Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma

Recommended Posts

City, Raiders fund poll to gauge San Antonio's support of NFL team

SAN ANTONIO — For those of you who think that outside chance of the Oakland Raiders relocating to the Alamo City is dead – think again.

Mike Sawaya, director of Convention, Sports, and Entertainment Facilities for the city, told the San Antonio Express-News the city has teamed with the Oakland Raiders to hire a sports industry consultant that's in the process of polling local residents about a potential relocation.

An email poll has already circulated among some 50,000 people who have attended events at the Alamodome, asking questions about the purchase of season tickets, ticket prices and other issues.

The research is being jointed funded by the city and the Raiders.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/City-Raiders-fund-poll-to-gauge-San-Antonio-s-5811435.php

The Chargers also have a year-to-year lease with the City of San Diego for Qualcomm Stadium. The agreement permits the team to terminate the lease at any time between Feb. 1 and May 1 of each calendar year.

The Chargers and the city hope to have a tentative plan for a new stadium emerging by the end of the year. The team and the city would like to place a measure on the ballot for a countywide vote by the November 2016 presidential election.

The Chargers' propose to build a roughly $1 billion facility that could seat as many as 70,000 for Super Bowls.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11671473/san-diego-chargers-present-roadblocks-los-angeles-relocation-other-teams

In 2012, Los Angeles made a deal with AEG, the company behind the Staples Center, to land the city an NFL team and build a downtown stadium. AEG’s deadline for finding a team ends Oct. 17, a week from Friday, but they’re hoping for a six-month extension, citing progress in talks with the NFL. That extension has not yet been approved.

“We’ve now brought negotiations between L.A. and the NFL further along than ever before, and combined with AEG’s experience transforming downtown with Staples Center, I support continuing the momentum with them,” Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) said in a statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/the-politics-behind-why-los-angeles-doesnt-have-an-nfl-team/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chargers are very full of derp. They've been screwing around and booting this stadium thing for a decade now, and their hope is that they can put something to a public vote TWO YEARS from now, then start building a stadium. So, the best they can hope for is that the public votes for the measure and they get a new stadium five years from now. Either they're really dumb, really committed to San Diego, or just biding their time until they can declare for LA.

I'd prefer to see them stay in San Diego, but they should really beat the Raiders to LA if they're smart. I don't know how eager San Diegans would be to pay for that stadium, anyway. Even if they do wait and get a new stadium, if Los Angeles really does give the Chargers 30% of their revenue, they're going to be really hard-off baring them building a dynasty.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bucky Larson, er...Mark Davis is considering moving the Raiders to the NFC if they do decide to move to L.A., according to Bleacher Report...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2224854-insider-buzz-raiders-would-agree-to-nfc-west-move-to-land-los-angeles-stadium#articles/2224854-insider-buzz-raiders-would-agree-to-nfc-west-move-to-land-los-angeles-stadium

The only way that may makes some sense is if the Chargers make the move to L.A. also, and some team willing to move to the AFC West to replace the Raiders.

I can see it for several reasons if the Chargers are the other team... not the least of which being that it would put the Raiders and 49ers in the same division, meaning that Oakland-based fans would have opportunity to see the team at least once a year in the Bay Area.

On the other hand, having both L.A. teams in the same division would provide greater overall financial benefits for the teams going there. Travel costs for the teams would reduced by one-tenth. Plus you'd have not one, but two annual "Battle of Los Angeles" games to promote every year. I've always thought having the Jets/Giants and Raiders/49ers in opposing conferences was a bad idea for these reasons.

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chargers are very full of derp. They've been screwing around and booting this stadium thing for a decade now, and their hope is that they can put something to a public vote TWO YEARS from now, then start building a stadium. So, the best they can hope for is that the public votes for the measure and they get a new stadium five years from now. Either they're really dumb, really committed to San Diego, or just biding their time until they can declare for LA.

I'd prefer to see them stay in San Diego, but they should really beat the Raiders to LA if they're smart. I don't know how eager San Diegans would be to pay for that stadium, anyway. Even if they do wait and get a new stadium, if Los Angeles really does give the Chargers 30% of their revenue, they're going to be really hard-off baring them building a dynasty.

I think it's a confluence of things that will keep the Chargers right where they are.

First, they don't want to sell to AEG or be anyone's tenant so Farmers Field and Hollywood Park are non-starters for them.

Second, they've got a new opening for a stadium in San Diego with the standalone convention center plan now DOA. The city needs an expansion for the Convention Center to keep Comic-Con (which is annually like having a Super Bowl in town financially). The Chargers mixed use stadium plan would offer them that.

Third, new leadership in San Diego (the first solid leadership in several years) is working with them on making the above a reality.

Fourth, they really do seem dedicated to San Diego, at least until 2016 rolls around. They've had plenty of opportunity to move to LA in the past and have always turned it down for reason number 1 in particular and that hasn't changed.

