Football Sources: Rams and Chargers relocation agreement could be reached Tuesday - Page 4

Eleazar · 01-11-2016, 07:00 PM

NFL consensus builds for a Rams-Chargers stadium project in Inglewood

On the brink of a vote that could return the NFL to Los Angeles, a consensus is building within the league for the St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers to share a stadium in Inglewood.

Multiple league officials and owners not involved with the Inglewood project, or the competing proposal in Carson, say there is momentum to pair the two franchises in what one owner describes as a "transformational" project backed by the Rams.

The Chargers and Oakland Raiders want to build a stadium in Carson, and to this point, Chargers owner Dean Spanos has stood by his partnership with Raiders owner Mark Davis.

The league insiders, who spoke on the condition they not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, say Spanos doesn't want to be seen as turning his back on a partner. This makes the path to what is emerging as the preferred pairing more difficult. But the insiders believe the matter can be resolved during the special meeting that starts Tuesday in Houston, where owners hope to find an answer to the two-decade L.A. vacancy.

One influential owner whose preference has not been apparent in public or private, touted Inglewood over Carson, saying "the deals aren't even close."

In the past week, there has been a flurry of behind-the-scenes activity among owners and NFL staff in an attempt to clear the way for a decision to be made at these meetings.

It is extremely rare for the NFL to devote a full day to a single topic, much less two days in the middle of the playoffs. It underscores how determined the NFL owners and Commissioner Roger Goodell are to reach an accord that would bring professional football back to the country's second-largest market.

It is widely thought that the L.A decision will help define the legacy of Goodell, and shape the financial future for a league that generates $10 billion in annual revenue.

All three teams want to relocate to L.A. for the 2016 season, meaning time is of the essence to move their franchises and begin selling tickets.

Although the general meetings start Tuesday, the Los Angeles committee is convening Monday.

There's a sense that most owners want the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood, but aren't sure of the best way to make it happen. The idea of the Raiders returning to L.A. is not popular among many owners.

One owner said that the NFL has to realize that "we just can't solve all three stadium problems in one fell swoop."

It would mean striking a bargain that keeps the Raiders out of L.A. but doesn't leave them empty handed. Such a maneuver could mean that the Raiders return to Oakland in the short term, but can explore relocating to other cities, among them San Diego, St. Louis or joining the San Francisco 49ers in their new stadium in Santa Clara.

There is some sentiment among owners that the L.A. matter should be determined by secret ballot to avoid the awkwardness of league partners voting against partners. A secret vote -- now used only for the selection of a commissioner or awarding a Super Bowl to a city -- would need the approval of 17 of the league's 32 owners, a simple majority.

The idea of putting the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood has been floated for months and was formally proposed last week by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones in a one-page letter to Goodell.

There's a belief among some owners and league executives that Spanos would be willing to make a deal with Rams owner Stan Kroenke to share Inglewood if it were a 50-50 partnership that wouldn't put the Chargers at an economic disadvantage.

When news of Jones' letter became public late Saturday, Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' point man on stadium issues, reached out to The Times and asked that a December letter Spanos sent the L.A. committee be referenced. The two-paragraph letter rejected Kroenke's offer to partner with a second team in his planned Inglewood stadium.

"Nothing in Stan's letter gives me any reason to reconsider my partnership with Mark Davis and our chosen stadium site," Spanos wrote.

The one thing everyone can agree upon is that this is a very fluid process and plans can shift very quickly.

Three-quarters of owners must approve any franchise relocation. It's believed both projects have the nine votes to block the other, although that could be shifting in favor of the Rams after last week's meetings of the finance, stadium and L.A. committees at league headquarters in New York.

It's unclear if the six-owner L.A. committee will recommend a stadium plan or whether such an endorsement would be unanimous. Two members of that committee, Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson and Houston Texans owner Bob McNair, have made it clear in public that they favor the Carson plan.

Though the cost of the Inglewood stadium proposed by Kroenke has been publicly estimated at $1.86 billion, the league insiders say the cost likely would significantly exceed $2 billion. That would make it the most expensive venue in U.S. sports history. At 3 million square feet -- including identical locker rooms, office space and owner's suites for two teams -- it would also be the NFL's largest stadium.

The project would be the centerpiece of a 298-acre entertainment, retail and housing development, something one owner called an "NFL Disney World."

According to the relocation application the Rams submitted to the league last week, the stadium would be ready for the 2019 season.

Disney Chairman and CEO Robert Iger, who would oversee the Carson proposal if it is approved and have the opportunity for a minority ownership stake in the Chargers or Raiders, is expected to make a presentation to owners in Houston.

