diego.
Davis called the Carson project a parallel path for the Raiders, giving them an option if attempts to get a new stadium built in Oakland fail to reach fruition.
Davis said he’s willing to put up $500 million, a total that includes $200 million from the NFL’s G4 stadium fund, to build a new facility on the site of the Oakland Coliseum (now known as O.co Coliseum).
City and county officials there have until June 21 to come up with a financing plan for the rest of the money needed for a new stadium, and most observers don’t think that will happen.
Davis also left open the possibility of moving to San Antonio, although it’s hard to see Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones or Houston Texans owner Robert McNair going along with that.
The Raiders are easily the most financially strapped team among the three teams considering relocation to Los Angeles. And it’s thought the team could be fodder for sale in the near future anyway.
Davis said Tuesday he plans to own the Raiders as long as he’s alive, and said he sees no situation in which he would sell the franchise. However, he may not have a choice.
The same estate tax issues that forced Chip Rosenbloom and sister Lucia Rodriguez to sell the Rams after their mother, Georgia Frontiere, passed away, could impact the Raiders when Carol Davis — the wife of late Raiders owner Al Davis — passes away.
Beyond that, if the Raiders somehow get left out of the Los Angeles sweepstakes and get stuck in Oakland without a new stadium, St. Louis could look a lot more enticing.
May 20, 2015 at 11:21 am #24963
PA RamParticipantThis is all going to be very interesting when it gets to the finish line.
It’s musical chairs and someone is not getting a chair.
The team that “feels” like the odd team out is Oakland. Maybe that’s just because they’ve been the quietest team during all this. There is no doubt that the Chargers and Rams are full speed ahead toward L.A. but because their moves involve two different stadiums, something has to give somewhere. At some point the NFL will have to get Spanos and Kroenke and Davis in a room and lock the door and not come out until it’s all sorted out and even then–if things go badly you have to wonder if teams will say “screw it” and do what they want to do anyway.
I still feel, at the end of the day, that somehow it’s going to be the Rams and Chargers but nothing is carved in stone yet.
We’ll see.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
May 20, 2015 at 11:33 am #24965
wvParticipantThis is all going to be very interesting when it gets to the finish line.
It’s musical chairs and someone is not getting a chair.
The team that “feels” like the odd team out is Oakland. Maybe that’s just because they’ve been the quietest team during all this. There is no doubt that the Chargers and Rams are full speed ahead toward L.A. but because their moves involve two different stadiums, something has to give somewhere. At some point the NFL will have to get Spanos and Kroenke and Davis in a room and lock the door and not come out until it’s all sorted out and even then–if things go badly you have to wonder if teams will say “screw it” and do what they want to do anyway.
I still feel, at the end of the day, that somehow it’s going to be the Rams and Chargers but nothing is carved in stone yet.
We’ll see.
Well, I dont like the idea of ‘sharing’
a stadium. I dont want the Rams
sharing a stadium with the Chargers,
or heaven-forbid, the Raiders.Sharing is goofy. I dont like it.
w
vMay 20, 2015 at 12:32 pm #24966znModeratorAlbert Breer joined Kevin Wheeler to talk about the situations in each of the cities leading to a team in LA, the Rams proposal in St. Louis vs. the other markets. why Kroenke still has a clear advantage, Mark Davis not wanting to come to St. Louis, SD working to get something done in SD, and why St. Louis still should have hope for the NFL in this city.
May 20, 2015 at 1:11 pm #24969
ZooeyModeratorThis is all going to be very interesting when it gets to the finish line.
It’s musical chairs and someone is not getting a chair.
The team that “feels” like the odd team out is Oakland. Maybe that’s just because they’ve been the quietest team during all this. There is no doubt that the Chargers and Rams are full speed ahead toward L.A. but because their moves involve two different stadiums, something has to give somewhere. At some point the NFL will have to get Spanos and Kroenke and Davis in a room and lock the door and not come out until it’s all sorted out and even then–if things go badly you have to wonder if teams will say “screw it” and do what they want to do anyway.
I still feel, at the end of the day, that somehow it’s going to be the Rams and Chargers but nothing is carved in stone yet.
