For those not familiar with SoCal, "the 405" is Interstate 405, which runs near both the Rams' proposed venue in Inglewood and the Chargers/Raiders proposed venue in Carson.

Anyway, a few more bits of new news on this.

So, Chargers and Rams?

Quote:Jim Trotter
‏@JimTrotter_NFL

The vibe I'm getting from talking to people at the owners meetings is: It will take a successful Hail Mary for SD to keep the Chargers.

4:37 AM - 7 Oct 2015

Quote:Michael Paul
‏@StewartGSOT

@JimTrotter_NFL @wingoz thoughts on St. Louis keeping Rams?

4:41 AM - 7 Oct 2015

Quote:Jim Trotter Verified account
‏@JimTrotter_NFL

@StewartGSOT @wingoz Sense I get: depends on whether NFL (read, Goodell) can get Kroenke and Spanos to go in on LA together.

4:47 AM - 7 Oct 2015

Raiders say, not so fast, we're going to LA, even if we need some Magic to get there...

Quote:Jason Cole
‏@JasonColeBR

Source: Deal by #Raiders owner Mark Davis to sell part of team to LA investor could be coming soon in hopes of moving team. #NFL

4:29 PM - 7 Oct 2015

Quote:RaiderTruths
‏@RaiderTruths

I'm betting it's Magic Johnson.

4:47 PM - 7 Oct 2015

The implication is that even if there is still no negotiated settlement in January, they'll take a vote and see where everyone stands, and if no team has at least 24 owner votes in its favor, presumably they'll keep trying to work out something to break the impasse.

Quote:Jason Cole
‏@JasonColeBR

#Cowboys owner Jerry Jones strongly said time is NOW for return of #NFL to LA. Said the league has the situation "in the crosshairs."

1:53 PM - 6 Oct 2015

Quote:Sam Farmer
‏@LATimesfarmer

Art Rooney, LA chair, says he expects a vote in January. Wouldn't say that flippantly.

2:42 PM - 7 Oct 2015

I recently heard there was an informal poll taken that stated the Raiders were the team La wanted back by a pretty wide margin. When the Rams moved to Anaheim an can see team taking on a move Orange County vibe.

I think that's right, the Raiders would be the best received team by LA fans. That's one of the messy things about this for the NFL. The Raiders are the team least likely to get approval to move to LA, because they don't have the money to finance a move and don't have many supporters among the other owners, but they'd have the most enthusiasm there if they did move.

Here's the biggest question: This idea of Goodell or his aides brokering a settlement that everyone can live with? Every significant issue during Goodell's tenure -- player discipline, the concussion/brain injury issue, Deflategate, the Saints suspensions -- they've made a big mess of it and/or just kicked the can down the road. Why would we believe that Goodell is going to skillfully manage the LA situation?

(10-08-2015 10:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I think that's right, the Raiders would be the best received team by LA fans. That's one of the messy things about this for the NFL. The Raiders are the team least likely to get approval to move to LA, because they don't have the money to finance a move and don't have many supporters among the other owners, but they'd have the most enthusiasm there if they did move.

Here's the biggest question: This idea of Goodell or his aides brokering a settlement that everyone can live with? Every significant issue during Goodell's tenure -- player discipline, the concussion/brain injury issue, Deflategate, the Saints suspensions -- they've made a big mess of it and/or just kicked the can down the road. Why would we believe that Goodell is going to skillfully manage the LA situation?

The only reasonable solution to this I felt was if it was the NFL offices building the stadium in LA. Once Kroenke made his move with Hollywood Park, the Charlie Foxtrot is damn near a given.

Los Angeles had their teams and lost them.

They can have a franchise, but it is not their God-given right to house one.

Agreed, nobody has any divine right to the NFL, it's just a matter of the billionaires' club working it out amongst themselves.

(10-08-2015 10:40 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 10:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I think that's right, the Raiders would be the best received team by LA fans. That's one of the messy things about this for the NFL. The Raiders are the team least likely to get approval to move to LA, because they don't have the money to finance a move and don't have many supporters among the other owners, but they'd have the most enthusiasm there if they did move.

Here's the biggest question: This idea of Goodell or his aides brokering a settlement that everyone can live with? Every significant issue during Goodell's tenure -- player discipline, the concussion/brain injury issue, Deflategate, the Saints suspensions -- they've made a big mess of it and/or just kicked the can down the road. Why would we believe that Goodell is going to skillfully manage the LA situation?

The only reasonable solution to this I felt was if it was the NFL offices building the stadium in LA. Once Kroenke made his move with Hollywood Park, the Charlie Foxtrot is damn near a given.

