Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Inglewood *sounds* great, but for all the criticism of the St. Louis and Carson designs, how many stadium renderings from Inglewood are out there?

More than enough, considering that his is the only plan that's both fast-tracked for environmental approval and part of a larger development project that's already under construction.

Renderings are cheap. Actual movement is both expensive and hard, and Kronke's the only one who has it at the moment.

Yeah, anyone can put some renderings together. Case in point, the St. Louis proposal.

A much bigger step is actually acquiring the land. The Chargers/Raiders say they have a spot. Kroenke already owns a huge chunk of land. Kronke is still in the driver's seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I call so bull :censored: on that.

If that were truly the case, you wouldn't be in here 5-10 times a day defending or spinning every single bit of information that comes across the wire with lengthy discussions on how this works in the Rams favor. I don't mind optimism or trying to keep your team, but the extent that you go to just comes off as kind of... idk, pathetic's not the right word here. Sad, maybe? And you're so damn defensive about it. It's not a personal thing about you or your character, it's a football team that you have claimed or now claim that you don't actually like.

You're all welcome to your opinions, but that doesn't make you a good judge. I assure you I've pretty much assumed they were gone for most of 2015 so far. Some of the developments with the stadium and now with this have made me think it's no longer a certainty, and in fact today's news makes me think it's back to being a toss up.

I've also argue to many St. Louisans that supporting the stadium plan is bad business. I'm not in favor of it, and I don't think having an NFL team has tangible positives.

But I'm for better or worse a stupidly diehard Rams fans, and an incredibly passionate St. Louisan, so I do keep up with every move as it concerns how this might play out.

Some of you act like I'm the only one saying these things lol.

I do appreciate y'all making sure to clarify that when you call me delusional, sad, and pathetic, that it's not personal. ;)

If your vote was the deciding vote...

Are you voting yes to the stadium so the Rams stay, or are you voting no to the stadium and watching the Rams...a team that you follow year-round, whether it's training camp or the preseason or regular season or draft or free agency, etc.....leave for Los Angeles?

Your head may say "Vote no", but seeing you go to all the great lengths at defending your teams over the years....your heart is going to make you vote "Yes", not only so you get to keep your team, but that you also can say "See, I kept telling you the Rams weren't leaving!".

You wouldn't be so optimistic about the Rams staying in St. Louis if you weren't this diehard fan of theirs. You wouldn't be looking for glimmers of hope, overlooking the fact that the team owner has made recent land purchases in Los Angeles...stated his hopes and intentions of moving his team there...and not once trying to get a deal done in St. Louis.

You may claim you hate the NFL and the sport and the team frustrates you to no end, but no way in hell are you voting against your emotions and your sports heart's football team. If you hate something, you'd have washed your hands of it a long time ago.

You've already made it clear you don't believe me, so well, alright.

But I'm voting no for this plan. It wouldn't take all that much to change my mind, but this current plan? I'm voting no. If it comes to a public vote (and I figure they'll avoid that), I will vote no.

Preserve the majority of buildings, lower the public costs, have more than just a hope for an MLS team (like maybe at least have an ownership group clearly ready to compete for one)... do one or two of these things, and I'd probably change my vote to yes. It'd still be a raw deal, but it'd be less of a raw deal, and I'd go for it.

But right now, I would vote no. It would hurt, but I'd still do it because it'd be the right thing for my city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we don't make this about each other? Just a thought. This thread has gone on for years and most of our tendencies are out there. Just another thought.

But he says what I've been thinking and others in this thread have denied: There are three lame ducks as of now. I know they can't officially announce the move, but doesn't buying land and releasing renderings make the intentions clear?

Indeed. While sports fans' emotions are always a little raw when there's talk of franchise relocation, getting personal or combative in the discussion isn't necessary here.

The land acquisition steps that have reportedly been taken are a new, bold, dramatic step, but nothing's irreversible unless and until construction equipment starts showing up at the scene.

The problem is that in each case (probably in increasing degrees the Raiders, Chargers, then Rams), they've pissed off their fan base by taking these steps. So if they somehow stay in their current market, there'll be at least some who won't come back no matter what.

The St. Louis stadium team and now this Chargers-Raiders plan go out of their way to say they're working with the NFL "every step of the way."

Has Kroenke's plan ever said anything of the sort? Not that I'm aware of, and the NFL reacted to his announcement with "we're in charge" and now the (admittedly shady and dishonest) Chargers reveal a plan they've been working on for nine months -- so it was very much not as reactive as it seemed -- less than a month after a strong denial that they were doing anything of the sort.

I've said I'm impressed with just how much leverage Kroenke created for himself on all sides, and he's going to "win" somehow in this whole thing. Up until two days ago, I thought that could even mean staying put and having the NFL ultimately buy/control the site (as had been rumored months ago) for whichever teams need it and Super Bowls... even Chargers-Raiders, which also had been floated months ago.