On Saturday, Goodell sent a 48-page report to all franchises saying that the three home markets -- Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis -- failed to produce viable stadium plans.

In the report, which did not make any recommendations, Goodell said market research supports the conclusion that L.A. is capable of being a two-team market.

Though the L.A. Memorial Coliseum has expressed a willingness to temporarily host one NFL team starting next season, it's unclear where a second team would play. USC's lease to operate the Coliseum would need to be amended to allow two NFL teams.

Last summer, the Rose Bowl Bowl Operating Co. declined to respond to the NFL's request for a proposal to temporarily host a team.

League officials, who have also looked at Angel Stadium, Dodger Stadium and the 27,000-seat StubHub Center, say they aren't concerned about finding temporary homes for two L.A. teams.

Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts Jr. reiterated his city's support for the privately-financed stadium Monday.

"As we have believed all along, the Inglewood project is the best option for the NFL, from an economic and geographic perspective," Butts wrote in an email. "The companion development will make the stadium viable for year round uses. The HKS designed project will be the largest, most beautiful stadium in the world. We are hopeful that the NFL owners will agree."

Carson Mayor Albert Robles didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la...112-story.html

DenverChief · 01-12-2016, 12:15 AM

The only place the raiders are going is San Antonio

BlackHelicopters · 01-12-2016, 07:04 AM

No1curr

Deberg_1990 · 01-12-2016, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

The only place the raiders are going is San Antonio

Apparently, Davis has bought some land between Austin and Sam Antonio in case Oakland falls thru.

In an online video, Bleacher Report staffer Jason Cole said three sources have told him that Davis has bought a parcel of land between San Antonio and Austin where he can build a stadium if the Raiders don't move to LA or if Oakland doesn't give him what he wants, which is a new stadium.

http://m.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archive...to-san-antonio

TEX · 01-12-2016, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoover

LA with two teams? Fine. And if Spanos wants to be one of them thats fine, but it should be the LA Rams and LA Raiders, the Chargers name should stay in SD. Buy Mark Davis out, let him own a minority share of the LA Raiders.

Well the Chargers were originally from LA. The name "Chargers" went with them when they moved to San Diego. So not really with the crowd advocating for San Diego getting to keep the name "Chargers." Just my opinion.

tooge · 01-12-2016, 09:04 AM

I'm not sure what the tax revenue for Missouri is from the Rams being in the state. It's got to be pretty nice, when you consider some fans travel there to see their team on the road (Chicago, Tenn, Dallas, KC, Indy) if they are somewhat close.

Yeah, I think St. Louis fans suck as NFL fans, but I do hate to lose revenue that the state was getting from the Rams. Other than that though, the STL can suck it.

Brock · 01-12-2016, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoover

LA with two teams? Fine. And if Spanos wants to be one of them thats fine, but it should be the LA Rams and LA Raiders, the Chargers name should stay in SD. Buy Mark Davis out, let him own a minority share of the LA Raiders.

Why should the raiders be rewarded for terrible business decisions and awful performance?

Lex Luthor · 01-12-2016, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEX

Well the Chargers were originally from LA. The name "Chargers" went with them when they moved to San Diego. So not really with the crowd advocating for San Diego getting to keep the name "Chargers." Just my opinion.

I agree with you on that. The NFL recognized that they really should not have allowed the original Browns to move from Cleveland to Baltimore, so they threw a bone to the city of Cleveland. They didn't set a precedent.

I hate franchise free agency. If it were up me the Rams would be back in Los Angeles, the Cardinals would be back in St. Louis, the Ravens would be back in Cleveland and playing as the Cleveland Browns, and the Colts would be back in Baltimore. Cities like Indianapolis and Phoenix should have been given expansion teams. I think it sucks whenever a franchise moves, because it's usually a greedy ****ing owner who is behind it. There should be a special place in hell for Charlie Finley, Bill Bidwill, Robert Irsay, and Stan Kroenke. Especially Stan Kroenke, since he used deceit and trickery to become the majority owner in the first place, pledged to keep the team in St. Louis, and then did his very best to ensure that St Louis never gets another team after the Rams leave.

Lex Luthor · 01-12-2016, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooge

I'm not sure what the tax revenue for Missouri is from the Rams being in the state. It's got to be pretty nice, when you consider some fans travel there to see their team on the road (Chicago, Tenn, Dallas, KC, Indy) if they are somewhat close.

Yeah, I think St. Louis fans suck as NFL fans, but I do hate to lose revenue that the state was getting from the Rams. Other than that though, the STL can suck it.

There are two truisms out there that are simply not true:

1. Cardinals fans are the best fans in baseball.
2. St Louis fans suck as NFL fans.

Fans support winning teams. Fans don't support perennial losers. It's true in every city.