The NFL can easily afford to finance the entire stadium itself, although that raises the questions of:
(1) How do you decide which teams get to play there and which teams get excluded from the stadium that all 32 of them paid to build?
(2) If the NFL is willing to pay for a stadium for one or two of its teams, then why should the taxpayers subsidize new stadiums for the Vikings, Falcons, Browns, etc.?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-n...story.html

Quote:Art Rooney II, the influential Pittsburgh Steelers owner who chairs the NFL's Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities, expects owners to vote in January on a team or teams relocating to L.A.

Rooney's comments came Wednesday after owners discussed L.A. during their fall meeting at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

"There's nothing for sure right now," he said. "We need to take the vote and see what the result is. ... I think there will be a vote."

Rooney believes the three teams backing two competing stadium plans in L.A. -- the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams -- will all file for relocation.

However, Eric Grubman, the NFL executive vice president who is the point man on L.A., doesn't think the owners are tied to a January vote. "There's nothing that locks us into January," he said. "There are any number of scenarios that could emerge. ... Are we so committed to January that we can't delay? The answer is no. It's as early as January and we've set it up to enable January. But we're not committed to January."

Quote:The cross-ownership complications of St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke are over.

NFL owners on Wednesday approved Kroenke’s plan, which allows him to retain ownership of the Rams, and transfers ownership of the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche to his wife, Ann Walton Kroenke. She is a Wal-Mart heiress, who, according to Forbes, is worth an estimated $4.6 billion.

The Nuggets and the Avalanche will be run by the Kroenkes' son, Josh.

Quote:Kroenke’s proposal includes a domed stadium and an artificial playing surface in Inglewood. Spanos, who has teamed with the Oakland Raiders, has put forward an open-air, natural-grass facility adjacent to the 405 Freeway in Carson.

The idea of Kroenke and Spanos teaming up in Inglewood has been suggested as a solution to the conundrum, but nothing has come of previous discussions involving the site.

The Chargers, for example, had no interest in purchasing a 60-acre parcel of land owned by Wal-Mart on the periphery of the Hollywood Park site.

Kroenke bought the parcel, which isn’t large enough to be the site of a stadium on its own, in January 2014 and partnered with Stockbridge Capital, which controls the site’s remaining 238 acres, to propose a facility.

Quote:National Car Rental secured the naming rights to the proposed riverfront stadium in St. Louis on Wednesday, pledging $158 million over 20 years. The agreement hinges on an NFL team -- the city is fighting to keep the Rams -- playing in the venue.

The move wasn't well-received by some in the NFL, however. They were puzzled that the deal was announced while league owners were meeting and didn't view the $7.9-million-per-year accord as particularly lucrative.

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones jabbed the deal in a conversation with the Sports Business Journal, saying the amount "would buy a lobby" in an L.A. stadium.

The last time naming rights were sold for a proposed NFL stadium, Farmers Insurance pledged $700 million over 20 years for AEG's project in downtown L.A.

(10-08-2015 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The NFL can easily afford to finance the entire stadium itself, although that raises the questions of:
(1) How do you decide which teams get to play there and which teams get excluded from the stadium that all 32 of them paid to build?
(2) If the NFL is willing to pay for a stadium for one or two of its teams, then why should the taxpayers subsidize new stadiums for the Vikings, Falcons, Browns, etc.?

1. Well that's for the owners to figure out but I would say whichever could get the votes for approval. since the NFL would own it, the team that move would simply be a tenant. I would think the Chargers and Raiders would be the only legit considerations in such a scenario.

2. Location alone would be the major difference. The NFL could host Super Bowls in the stadium every 3rd year along with the Pro Bowl and the Combine. Throw in a couple of Final Fours, CFP games and the PAC 12 Championship and the facility would print money for the NFL.

As for city contributions, I think that depends on leverage. In Atlanta, Blank didn't have that much leverage since he couldn't make a stadium profitable alone as the one Ga. Dome was still around. The Metrodome on the other hand wasn't going to get any of those ancillary events. I think as long as the NFL makes a contribution to new stadiums that they are in the clear.

(10-08-2015 12:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  1. Well thanks for the owners to figure out but I would say whichever could get the votes for approval. since the NFL would own it, the team that move would simply be a tenant. I would think the Chargers and Raiders would be the only legit considerations in such a scenario.

Agreed, though a move is not as attractive, and won't increase franchise value as much, if a team is a tenant and doesn't have access to the other revenue streams that, say, the Cowboys can tap into. All that revenue you mention from other events in an NFL-owned stadium, and real estate development on adjacent properties, would go to the league and not to the team owner. Which is why Dean Spanos tells reporters that the Chargers don't want to be a tenant in Inglewood -- he's holding out for a share of the revenue that only Kroenke would get if he is sole owner of the stadium.