Fifth, while not rich enough to build a stadium absent public funding in LA at all, they do have enough money to make a public/private stadium work in San Diego. And with San Diego backed into a corner on the convention center they might just have the funding to make it happen too.

Now it may not work out in the end for the Chargers, but I just don't see the urgency on their part to get to LA (or San Antonio) like you're seeing out of the Rams and Raiders camps who both seem to want out after this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chargers would attempt to block a Rams move to LA.

Mark Fabiani, special counsel to Chargers president Dean Spanos, and the team’s point person on the stadium issue, said that the team will try to block a move by the Rams or Raiders.

Any relocation vote would require three-quarters of the owners to approve the team moving to a different city.

“Allowing another team to move into those markets would be economically harmful to the Chargers, to say the least,” Fabiani told ESPN. “Especially if it’s a team that has voluntarily vacated that market in the past, such as the Rams or the Raiders–that would be particularly objectionable to the Chargers.”

All three teams played in Los Angeles before–the Rams and Raiders until 1994, and the Chargers in 1960.

Fabiani’s comments after news broke that the NFL plans to send one or even two teams back to Los Angeles within the next one to two years.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1010816-st-louis-rams-rumors-relocation-to-los-angeles-could-be-blocked-by-san-diego-chargers/

Agreed. I'm in favor of Kroenke building his stadium at Hollywood Park for just that reason. The city can streamline the process, perhaps some tax incentives. but the developer who will benefit from the stadium has to pay for it.

Any reason you don't favor Kroenke building his own stadium in St. Louis? Or is it just a matter of one you view as plausible and one you view as unplausible and therefore don't even consider it?

(If there's a tone to any of that, it's unintended. Genuine question.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe George Lucas can invest. He just got a boatload of money from Disney when he sold the Star Wars franchise.

The L.A. Jedis!

Nah, he's strictly a Northern California kind of guy.

*insert obligatory comment on how Southern California is the Dark Side*

It's funny you brought him up...Los Angeles AND San Francisco just lost out on this giant Film Production Museum he wanted to build and now they're going to put it in Chicago, of all places. It was going to be filled with pre-production memoribilia, concept art, set pieces, props, the works. But somehow the city couldn't agree on a proper site (they even considered building it with the California Sciene Museum that's next to USC) and Chicago was able to swoop in and steal the museum right under Cali's nose.

GR30a5H.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mayor: NFL 'finally interested' in LA

LOS ANGELES -- In the strongest terms yet about the prospect of luring professional football back to Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti says an NFL team is "highly likely" to come to the city in the next year.

On Thursday's "Ask the Mayor" segment on radio station KNX, Garcetti said that though the city doesn't want to subsidize a stadium, he thinks the NFL is "finally interested" in Los Angeles again.

According to multiple media reports, NFL team owners received an update on the LA situation from league executives at the league's annual fall meetings in Manhattan this week.

New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch told the Los Angeles Times that there were references in the meetings to potential new locations, including a couple in the Carson area of south Los Angeles County.

"It hasn't gone backward, but it hasn't gone forward," Tisch said.

Los Angeles hasn't had an NFL franchise since the Raiders and the Rams left after the 1994 season.

On Friday, the Los Angeles City Council's Economic Development Committee considers a six-month extension of an agreement with developer Anschutz Entertainment Group to find a NFL team to play at a downtown stadium. The 2-year-old deal is scheduled to expire next week.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/11674958/mayor-eric-garcetti-says-highly-likely-nfl-team-come-los-angeles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chargers would attempt to block a Rams move to LA.

Mark Fabiani, special counsel to Chargers president Dean Spanos, and the teams point person on the stadium issue, said that the team will try to block a move by the Rams or Raiders.

Any relocation vote would require three-quarters of the owners to approve the team moving to a different city.

Allowing another team to move into those markets would be economically harmful to the Chargers, to say the least, Fabiani told ESPN. Especially if its a team that has voluntarily vacated that market in the past, such as the Rams or the Raidersthat would be particularly objectionable to the Chargers.

All three teams played in Los Angeles beforethe Rams and Raiders until 1994, and the Chargers in 1960.

Fabianis comments after news broke that the NFL plans to send one or even two teams back to Los Angeles within the next one to two years.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1010816-st-louis-rams-rumors-relocation-to-los-angeles-could-be-blocked-by-san-diego-chargers/

This echoes what he said previously, in the interview within the last year where we got the "30 percent from L.A." quote.

If true, all the more reason to limit L.A. to one team... unless the Chargers get on board. Well, I suppose they'd always have San Antonio... but they can't really lay claim to L.A. from San Diego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misleading headline is misleading.

The Chargers could not "block" another team's relocation. It takes eight votes to do that, and they have just one. No veto.