The Cardinals have been wildly successful for several decades. The Rams have sucked for 15 years. Fans respond appropriately.

**Rausch** · 01-12-2016, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

Why should the raiders be rewarded for terrible business decisions and awful performance?

How would going to St. Louis be a reward?

**mlyonsd** · 01-12-2016, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

How would going to St. Louis be a reward?

They might actually fit right in.

Rams Fan · 01-12-2016, 09:18 AM

Well, assuming the Rams move, I think I'm done following and watching the NFL on a regular basis.

It's absolute horse shit how Kroenke's treated St. Louis and because of that I don't really think I'll be interested in supporting the Rams or giving a shit about anyone of the other 31 teams in the NFL.

**mikeyis4dcats.** · 01-12-2016, 09:27 AM

I guess I just don't see the need for 2 teams in LA and one in Oakland and one is San Fran. But whatever...

seclark · 01-12-2016, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

Well, assuming the Rams move, I think I'm done following and watching the NFL on a regular basis.

It's absolute horse shit how Kroenke's treated St. Louis and because of that I don't really think I'll be interested in supporting the Rams or giving a shit about anyone of the other 31 teams in the NFL.

take a deep breath, charlie brown. i was pissed when bidwell moved the cardinals to az. became a chiefs fan and it's been a way better experience, win or lose.
sec

chinaski · 01-12-2016, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

Anyone have an aerial shot of the Inglewood stadium proposal vs the Carson proposal?

I'll take some today.

I'll post it up later.

**mikeyis4dcats.** · 01-12-2016, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

Anyone have an aerial shot of the Inglewood stadium proposal vs the Carson proposal?

Inglewood

Carson

01-11-2016, 07:00 PM
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000	Sources: Rams and Chargers relocation agreement could be reached Tuesday NFL consensus builds for a Rams-Chargers stadium project in Inglewood On the brink of a vote that could return the NFL to Los Angeles, a consensus is building within the league for the St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers to share a stadium in Inglewood. Multiple league officials and owners not involved with the Inglewood project, or the competing proposal in Carson, say there is momentum to pair the two franchises in what one owner describes as a "transformational" project backed by the Rams. The Chargers and Oakland Raiders want to build a stadium in Carson, and to this point, Chargers owner Dean Spanos has stood by his partnership with Raiders owner Mark Davis. The league insiders, who spoke on the condition they not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, say Spanos doesn't want to be seen as turning his back on a partner. This makes the path to what is emerging as the preferred pairing more difficult. But the insiders believe the matter can be resolved during the special meeting that starts Tuesday in Houston, where owners hope to find an answer to the two-decade L.A. vacancy. One influential owner whose preference has not been apparent in public or private, touted Inglewood over Carson, saying "the deals aren't even close." In the past week, there has been a flurry of behind-the-scenes activity among owners and NFL staff in an attempt to clear the way for a decision to be made at these meetings. It is extremely rare for the NFL to devote a full day to a single topic, much less two days in the middle of the playoffs. It underscores how determined the NFL owners and Commissioner Roger Goodell are to reach an accord that would bring professional football back to the country's second-largest market. It is widely thought that the L.A decision will help define the legacy of Goodell, and shape the financial future for a league that generates $10 billion in annual revenue. All three teams want to relocate to L.A. for the 2016 season, meaning time is of the essence to move their franchises and begin selling tickets. Although the general meetings start Tuesday, the Los Angeles committee is convening Monday. There's a sense that most owners want the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood, but aren't sure of the best way to make it happen. The idea of the Raiders returning to L.A. is not popular among many owners. One owner said that the NFL has to realize that "we just can't solve all three stadium problems in one fell swoop." It would mean striking a bargain that keeps the Raiders out of L.A. but doesn't leave them empty handed. Such a maneuver could mean that the Raiders return to Oakland in the short term, but can explore relocating to other cities, among them San Diego, St. Louis or joining the San Francisco 49ers in their new stadium in Santa Clara. There is some sentiment among owners that the L.A. matter should be determined by secret ballot to avoid the awkwardness of league partners voting against partners. A secret vote -- now used only for the selection of a commissioner or awarding a Super Bowl to a city -- would need the approval of 17 of the league's 32 owners, a simple majority. The idea of putting the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood has been floated for months and was formally proposed last week by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones in a one-page letter to Goodell. There's a belief among some owners and league executives that Spanos would be willing to make a deal with Rams owner Stan Kroenke to share Inglewood if it were a 50-50 partnership that wouldn't put the Chargers at an economic disadvantage. When news of Jones' letter became public late Saturday, Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' point man on stadium issues, reached out to The Times and asked that a December letter Spanos sent the L.A. committee be referenced. The two-paragraph letter rejected Kroenke's offer to partner with a second team in his planned Inglewood stadium. "Nothing in Stan's letter gives me any reason to reconsider my partnership with Mark Davis and our chosen stadium site," Spanos wrote. The one thing everyone can agree upon is that this is a very fluid process and plans can shift very quickly. Three-quarters of owners must approve any franchise relocation. It's believed both projects have the nine votes to block the other, although that could be shifting in favor of the Rams after last week's meetings of the finance, stadium and L.A. committees at league headquarters in New York. It's unclear if the six-owner L.A. committee will recommend a stadium plan or whether such an endorsement would be unanimous. Two members of that committee, Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson and Houston Texans owner Bob McNair, have made it clear in public that they favor the Carson plan. Though the cost of the Inglewood stadium proposed by Kroenke has been publicly estimated at $1.86 billion, the league insiders say the cost likely would significantly exceed $2 billion. That would make it the most expensive venue in U.S. sports history. At 3 million square feet -- including identical locker rooms, office space and owner's suites for two teams -- it would also be the NFL's largest stadium. The project would be the centerpiece of a 298-acre entertainment, retail and housing development, something one owner called an "NFL Disney World." According to the relocation application the Rams submitted to the league last week, the stadium would be ready for the 2019 season. Disney Chairman and CEO Robert Iger, who would oversee the Carson proposal if it is approved and have the opportunity for a minority ownership stake in the Chargers or Raiders, is expected to make a presentation to owners in Houston. On Saturday, Goodell sent a 48-page report to all franchises saying that the three home markets -- Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis -- failed to produce viable stadium plans. In the report, which did not make any recommendations, Goodell said market research supports the conclusion that L.A. is capable of being a two-team market. Though the L.A. Memorial Coliseum has expressed a willingness to temporarily host one NFL team starting next season, it's unclear where a second team would play. USC's lease to operate the Coliseum would need to be amended to allow two NFL teams. Last summer, the Rose Bowl Bowl Operating Co. declined to respond to the NFL's request for a proposal to temporarily host a team. League officials, who have also looked at Angel Stadium, Dodger Stadium and the 27,000-seat StubHub Center, say they aren't concerned about finding temporary homes for two L.A. teams. Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts Jr. reiterated his city's support for the privately-financed stadium Monday. "As we have believed all along, the Inglewood project is the best option for the NFL, from an economic and geographic perspective," Butts wrote in an email. "The companion development will make the stadium viable for year round uses. The HKS designed project will be the largest, most beautiful stadium in the world. We are hopeful that the NFL owners will agree." Carson Mayor Albert Robles didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la...112-story.html
Posts: 80,659