Now it seems there is no backup plan involving Inglewood and that the NFL, Raiders and Chargers have no intention of partnering with him. Today Kroenke looks like an outsider again, one who might have to go full Al Davis to end up with the Rams in L.A. Tomorrow might bring news that makes it look like the NFL just wants a stadium, any stadium in L.A. But I've never believed that since the NFL dismissed what looked like a great idea in Farmers Field two years ago. Inglewood *sounds* great, but for all the criticism of the St. Louis and Carson designs, how many stadium renderings from Inglewood are out there?

Yes, Goodell and the NFL had a bad year and look more vulnerable than they have in a long time. But it's still the freaking NFL. I wouldn't dismiss its power in this so easily.

I'd never looked at it this way, but you know... you're right. Could it be that Kroenke has gone maverick here to a point where in the end he's the odd man out in Los Angeles?

Let's take this a few steps further, just for fun: could it be that Kroenke's plan all along has been not to move the Rams back to Los Angeles, but to make a deal in which he (i) sells the Rams, (ii) sells the Los Angeles land to the Chargers/Raiders partnership, and either gets out of the NFL entirely or (iii) acquires the Broncos from Pat Bowlen's family? If so, Machavelli would be proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12354894/chargers-raiders-rams-lead-nfl-franchise-relocation-race-los-angeles

Q. What's the likelihood that three teams play in Los Angeles?

A. It seems like a stretch at this point. The league requires a three-quarters approval vote of the owners before a franchise can relocate, and one owner told ESPN.com he believes it makes the most sense to have two teams share one stadium. "I'm sure three teams could exist," the owner said, "but [commissioner Roger Goodell] won't let Stan [Kroenke] move to L.A. because [Goodell] will catch holy hell for moving a team from a market willing to spend hundreds of millions to keep a team."

Q. Could Kroenke put up a fight if the league tried to block him from the L.A. market?

A. Jones, one of the league's true power brokers, made it clear in January that he believes the Rams can move without league approval. Jones told The New York Times, "Keep in mind that teams have moved without the permission of the league. They just have. ... There are just certain things that clubs can do." Doing so likely would mean a court battle, which is what the late Al Davis found himself in when the league tried to stop his Raiders from moving to Los Angeles from Oakland in 1982. There's no way of knowing if Mark Davis, Al's son who assumed control of the Raiders franchise following his father's death in October 2011, would be willing to put up such a fight. One virtual certainty, however, is that Spanos would not do so for his Chargers. Spanos believes in doing what's best for the league and following the will of the majority. It's not in his nature to strike out on his own and challenge his fellow owners in a courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

La Canfora covers a lot here.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/25075436/why-the-raiders-are-going-to-la----whether-its-with-rams-or-chargers

The quick hits:

• Views the Raiders as nearly total goners in Oakland. Probably the second team to LA, but says that the league views the Raiders as kind of movable to an locale in the right situation. They're the flex pieces. And he doesn't think they're truly tied tightly to the Chargers. They could join the Rams.

• Still considers the Rams/Kroenke in the leader here.

• Suggests the gap isn't that big, though, and that the Chargers plan may not be far behind Kroenke's.

• St. Louis is in a relatively decent spot, considering the context is that they might lose their current team. Their stadium leaders will meet with league officials again next week, and possibly present to the owners at the league meeting next month. Says there's a solid shot whoever's left out of LA winds up in STL.

• Thinks we could see resolution on this by the October league meeting. If not quite then, then with a special meeting in the following months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two shiny pennies...I honestly think that the Raiders will hook up with anyone that will get them the hell out of Oakland. That being said, the Chargers will be the one without a seat once the music stops playing. The Rams and Raiders will be in LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two shiny pennies...I honestly think that the Raiders will hook up with anyone that will get them the hell out of Oakland. That being said, the Chargers will be the one without a seat once the music stops playing. The Rams and Raiders will be in LA.

But it's clear that the Raiders can't do it alone, and it's not like they're going to be tenants in the Rams' stadium.

The Chargers have a better shot of going it alone than the Raiders. So it's either going to be:

Raiders+Chargers (easiest to happen, leaves the Rams with an eventual new stadium in STL)

Rams+Chargers (requires Chargers to put together a plan from scratch, which they may not be able to afford. Opens up STL for another team. Forces the Raiders to consider STL, San Antonio, or absolutely anywhere else.)

Rams+nobody (also easy to happen since the Rams can break ground soon. Frees up STL for SD or OAK, though I don't think SD would consider that a realistic option. League would oppose, and networks would have issues with only one team in LA.)

Rams+Raider+Chargers (long shot, but could happen only because the pieces seem to be in place. Would be a major risk, since NFL is no guarantee to succeed in LA, let alone with three teams. Networks would have an issue with it, and creative distribution would need to be worked out.)

I no longer see a scenario where it's Rams+Raiders, though that's kind of what I'd like to see, because Bo Jackson and Eric Dickerson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It got swallowed up by the Raiders-Chargers stadium, but a reminder...

The Rams have ended several fan outreach efforts and events effective this offseason.

I wouldn't rule out Kroenke "going rogue". At all.

I wouldn't either.

It's sort of funny. Demoff has backtracked and said they're just modifying the event so that there's more in a smaller setting rather than one big one at the dome. But how stupid would they have to be to not realize what the headlines were going to be. They very much know what they're doing. And what they're doing is cutting back the potential fan involvement to set up the lame duck season.