We’ll see.
Oakland does feel like the odd team out.
1. In the survey of the LA market, there was a great deal of interest in the Rams, some in the Chargers, and little for the Raiders. In fact, there was some negative response to the Raiders.
2. The Raiders are the poorest team. They can’t do anything without help. They can’t build a stadium. How are they going to pay a relocation fee?
3. The Raiders have the shakiest ownership. I didn’t know this before now, but apparently Davis is going to have to pass through inheritance issues where Chip and Lucia could not. A Raiders sale? Subsidize a team moving to LA when ownership could be uncertain soon?
In contrast, Kroenke is a titan financially, and has an entire complex ready to go, and can afford to pay the NFL a substantial fee, plus provide an entire Super Bowl party venue.
I do not think the Raiders have any control of their destiny. Whatever is going to happen to them in the next decade is going to happen TO them. Davis can say whatever he wants about the Raiders’ destiny. I think their destiny is going to be determined by 31 other owners.
And I’m with WV. I don’t want the Rams to share a stadium.
May 20, 2015 at 1:50 pm #24973
HerzogParticipantThis is all going to be very interesting when it gets to the finish line.
It’s musical chairs and someone is not getting a chair.
The team that “feels” like the odd team out is Oakland. Maybe that’s just because they’ve been the quietest team during all this. There is no doubt that the Chargers and Rams are full speed ahead toward L.A. but because their moves involve two different stadiums, something has to give somewhere. At some point the NFL will have to get Spanos and Kroenke and Davis in a room and lock the door and not come out until it’s all sorted out and even then–if things go badly you have to wonder if teams will say “screw it” and do what they want to do anyway.
I still feel, at the end of the day, that somehow it’s going to be the Rams and Chargers but nothing is carved in stone yet.
We’ll see.
Oakland does feel like the odd team out.
1. In the survey of the LA market, there was a great deal of interest in the Rams, some in the Chargers, and little for the Raiders. In fact, there was some negative response to the Raiders.
2. The Raiders are the poorest team. They can’t do anything without help. They can’t build a stadium. How are they going to pay a relocation fee?
3. The Raiders have the shakiest ownership. I didn’t know this before now, but apparently Davis is going to have to pass through inheritance issues where Chip and Lucia could not. A Raiders sale? Subsidize a team moving to LA when ownership could be uncertain soon?
In contrast, Kroenke is a titan financially, and has an entire complex ready to go, and can afford to pay the NFL a substantial fee, plus provide an entire Super Bowl party venue.
I do not think the Raiders have any control of their destiny. Whatever is going to happen to them in the next decade is going to happen TO them. Davis can say whatever he wants about the Raiders’ destiny. I think their destiny is going to be determined by 31 other owners.
And I’m with WV. I don’t want the Rams to share a stadium.
Well, nobody can force them to move to St. Louis if they don’t want to. Or can they?
I agree, no stadium sharing and no turf. I guess Kroenke would want two teams as this means more profits for him.
May 20, 2015 at 2:04 pm #24976znModeratorMore urgency to finalize STL stadium funding
By Bernie Miklasz
The well-connected Daniel Kaplan of the SportsBusiness Journal has an interesting nugget on the NFL’s apparent decision to move up the timeline for franchises that wish to file for relocation to Los Angeles (Rams, Raiders, Chargers). As many media outlets have reported, the window for filing could open in December.
But here’s what caught my attention: Kaplan mentioned that a full NFL owners’ meeting is possible for this summer … and that St. Louis would be the reason for it.
“The prospective summer owners meeting would largely revolve around the proposed St. Louis stadium, which is further along than the efforts in California,” Kaplan wrote. “Whether that meeting occurs depends in part on progress in St. Louis, and the recommendation of the (owners’) LA committee.”
My two quick takeaways on that:
1. If the NFL is planning a special summer meeting to discuss St. Louis, that’s a positive sign. It means that the NFL is taking the St. Louis stadium effort seriously … very seriously.
2. This also could put the St. Louis task force on a faster timeline to lock down stadium financing. Co-chairs Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz were hopeful (and confident) of having everything in place by the fall. But if this summer NFL owners meeting happens, I’d have to think this puts pressure on the task force to speed up the pace for finalizing the stadium plan.