Spanos found another owner who wants to share ownership of a stadium, in Davis.

Kroenke wants to keep all the money for himself.

(10-08-2015 01:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 12:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  1. Well thanks for the owners to figure out but I would say whichever could get the votes for approval. since the NFL would own it, the team that move would simply be a tenant. I would think the Chargers and Raiders would be the only legit considerations in such a scenario.

Agreed, though a move is not as attractive, and won't increase franchise value as much, if a team is a tenant and doesn't have access to the other revenue streams that, say, the Cowboys can tap into. All that revenue you mention from other events in an NFL-owned stadium, and real estate development on adjacent properties, would go to the league and not to the team owner. Which is why Dean Spanos tells reporters that the Chargers don't want to be a tenant in Inglewood -- he's holding out for a share of the revenue that only Kroenke would get if he is sole owner of the stadium.

I concur. I haven't heard any major news out of yesterday's meeting but I'm sure Kroenke is aware of Spanos' bloc and is evaluating what it will take for them to switch to being at the very least, neutral when the vote. Economics aside, I don't think Stan would lose any sleep being the sole tenant at his new place.

(10-08-2015 01:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Spanos found another owner who wants to share ownership of a stadium, in Davis.

Kroenke wants to keep all the money for himself.

But currently neither of those two have the finances to even lend credibility to that dream. The proposed land is still own by the city of Carson and the EIS remains under review.

Of course Kroenke would be just fine if only the Rams played in his new stadium. His only concern is that he is the sole owner of the stadium and gets to keep all the money for himself.

He only wants to let another NFL team be a tenant. And that's why he won't get the votes to allow the Rams to be moved.


Spanos and Davis, on the other hand, have formed a partnership to be co-owners and bring both their teams to LA.

You talk about the Carson site like there's a strong probability that it wouldn't get approved, even if it was the only stadium plan being considered. It just needs time. The rest would fall into place.


But as has been mentioned so many other times, Kroenke is ready to go. His stadium and site aren't any better than Carson, he's just ready now as opposed to ready in two years from now.


As I've said, life isn't fair. So maybe Kroenke will get his way in the end. Maybe he'll get to build his stadium, move the Rams there and keep all the money for himself, while the Carson stadium will be denied and either Davis or Spanos will have to cut a deal to just be tenants.

But if I could force things to happen the way I want them to happen, I'd make the Rams stay in STL (in the new riverfront stadium) and let Spanos and Davis figure out how to build Carson for the Raiders and Chargers. And if Kroenke wanted to sell the Rams because he didn't get his way, fine with me.

(10-08-2015 02:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Of course Kroenke would be just fine if only the Rams played in his new stadium. His only concern is that he is the sole owner of the stadium and gets to keep all the money for himself.

He only wants to let another NFL team be a tenant. And that's why he won't get the votes to allow the Rams to be moved.

Neither of us know anything about how the vote would play out. Supposedly Spanos has 9, but that means Kroenke only needs to move 2-3 owners and cash is a wonderful lubricant.

With Spanos floating the idea of being an equal partner, I think the opportunity is ripe for Davis to come in with Kroenke as a tenant with a 35% share of non-Ram events.

Quote:Spanos and Davis, on the other hand, have formed a partnership to be co-owners and bring both their teams to LA.

You talk about the Carson site like there's a strong probability that it wouldn't get approved, even if it was the only stadium plan being considered. It just needs time. The rest would fall into place.

Again, when they get the cash and the land I'll give the Carson project more credibility. There have literally been dozens of LA stadium proposals and most have lacked either a tenant (Farmers Field and City of Industry site) or private financing (Carson).

Quote:But as has been mentioned so many other times, Kroenke is ready to go. His stadium and site aren't any better than Carson, he's just ready now as opposed to ready in two years from now.

Being ready now is much better than being theoretically ready later. I'm not sure why you can't see the distinction.

Quote:As I've said, life isn't fair. So maybe Kroenke will get his way in the end. Maybe he'll get to build his stadium, move the Rams there and keep all the money for himself, while the Carson stadium will be denied and either Davis or Spanos will have to cut a deal to just be tenants.

But if I could force things to happen the way I want them to happen, I'd make the Rams stay in STL (in the new riverfront stadium) and let Spanos and Davis figure out how to build Carson for the Raiders and Chargers. And if Kroenke wanted to sell the Rams because he didn't get his way, fine with me.

I guess this finally clarifies the tenor of your posts. Why, might I ask, do you want the scenario to play out as you suggest? Why not force Davis and Spanos to remain in their respective cities? You seem to believe they have the ends to make the Carson site a reality, why not just work built new places in Oakland and San Diego?