01-12-2016, 12:15 AM	#46
DenverChief MVP Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Rocky Ford Casino cash: $5729867	The only place the raiders are going is San Antonio
Posts: 16,177

01-12-2016, 07:04 AM	#47
BlackHelicopters Spiraling down the Drain Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Dante's Ninth Circle Casino cash: $2500588	No1curr __________________ "We're both part of the same hypocrisy, Senator, but never think it applies to my family." "Fredo. You are my brother, and I love you. But never take sides against the Family again. Ever." 2019 Adopt a Chief - Travis Kelce #87
Posts: 31,711

01-12-2016, 09:04 AM	#50
tooge MVP Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Liberty, MO Casino cash: $3764112	I'm not sure what the tax revenue for Missouri is from the Rams being in the state. It's got to be pretty nice, when you consider some fans travel there to see their team on the road (Chicago, Tenn, Dallas, KC, Indy) if they are somewhat close. Yeah, I think St. Louis fans suck as NFL fans, but I do hate to lose revenue that the state was getting from the Rams. Other than that though, the STL can suck it.
Posts: 15,120

01-12-2016, 09:18 AM	#56
Rams Fan Greatest QB Duo of 2015 Join Date: Mar 2010 Casino cash: $2411133	Well, assuming the Rams move, I think I'm done following and watching the NFL on a regular basis. It's absolute horse shit how Kroenke's treated St. Louis and because of that I don't really think I'll be interested in supporting the Rams or giving a shit about anyone of the other 31 teams in the NFL.
Posts: 17,134

01-12-2016, 09:27 AM	#57
mikeyis4dcats. Scarlett Johansson's boytoy Join Date: Nov 2006 Casino cash: $9555998	I guess I just don't see the need for 2 teams in LA and one in Oakland and one is San Fran. But whatever... __________________
Posts: 12,526