Peacock and Blitz wouldn’t necessarily have to have 100 percent of the funding in place this summer. If the NFL is confident that Peacock and Blitz will get this done, they’ll be given a little leeway. But if the NFL owners vote on relocation sooner than expected (early next year?), a significant delay in securing STL stadium funding could be damaging.
For example, if it’s necessary to have a public vote to sign off on the city’s portion of the stadium funding, the timing would be crucial. If a vote doesn’t occur until late fall (early November) it could raise NFL doubts about the firmness of the St. Louis funding. And a November vote may not be in line with the league’s preferred timing.
At this point it’s difficult to know. But I think we know this much: in the quest to finalize the St. Louis stadium funding, sooner is better.
St. Louis-area Rams fans have to hope Peacock-Blitz can complete the stadium financing puzzle as quickly as possible. It’s still the most crucial and necessary step for keeping the Rams here.
May 20, 2015 at 2:35 pm #24983ZooeyModeratorWell, nobody can force them to move to St. Louis if they don’t want to. Or can they?
I agree, no stadium sharing and no turf. I guess Kroenke would want two teams as this means more profits for him.
I doubt they can force a move. But that isn’t the way it’s usually done in business and politics. It’s usually leverage, rather than a demand. They can probably create circumstances in which moving is the best option for the Raiders. Pretty simple, really. “You’re not going to Los Angeles. Oakland isn’t building a stadium for you. Here’s St. Louis. What would you like to do?”
I did a bit of reading around. Carol is 82 years old now. It doesn’t seem likely that Mark can afford the taxes any more than Georgia’s heirs could. And a move to LA would increase the value of the Raiders, and hence the unlikelihood that Mark could afford the tax bill.
This is some high stakes poker here. And the game is still afoot. It’s just that the Raiders got the shittiest hand when the cards were dealt.
May 20, 2015 at 2:58 pm #24984wvParticipantThe Raiders should stay in Oakland.
They belong in Oakland.To me, the Oakland Raiders are one of those special
teams, like Dallas, Green Bay. Maybe Pittsburgh.
You just dont mess around with those institutions.The Oakland owner should sell the team to someone
richer, and keep them where they belong. In Oakland.…can you imagine, the Raiders
moving to a midwest town like St.Louis Missouri?
Its anathema.w
vMay 20, 2015 at 3:00 pm #24985ZooeyModeratorThe Raiders should stay in Oakland.
They belong in Oakland.To me, the Oakland Raiders are one of those special
teams, like Dallas, Green Bay. Maybe Pittsburgh.
You just dont mess around with those institutions.The Oakland owner should sell the team to someone
richer, and keep them where they belong. In Oakland.…can you imagine, the Raiders
moving to a midwest town like St.Louis Missouri?
Its anathema.w
vSo what do you propose for the good folks of St. Louis, since you have already moved the Rams to Los Angeles?
I mean…besides, obviously, the MLS.
May 20, 2015 at 3:14 pm #24986
DakParticipantI can see a scenario where Stan tries to poach Stanos and make him more more a partner in the Inglewood deal, leaving Oakland out to dry.
If I were the Raiders’ owner, I’d make it sound like St. Louis was an intriguing option, because if they lose the L.A. market, they’re going to need more options to force a deal in Oakland.
May 20, 2015 at 3:58 pm #24987wvParticipantThe Raiders should stay in Oakland.
They belong in Oakland.To me, the Oakland Raiders are one of those special
teams, like Dallas, Green Bay. Maybe Pittsburgh.
You just dont mess around with those institutions.The Oakland owner should sell the team to someone
richer, and keep them where they belong. In Oakland.…can you imagine, the Raiders
moving to a midwest town like St.Louis Missouri?
Its anathema.w
vSo what do you propose for the good folks of St. Louis, since you have already moved the Rams to Los Angeles?
I mean…besides, obviously, the MLS.
Promise them the first expansion team,
I guess.Or tell them to do what 99 percent of the rest of us do:
Watch the damn games on tv.w
v-
This reply was modified 9 years, 7 months ago by
wv.