I think you're wrong. I think Spanos and Davis are committed to each other 100% and neither will have anything to do with the Kroenke Dome.

The Carson stadium can and will get done, if it is allowed time to be developed. I don't know how long it will take, but I would think a couple years is enough.


Why do I want Kroenke to fail and Spans & Davis to succeed? Two reasons:

1) I just hate rich, greedy as_holes, like Kroenke.

If he had come out from the beginning and said "I know that it would be in the collective interest of the NFL to have two franchises in LA, so I am actively seeking a 50/50 co-ownership of the stadium with another owner, in that spirit", I'd probably be rooting for him.

2) I want there to be an NFL team in St Louis, because I like the midwest and it seems the St Louis is well on its way to putting forth a viable stadium plan. If metros like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Cleveland get to have NFL teams, I don't see why St Louis should have to go without. And it would be much easier if the Rams just stayed put.

On the other hand, the bay area already has a historic NFL franchise, with a new stadium, and as for San Diego ... I just don't have much sympathy for them. It's close enough to LA and California already has tons of pro teams. Plus they seem very unwilling to put effort forth to build a new stadium for the Chargers. I guess the Padres at Petco is enough for them.

(10-09-2015 08:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think you're wrong. I think Spanos and Davis are committed to each other 100% and neither will have anything to do with the Kroenke Dome.

The Carson stadium can and will get done, if it is allowed time to be developed. I don't know how long it will take, but I would think a couple years is enough.

That's fine. I'm not emotionally invested in it one way or another. I'm find the machinations interesting and more appealing than what the Kardashians are doing.

Quote:Why do I want Kroenke to fail and Spans & Davis to succeed? Two reasons:

1) I just hate rich, greedy as_holes, like Kroenke.

If he had come out from the beginning and said "I know that it would be in the collective interest of the NFL to have two franchises in LA, so I am actively seeking a 50/50 co-ownership of the stadium with another owner, in that spirit", I'd probably be rooting for him.

They're all rich an greedy by most metrics. I don't know how you can make the distinction. Nor am I sure its in the collective interest of the NFL to have two teams in LA.

Quote:2) I want there to be an NFL team in St Louis, because I like the midwest and it seems the St Louis is well on its way to putting forth a viable stadium plan. If metros like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Cleveland get to have NFL teams, I don't see why St Louis should have to go without. And it would be much easier if the Rams just stayed put.

I don't have an issue with this sentiment, but I'm sure STL would get another team if the Rams left. Either via expansion or relocation.

Quote:On the other hand, the bay area already has a historic NFL franchise, with a new stadium, and as for San Diego ... I just don't have much sympathy for them. It's close enough to LA and California already has tons of pro teams. Plus they seem very unwilling to put effort forth to build a new stadium for the Chargers. I guess the Padres at Petco is enough for them.

Baseball stadiums are cheaper the football facilities, plus as Wedge stated in the previous thread, Spanos apparently lacks the political acumen of the former Padres owner to get a new stadium done with taxpayer assistance. Despite this, I don't understand your confidence in the Carson proposal given that neither the Raiders nor the Chargers can get anything done in their current locations.

The distinction is straightforward: he wants to be sole owner of the stadium and keep all the money from events there, including another NFL team playing there.

That there are two of them, is reason enough alone to discount the lack of success of their singular efforts.

Plus you have to consider that maybe neither of them really want to stay in Oakland or San Diego, and both are fixed on moving to LA.

They have had HOW LONG to put a team in LA and haven't done it. Believe it when I see it.

Hopefully none of them move. I hate LA Sports teams with a passion.

The NFL will be holding a dog-and-pony show later this month in each of the three cities whose teams publicly aspire to move to Los Angeles:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...-san-diego

Quote:The NFL announced today that it will conduct public hearings later this month in Oakland, St. Louis and San Diego as part of the league's procedures for evaluating potential franchise relocations. The hearings will take place on October 27 (St. Louis), October 28 (San Diego) and October 29 (Oakland).

The purpose of these hearings is to provide an opportunity for fans and others in the community to ask questions and express their views directly to the NFL before any decisions are made about potential relocation of a club or clubs from a current market. Members of Commissioner Goodell's executive staff will be in attendance to listen to comments and answer questions from the audience.

Each hearing will take place from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. local time and will be streamed live on NFL.com/publichearings.

The hearings are open to the public and a free entry pass is required to attend. Pre-registration to request an entry pass begins tomorrow. Information on how to submit your request is provided below.

Entry passes will be reserved for season ticket members of each team on a first-come, first-serve basis. Members of the community who are not season ticket members will also have the opportunity to request an entry pass on a first-come, first-serve basis.