They could theoretically convince seven other owners to vote against it, but it would be interesting to see how they would try. "My team can't survive unless you let this massive and lucrative market lie fallow" isn't exactly a compelling case.

If the Chargers really need LA that badly, then they'll just need to beat the Raiders to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I'm in favor of Kroenke building his stadium at Hollywood Park for just that reason. The city can streamline the process, perhaps some tax incentives. but the developer who will benefit from the stadium has to pay for it.

Any reason you don't favor Kroenke building his own stadium in St. Louis? Or is it just a matter of one you view as plausible and one you view as unplausible and therefore don't even consider it?

(If there's a tone to any of that, it's unintended. Genuine question.)

I meant in the context of presuming the team is already moving, and should the LA stadium be financed by the club or by the public. I'm in favor of the Hollywood Park plan, rather than one with a greater public contribution.

But for what it's worth, I don't view the possibility that he pays for a stadium in St. Louis to be terribly plausible. Moving to LA would, what, double the franchise value? That's an incentive for him to spend his own money on a building; not so if he stays in Missouri. If he re-ups with St. Louis it'll be because the city/county/state made him an incredible deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh. They'd attempt to block. Just because you need help to do something doesn't mean you can't say you're attempting it.

Maybe that misleads people who aren't familiar with the situation, but I read that to mean they'd try to convince other owners it shouldn't happen.

By the way, there's also a crazy rumor out there that's almost certainly nothing more than a message board poster enjoying his anonymous moment of virtual fame, but I figured I'd share for the hell of it.

I got the low down on this situation from an associate at the office of the Chaifetz Group in Chicago. I was skeptical but everything that has happened is fitting just like he said including today's events at the owners meetings with the extension.

here it is:

Stan Kroenke has asked for the extension with the owners for a number reasons. The first one being that he is looking to sell the St. Louis Rams. He does not want to get into a relocation situation nor lengthy negotiations with the city. They have been talking but Stan isn't interested in dealing with it. The NFL has granted the extension as a buyer is vetted. That is why you have heard the name Dave Peacock comes in. He is attempting to put together a group to purchase the team from Kroenke. Behind the scenes it has apparently become a bidding war as AEG is involved with the group Peacock has put together. The sources that are saying the Rams are moving are from AEG. The scenario that is playing out appears to be Kroenke applying for relocation and then AEG purchasing the team and moving them to Farmers Field location. That is where that extension came in 4 weeks ago.

Now, a couple of things. The NFL is rumored to NOT necessarily be on board with this situation BUT the reason that Bernie, Randy, Burwell, and others are saying that local leaders need to step up is because Peacock is looking for people to join his group. So far it's only going OK but AEG has the resources in place to buy now and the Peacock group is lagging somehwat. This part is unsubstantiated but AEG is offering 1 Billion for 80%. Kroenke is willing to do it now but the Dave Peacock group has asked for, and been given, more time to get the group together.

If you remember a few weeks back local media said there was an 'uptick' with news. It was the fact that Peacock has put together a group and was looking good.

Say what you want that I am a 'fraud' and a 'liar' but the reason I know this is the fact that Dave Peacock has personally asked Richard Chaifetz to join the effort to purchase the Rams. This is all true, every word of it. I wouldn't waste my time doing this if it were not.

But then the guy later went back and deleted his posts and said his info is good, but he just made a mistake by sharing info that was given to him in confidence.

As best I can tell, he also deleted THAT post.

Anyways, hell of an effort by that guy. He didn't settle for just starting a rumor, he went all in. I'll give it a quarter of an eighth of a percent odds of having any truth at all. There's a lot of reasons why it doesn't add up, but it's not really even worthy of breaking them down lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, AEG owning the Rams?

I'm ok with that.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA committee backs bid for more time to lure NFL

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A City Council committee on Friday backed AEG's bid for more time to lure an NFL team to Los Angeles, a day after the mayor said it's ''highly likely'' the city will get a team next year.

The Economic Development Committee approved a six-month extension of an agreement with Anschutz Entertainment Group to build a downtown stadium and convince a professional football team to play there.

The developer has had no luck and the deal inked in 2012, was scheduled to expire next week.

However, the deadline could be extended to April if the full City Council approves the extension at a meeting next week.

Ted Fikre, AEG's chief legal and development officer, told the council committee that the lack of success is disappointing but progress was being made.

The company has been in ''renewed dialogue'' with the National Football League and it was encouraging enough that ''we felt it was worth taking some more time to continue the effort,'' Fikre said.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mayor-highly-likely-nfl-team-come-la-143816052--nfl.html;_ylt=A0LEVz.oITpUoEgABTlXNyoA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think AEG actually can own the Rams. But Anschutz himself, could.

Why couldn't AEG own them?

Also if true that the Rams are in their sights it lends credence to the idea the Raiders will be right behind them.

Ummm....why? League rules bar anybody from owning/having a stake in more than 1 team.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.