May 20, 2015 at 3:58 pm #24988ZooeyModeratorI can see a scenario where Stan tries to poach Stanos and make him more more a partner in the Inglewood deal, leaving Oakland out to dry.
If I were the Raiders’ owner, I’d make it sound like St. Louis was an intriguing option, because if they lose the L.A. market, they’re going to need more options to force a deal in Oakland.
I agree with that. Especially since the San Antonio threat never got any traction.
And what St. Louis has to offer is above the median point in the league, I would think. It’s a more attractive community and stadium than most teams have.
May 20, 2015 at 4:29 pm #24994HerzogParticipantOr tell them to do what 99 percent of the rest of us do:
Watch the damn games on tv.w
vnot nice!
May 20, 2015 at 4:36 pm #24995
Isiah58ParticipantThis is all going to be very interesting when it gets to the finish line.
It’s musical chairs and someone is not getting a chair.
The team that “feels” like the odd team out is Oakland. Maybe that’s just because they’ve been the quietest team during all this. There is no doubt that the Chargers and Rams are full speed ahead toward L.A. but because their moves involve two different stadiums, something has to give somewhere. At some point the NFL will have to get Spanos and Kroenke and Davis in a room and lock the door and not come out until it’s all sorted out and even then–if things go badly you have to wonder if teams will say “screw it” and do what they want to do anyway.
I still feel, at the end of the day, that somehow it’s going to be the Rams and Chargers but nothing is carved in stone yet.
We’ll see.
Oakland does feel like the odd team out.
1. In the survey of the LA market, there was a great deal of interest in the Rams, some in the Chargers, and little for the Raiders. In fact, there was some negative response to the Raiders.
2. The Raiders are the poorest team. They can’t do anything without help. They can’t build a stadium. How are they going to pay a relocation fee?
3. The Raiders have the shakiest ownership. I didn’t know this before now, but apparently Davis is going to have to pass through inheritance issues where Chip and Lucia could not. A Raiders sale? Subsidize a team moving to LA when ownership could be uncertain soon?
In contrast, Kroenke is a titan financially, and has an entire complex ready to go, and can afford to pay the NFL a substantial fee, plus provide an entire Super Bowl party venue.
I do not think the Raiders have any control of their destiny. Whatever is going to happen to them in the next decade is going to happen TO them. Davis can say whatever he wants about the Raiders’ destiny. I think their destiny is going to be determined by 31 other owners.
And I’m with WV. I don’t want the Rams to share a stadium.
1. I have lived in Southern California my entire life. I would like to see them come back, but I am certainly not getting my hopes up that it will happen.
2. I think it is clear that St. Louis has made the best case for the team not leaving its market. If the League goes by that criteria, the Rams will not be given permission to move to LA.
3. If the League is looking for the best opportunity for the team in LA to succeed, I think that the only choice is for the Rams to move, alone, to LA. Dumping two teams (especially the Raiders and the Chargers) into this market simultaneously is a recipe for one and maybe both of the teams to fail miserably. In my opinion it will doom both teams to try and take over this market as competitors while working together to make the stadium profitable.
4. If I am the Raiders, if I move to LA it will necessarily be as a package with either the Chargers or the Rams. The Raiders, who still have a following in LA, nevertheless will have a lot of trouble attracting corporate sponsorships in my opinion. This is especially true if the Rams or Chargers are also vying for the same business. I am not sure how the Raiders come out ok in any scenario.
5. It is rumored that the relocation fee will be up to $500M. If a team such as the Chargers have to pay that to move to LA, why wouldn’t they just use the $300M that the City of San Diego is asking for to build them their own home in SD? And how can the Raiders, with little or no means, pay the relocation fee to move to LA?
6. If the League said “go ahead, all three teams can move,” would they? Would Oakland move and be the third team in the mix, diluting the fans/sponsors/money even further? Would this game of chicken scare off the Chargers and Raiders while not appearing to play favorites?
7. It is often questioned whether Kroenke can muster the 21 votes to move, but a separate question is whether he can stir up 7 votes to keep the Chargers from moving? The longer this plays out, the more likely the Chargers or the Raiders will be able to work out something with their home market.