Kroenke might make everything super clear by sticking a shovel in the ground in 3 weeks.

and it's not like they're going to be tenants in the Rams' stadium.

I don't really see it that way. It seems unlikely to me that the Chargers will be tenants in the Rams stadium. But the Raiders... they'll do whatever they need to do I think.

That's how La Canfora described it, and that feels right to me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another data point that some may have missed as well.

The Rams' search for an offensive coordinator this offseason was something of a cluster :censored: with the team finally settling on promoting some offensive assistants.

As has been mentioned, Jeff Fisher said that when he was hired, he didn't want to go through a move again at all. Now granted he could also probably be in danger of being fired for on-field performance next season, but he might have told the Rams he's resigning in the likely event of a move...and the rest of the coaching fraternity is acting on that, but not taking a one year only OC job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My early thoughts on it.

I think Goodell wanted the Raiders and Chargers in LA this whole time. That is why he spoke out some time ago. It was him telling Kroenke to slow his roll. It doesn't matter. I think Kroenke will kick and scream his way to LA. I think that is a slam dunk. Very interesting to see who will be the odd man out of the three, and where that odd man will go. My early gut feeling is the Raiders will be in St Louis or San Antonio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. What's the likelihood that three teams play in Los Angeles?

A. It seems like a stretch at this point. The league requires a three-quarters approval vote of the owners before a franchise can relocate, and one owner told ESPN.com he believes it makes the most sense to have two teams share one stadium. "I'm sure three teams could exist," the owner said, "but [commissioner Roger Goodell] won't let Stan [Kroenke] move to L.A. because [Goodell] will catch holy hell for moving a team from a market willing to spend hundreds of millions to keep a team."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12354894/chargers-raiders-rams-lead-nfl-franchise-relocation-race-los-angeles

Plaschke also favors the Rams, though he also offers up this scenario:

"But the NFL has the final say, and it could choose this bizarre Chargers-Raiders tandem for one simple reason. Not surprisingly, it is a reason that has nothing to do with Los Angeles and everything to do with the NFL.

The Carson-apalooza would solve not just one, but four of the league’s stadium problems.

It would remove the Chargers from the decrepit Qualcomm Stadium. It would remove the Raiders from the sewage-stained O.Co Coliseum.

It would send the Rams back to a new or improved leverage-built stadium in St. Louis, where officials are already ponying up public money (and you know how the league hates turning down public money).

Finally, it would solve the Los Angeles stadium issue on a site the league once considered purchasing, with the two Los Angeles tenants the league always envisioned."

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk is calling on NFL Comissioner Roger Goodell to step in before things get too chaotic, just as Goodell smoothed things out when Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell announced that he was moving the team to Baltimore 20 years ago. “Ultimately, look for two teams to move to L.A. and one to go elsewhere, with perhaps St. Louis and San Antonio vying for the odd man out. Our best guess for now (and it’s truly just a guess) would be the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium in L.A. (probably Inglewood) and the Raiders relocating to St. Louis or San Antonio,” Florio writes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/20/no-three-nfl-teams-are-not-moving-to-los-angeles/

Some small beacons of hope for St. Louis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it turns out that the Chargers/Raiders/NFL haven't actually purchased the land yet.

San Diego Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani confirmed to NBC's San Diego station that the land purchase for a new joint stadium for the Chargers and Oakland Raiders football teams has not been finalized.

Fabiani confirmed this in an email late Friday, a day after the announcement of the joint stadium proposal in Carson.

“The project is subject to a binding purchase and sale agreement,” Fabiani wrote in the email. “All parties are bound by the agreement.” When NBC 7 first reached out to Fabiani he said, the "land has been purchased through a binding agreement with the seller."

In a press release, the seller of the property was identified as Starwood Capital Group, a company affiliated with Carson Marketplace. Tom Johnson, a spokesperson for the company, confirmed Starwood still owns the land. In an email he said, “we are excited by the prospects for the project."

Johnson added in an email the Chargers have control over the land.

Fabiani said the sale “is not contingent on anything” and “the buyer is obligated to buy. The seller is obligated to sell. Period.”

NBC-LA Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very small. The Rams are still ahead of everyone in terms of moving to Los Angeles.

And St. Louis is ahead of the other cities (besides LA) in building a stadium. I wondered a few weeks back if I ought to change the title of this thread (I think it was originally inspired by a Rams to LA, Jacksonville to STL scenario). But I think it may be as appropriate as ever.

It will be interesting to see if San Antonio stays in the hunt or not. I have to admit I've never been clear if they were a serious possibility for ANY team or just something the Raiders were trying to appear to flirt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh. I know how this is going to sound. But I feel like it should be noted anyways.

Kroenke is a commercial real estate developer that is filthy rich. So he's not exactly going to be left holding the bag if he doesn't get to build his stadium on the Inglewood land. He'll still be able to develop it.

It makes more sense that Davis and Spanos would want to be more cautious with their speculative land purchase.

I can't really tell from Fabiani's quotes above... is the purchase dependent on the teams moving, or have they signed a purchase agreement that is binding period, they just haven't closed the sale?

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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