8. I don’t think anyone is selling their team. And nobody is buying the Broncos. And I don’t think the Riverfront stadium ever gets built.
9. If the Chargers and Raiders move, I do not understand why one team has to change conferences. That makes no sense to me. I have never heard an explanation as to why this is the case, unless it is a rule I haven’t heard of.
10. I wonder what the crowds are going to be like in the Dome this year. I remember what it was like in ’94, and it wasn’t pretty. Hopefully the Rams will be in the middle of that turnaround season we have all been waiting for and it bring lots of fans to the Dome.
Isiah 58
“Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel.” - Homer Simpson
May 20, 2015 at 6:13 pm #24998
InvaderRamModeratorwell if davis is ever forced to sell the raiders, maybe he sells it to a st louis group.
or the rams get sold to a st louis group and kroenke buys the raiders although i can’t imagine he’d want the raiders given that they’re not sponsor friendly.
or maybe in either scenario the raiders get rebranded and the raider logo gets retired.
May 20, 2015 at 6:17 pm #24999InvaderRamModeratoron the other hand the rams history in los angeles and even in st louis with the gsot. maybe kroenke feels he needs to hold onto that to maximize his brand capital when trying to establish the team in los angeles especially with the chargers looming.
May 20, 2015 at 8:05 pm #25003ZooeyModerator1. I have lived in Southern California my entire life. I would like to see them come back, but I am certainly not getting my hopes up that it will happen.
2. I think it is clear that St. Louis has made the best case for the team not leaving its market. If the League goes by that criteria, the Rams will not be given permission to move to LA.
3. If the League is looking for the best opportunity for the team in LA to succeed, I think that the only choice is for the Rams to move, alone, to LA. Dumping two teams (especially the Raiders and the Chargers) into this market simultaneously is a recipe for one and maybe both of the teams to fail miserably. In my opinion it will doom both teams to try and take over this market as competitors while working together to make the stadium profitable.
4. If I am the Raiders, if I move to LA it will necessarily be as a package with either the Chargers or the Rams. The Raiders, who still have a following in LA, nevertheless will have a lot of trouble attracting corporate sponsorships in my opinion. This is especially true if the Rams or Chargers are also vying for the same business. I am not sure how the Raiders come out ok in any scenario.
5. It is rumored that the relocation fee will be up to $500M. If a team such as the Chargers have to pay that to move to LA, why wouldn’t they just use the $300M that the City of San Diego is asking for to build them their own home in SD? And how can the Raiders, with little or no means, pay the relocation fee to move to LA?
6. If the League said “go ahead, all three teams can move,” would they? Would Oakland move and be the third team in the mix, diluting the fans/sponsors/money even further? Would this game of chicken scare off the Chargers and Raiders while not appearing to play favorites?
7. It is often questioned whether Kroenke can muster the 21 votes to move, but a separate question is whether he can stir up 7 votes to keep the Chargers from moving? The longer this plays out, the more likely the Chargers or the Raiders will be able to work out something with their home market.
8. I don’t think anyone is selling their team. And nobody is buying the Broncos. And I don’t think the Riverfront stadium ever gets built.
9. If the Chargers and Raiders move, I do not understand why one team has to change conferences. That makes no sense to me. I have never heard an explanation as to why this is the case, unless it is a rule I haven’t heard of.
10. I wonder what the crowds are going to be like in the Dome this year. I remember what it was like in ’94, and it wasn’t pretty. Hopefully the Rams will be in the middle of that turnaround season we have all been waiting for and it bring lots of fans to the Dome.
Isiah 58
2. St. Louis has without question made the best appeal to keep its team, but that won’t matter when it comes to the vote. These are a bunch of billionaires, few of whom are going to allow sentiment about the people holding the short end of the stick at the end of the deal to affect their votes. Just as Wal-mart sheds no tears over the effects on employees of store closures, these guys aren’t going to worry about St. Louis in any way beyond its potential as a market. Fairness and loyalty and all that shit aren’t going to matter. This is business. If they decide that the Rams/Kroenke’s plan is the best thing for the league, they will tell St. Louis with a straight face to just wait at the altar while they go find another groom.
3. The Ideal has always been to have one team move into Los Angeles at first, with another team later.
4. The Raiders image is a serious problem, and that is another strike against them. And another reason why I think it makes sense to move them to St. Louis where they can be re-branded. Someone here suggested the River Raiders. You move them to St. Louis, you get to rechristen them while keeping the historical accomplishments of their legacy, and unload the Mad Max followers all in one fell swoop. The NFL saves a struggling franchise, places it in a great community, and surgically removes the ugliest tumor in its public image.
5. That’s what I said. The Rams can pay the NFL, and the Chargers and Raiders are going to need handouts. Frankly, that all by itself may be all anybody needs to know about this.
9. Because one TV network has the AFC, and one TV network has the NFC. And that’s where the money comes from. That’s why.
May 20, 2015 at 8:48 pm #25005InvaderRamModeratoryeah. this is the same group of billionaires who have no problem holding cities hostage and trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of them for a new stadium.
my best guess is the raiders to st. louis. if it’s true that davis will have a hard time keeping the team after carol passes, he will need to sell the team. it solves a lot of problems. it gets rid of the raiders whose name is mostly irrelevant in today’s nfl. it gets rid of the davis name which has been a sore spot for the owners. it establishes a true geographical rivalry between kansas city and st. louis. the rams are back in los angeles which the league was against in the first place. it establishes one of its strongest owners (let me emphasize that by strong i mean rich) in the second biggest media market in the nation.
and if i was kroenke. this would be my biggest selling point. if the chargers somehow stay in san diego. the league can still extort money from cities by threatening a move of a second team to los angeles to play in kroenke’s brand new stadium.
nefarious i tell ya. nefarious.
May 20, 2015 at 8:57 pm #25006ZooeyModeratoryeah. this is the same group of billionaires who have no problem holding cities hostage and trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of them for a new stadium.
my best guess is the raiders to st. louis. if it’s true that davis will have a hard time keeping the team after carol passes, he will need to sell the team. it solves a lot of problems. it gets rid of the raiders whose name is mostly irrelevant in today’s nfl. it gets rid of the davis name which has been a sore spot for the owners. it establishes a true geographical rivalry between kansas city and st. louis. the rams are back in los angeles which the league was against in the first place. it establishes one of its strongest owners (let me emphasize that by strong i mean rich) in the second biggest media market in the nation.
and if i was kroenke. this would be my biggest selling point. if the chargers somehow stay in san diego. the league can still extort money from cities by threatening a move of a second team to los angeles to play in kroenke’s brand new stadium.
nefarious i tell ya. nefarious.
Absolutely. Yes. All of that.
May 20, 2015 at 10:04 pm #25007InvaderRamModeratori should also add. the raiders would have denver, another storied rivalry, a little further to the west.
and the rams reestablish their geographical rivalry with san francisco. arizona lying 6 hours east with seattle to the north.
May 20, 2015 at 10:37 pm #25008InvaderRamModeratori got this from the original herd. i don’t know if i should post that link or the original link. i’ll be posting the original link.
apparently if the superbowl is held in los angeles, it can only be held in the inglewood stadium…
Los Angeles emerges as Super Bowl contender in 2020
Los Angeles has emerged as a contender to once again host the Super Bowl.
The NFL announced Wednesday that L.A. is eligible as a potential Super Bowl LIV host site in 2020 if there is a stadium and a team has moved there by the start of the 2018 season. NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reports that based on league rules and stadium plans, if Los Angeles hosted Super Bowl LIV, it could only be the held in the Inglewood stadium.
It’s just the latest indicator of how serious the NFL is about bringing the sport back to Los Angeles, which has been without a team since the Rams and Raiders both left town after the 1994 season. NFL Media’s Albert Breer reported Monday that momentum continues to build toward the league returning to the L.A. market in 2016, according to multiple involved parties. The Rams, Raiders and Chargers are linked to new stadium projects in the city.
Los Angeles has hosted seven Super Bowls. Five have been played at the Rose Bowl and two at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, including Super Bowl I in 1967. The Super Bowl hasn’t been hosted by the L.A. metropolitan area since 1993.
Rapoport reported from the Spring League Meeting on Tuesday that the NFL has selected Miami, Tampa Bay, New Orleans and Atlanta as finalists for the 2019 and 2020 Super Bowls. All four cities’ bids will go before the owners for a vote next May. The next three Super Bowls will be held in Santa Clara, California, Houston and Minneapolis.
May 20, 2015 at 10:42 pm #25009znModeratori don’t know if i should post that link or the original link. i’ll be posting the original link.
Yeah the procedure on articles is, always post the link to the actual article. No matter where you find it.
May 20, 2015 at 11:21 pm #25010ZooeyModerator2. St. Louis has without question made the best appeal to keep its team, but that won’t matter when it comes to the vote. These are a bunch of billionaires, few of whom are going to allow sentiment about the people holding the short end of the stick at the end of the deal to affect their votes. Just as Wal-mart sheds no tears over the effects on employees of store closures, these guys aren’t going to worry about St. Louis in any way beyond its potential as a market. Fairness and loyalty and all that shit aren’t going to matter. This is business. If they decide that the Rams/Kroenke’s plan is the best thing for the league, they will tell St. Louis with a straight face to just wait at the altar while they go find another groom.
A short footnote here, fwiw.
I think what St. Louis is doing WOULD matter if the two LA stadium proposals were a toss-up. I think in that case it would come much closer to receiving the weight it merits.
I am convinced, though, after hours of pondering, that the NFL is just not going to be able to resist the vast scope of NFL World that Kroenke proposes. That entire development project – with all the hotels, restaurants, theatre, shopping, studios – this is Hollywood level glamour. Cue the crane shots and the soaring music as crowds saunter through the parks and around the splendid fountains.
This is the Everything. This is a Crown Jewel.
And it’s zoned, permitted, and paid for. And there’s a nice little 9-figure check in there for all the owners.
To think the owners are going to stand on their bylaws in the face of that is naive, imo. It would matter if the projects were comparable. But they aren’t.
May 20, 2015 at 11:49 pm #25011InvaderRamModeratoryeah. it’s all pretty obscene. but that’s what the nfl wants.
inglewood is also undergoing mass gentrification. you got santa monica, venice, marina del rey, and manhattan beach to the west. beverly hills and west los angeles are less than 30 minutes to the north. it would be an absolute spectacle during super bowls and possible pro bowls. and like you said with all the hotels, shopping, and other venues. there’d definitely be that hollywood party atmosphere. plus nfl network would be based there. a kind of second home base. i also see the nfl draft being held there. it’d be a prime spot for celebrities to be seen being so close to the airport and beaches.
carson? it’s kind of a dump. redondo beach and long beach aren’t so happening. inglewood is a dump too. but like i said. real estate developers in california see a lot of potential there.
May 20, 2015 at 11:56 pm #25012InvaderRamModeratorreally. the nfl can’t do better than this inglewood proposal. you’re right. it’d be the crown jewel of the nfl.
the carson stadium would be jas. just another stadium.
May 21, 2015 at 12:01 am #25013ZooeyModeratoryeah. it’s all pretty obscene. but that’s what the nfl wants.
inglewood is also undergoing mass gentrification. you got santa monica, venice, marina del rey, and manhattan beach to the west. beverly hills and west los angeles are less than 30 minutes to the north. it would be an absolute spectacle during super bowls and possible pro bowls. and like you said with all the hotels, shopping, and other venues. there’d definitely be that hollywood party atmosphere. plus nfl network would be based there. a kind of second home base. i also see the nfl draft being held there. it’d be a prime spot for celebrities to be seen being so close to the airport and beaches.
carson? it’s kind of a dump. redondo beach and long beach aren’t so happening. inglewood is a dump too. but like i said. real estate developers in california see a lot of potential there.
Ever been to Disneyland?
Just on the other side of that glamorous facade…is a shitty Anaheim boulevard.
But it isn’t part of your world when you’re in Disneyland. You are in the Magic Kingdom.
Nobody cares what Inglewood looks like on the backside of those chic sidewalk cafes just across the plaza from that fabulous stadium. There will be enough stuff around for the cameras to love.
May 21, 2015 at 9:04 am #25017InvaderRamModeratorthere is very much an amusement park type feel to the inglewood stadium.
obviously it’s not set in stone but it feels like the momentum is heading this way especially with the situation the raiders are in.
May 21, 2015 at 10:59 am #25031ZooeyModeratorLaCanfora thinks Carson has the advantage.
JASON LA CANFORA
CBS Sports NFL InsiderChargers-Raiders stadium co-op leads NFL’s LA return, but Rams may fight
The joint stadium project between the Chargers and Raiders in Carson, Calif., continues to gain momentum and there was strong positive buzz about their plan coming out owners meeting in San Francisco this week, according to several high-ranking ownership sources. Meanwhile, concerns linger as to whether Rams owner Stan Kroenke can force his way out of St. Louis without a protracted fight.
Chargers owner Dean Spanos, among the league’s more respected owners, has exhibited great patience in navigating his franchise through an uncertain stadium situation in San Diego and continued to earn kudos from other ownership groups at the meeting. The NFL intent to be in Los Angeles by 2016 cannot be understated and several sources maintained they would have to consider the Chargers/Raiders project in Carson as the early favorite.
There is a certain political element to this process, in securing necessary votes for franchise relocation — in this case a dual relocation — and Spanos has moved expertly, sources said. And Raiders owners Mark Davis is a highly-motivated wingman willing to let Spanos take the lead when required. The Raiders are mostly willing to do what the league wants, and go along for the ride to Southern California and plentiful revenue streams that come from a new facility. The willingness to collaborate with the Chargers, their longtime rivals, speaks to the potential potency of this project and it continues to curry favor with other important owners at a critical.
Meanwhile, Kroenke has shown willingness to go rogue and faces more of an uphill climb with his Inglewood project, at least in lining up support from owners on the powerful stadium and finance committees, sources said. With his full-speed-ahead approach regarding LA, he’s seen as more of an outsider than Spanos and has rubbed the league office the wrong way. So all things being equal, people very close to some of the NFL’s most respected ownership groups believe the Carson project has the best chance of winning this race.
That’s not to say Kroenke will go easily, and this scenario could be a precursor to an ugly legal fight. The NFL could well deem St. Louis has a formidable ongoing stadium project and the Chargers and Raiders are in greater need of a new immediate home. But with Kroenke procuring the land and a finance deal on his own, and his St. Louis lease up again at the end of the season, he just might — ironically — take a page from Al Davis’ book and go to court to fight for his right to party every Sunday in Los Angeles rather than stay in St. Louis, where he clearly has no plans of staying.
Don’t discount for an instant Kroenke’s desire to get to California, but he’s failed to curry favor the same way others have and the NFL will flex its muscles to maintain control of the process. Telling any uber-successful magnate what he can or can’t do with his business and land is always a good way to prompt a significant response, and that’s just what we might get in this case.
As for the Chargers and Raiders, if they merely stay in course, things could be lining up their way. It’s clear the municipalities around Carson are on board. Certainly a hurdle or two could come their way — AEG will try to obfuscate the process, I’m sure — and there could be environmental issues down the road (there often are, especially in California) but this thing is coming to a head by the winter and the support behind this project is strengthening at the league’s highest reaches.
Could well be the Chargers and Raiders both move in 2016. It would take two game-day facilities to do so — sources at The Rose Bowl have continued to tell me they cannot support two teams at the same time — and it could be both teams would use their current training facilities for practices for the first season in LA. Some in the know have speculated the Chargers, in exchange for getting the keys to LA, end up moving to the NFC, with perhaps the Cardinals going to the AFC West, which would maintain the Raiders’ rivalries with the Chiefs and Broncos, for as much as that is worth.
Bottom line is if it gets to that stage, the issue of realignment would be no hindrance. There are plenty of parties more than motivated to shuffle around their current division to complete this complicated deal, and the right people continue to have a positive enough view of the Carson solution to make me believe that’s likely where this thing is headed, barring unforeseen roadblocks forming. And all that could well lead to a lot of very rich lawyers getting even richer should Kroenke take the nuclear route to getting what he wants.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 7 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
