NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[STL FANATIC]

My understanding (which means nothing because it's impossible to understand anything about this clearly right now) is that the Inglewood stadium is designed that way because the NFL essentially requires it. If he wants any hope of having the NFL's blessing, he had to design it that way.

That doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be pulling for a team to immediately join him. But it wouldn't shock me to see him try to lure the Raiders if that's what it takes to get his proposal favored over the Carson proposal.

[Gothamite]

That's how I read it as well - he would be perfectly happy to keep it to himself, but if another team comes along to pay rent and fill empty dates, then that would be okay.

I don't think he's particularly interested in a true groundshare, but there's no team in a position to demand one either.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Well at least he's now caught up in the "pretty drawings" category.

[rxmc89]

Proposed Chargers-Raiders stadium near Los Angeles advances

LOS ANGELES (AP) Organizers behind a proposed stadium near Los Angeles that could become home for the NFL's San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders announced Saturday they reached an important, early benchmark on the path to construction.

A coalition of supporters, including labor unions, has collected over 14,000 petition signatures in the city of Carson, nearly twice the number needed to place the stadium plan before local voters.

The Carson signatures must be verified by election officials to qualify the plan for the ballot, a process that is expected to begin next week. However, the election could be bypassed if the project is approved by Carson's City Council.

http://news.yahoo.com/proposed-chargers-raiders-stadium-near-los-angeles-advances-193108017.html

So both LA stadiums should be shovel ready soon.

Just both? Grand Crossing (City of Industry), while neither preferred nor attached to a current NFL franchise has been ready for years.

City of Industry never had a NFL team attached, while the Carson and Inglewood proposals do.

An NFL team has never been attached to the City of Industry stadium, while they have been attached to the Carson and Inglewood proposals.

[CubsFanBudMan]

San Diego's new stadium committee will not ask for tax increase

Instead, the committee will look at assembling a financial plan that includes naming rights, personal seat licenses, contributions from the NFL and the Chargers, parking fees, concession fees and profits from any mixed-use development on the 166-acre, city-owned site that includes Qualcomm Stadium.

The committee is set to deliver its financing plan to Mayor Kevin Faulconer by May 20. Faulconer has said that the issue will be presented to voters even if that is not legally necessary.

The city is seeking to retain an investment banking firm to help with the financing package, negotiations with the Chargers, and a possible bond issue. Five firms have submitted proposals and a decision is expected next month, the mayors office confirmed Saturday.

Were moving full speed ahead, Faulconer said.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-diegos-new-stadium-committee-will-not-ask-for-tax-increase-20150321-story.html

This second article is a bit too in depth for me to quote pieces and give an idea of what it's saying, but after reading it I can't help but wonder how EITHER of the two sites could work for the Chargers:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/21/chargers-downtown-stadium-not-dead/?#article-copy

If anyone wants to chime, please do so.

All I can add is..

For being 14-15 years in, San Diego doesn't have much to show for it.

With paragraphs like..

"But Qualcomm redevelopment is effectively standing at the end of a long, expensive line. With NFL competitors jockeying to move to Los Angeles, the Chargers won't wait around for a decade to see if the private sector can surmount the inevitable environmental lawsuits."

...and...

"Equally important, the Chargers probably would have to raise their contribution and agree to wait nearly as long as they might in Mission Valley."

...

"Wait" just doesn't seem like a word that should be thrown around in San Diego right now. And "decade"? Well...

[TheOldRoman]

I understand the $1.8 billion figure likely includes the cost of the land, but holy crap. That's just an obscene amount of money for something which will get used at little as a football stadium. But it's privately financed, so whatever. Let the dick waving commence. I eagerly await Jerry Jones announcing extensive renovations to AT&T Stadium to combat this.

[Gothamite]

It includes the cost of the land, does it include anything else? The 6,000 seat concert venue?

[STL FANATIC]

On the topic of San Diego, waiting, and the Rams preferring to be the only team in their stadium (and thus LA) if possible, Albert Breer of NFL Network had a series of tweets (https://twitter.com/albertbreer) yesterday with some updates on LA. They were nothing super in-depth or earth-shattering, but just general feelers he's gotten.

One of those thoughts was that the NFL—for the time being—kind of views Southern California together. The thinking is that they'd like two — and only two — teams in Southern California, whether that's two in LA or one in LA and one in San Diego.

And now comes some of my own extrapolation on that link of thinking.

If the Chargers remain committed to San Diego and both they and the league believe there really is significant progress there, perhaps they'd be willing to be more patient with the timeline if the league ensured only the Rams would be going to LA.

Then, if in 5 years San Diego still hasn't taken care of the stadium situation, Kroenke's Inglewood palace will be available and able to serve as the home of the Chargers as well as the Rams.

This scenario doesn't address the Raiders, but that takes me back to Breer's tweets. He again brings up the possibility that the Raiders could get a fresh start playing in the St. Louis stadium. There doesn't seem to be a lot of belief in the Oakland efforts, and the league does apparently believe in the St. Louis plan.

It's hard for me to call such a musical chairs scenario the most likely possibility (then again, we did name the thread NFL Merry-Go-Round), but I'm starting to wonder if this truly is.

Kroenke gets his LA development and to be THE team in LA for a few years. Spanos gets to keep working on a market he appreciates, avoids competing with 2 other teams for Southern California fans (instead just one), and keeps an LA lifeline available. Mark Davis gets a new stadium. St. Louis keeps the NFL. And the NFL keeps all of its markets (not all of its cities but all of its markets).

[bosrs1]

All I can add is..

For being 14-15 years in, San Diego doesn't have much to show for it.

With paragraphs like..

"But Qualcomm redevelopment is effectively standing at the end of a long, expensive line. With NFL competitors jockeying to move to Los Angeles, the Chargers won't wait around for a decade to see if the private sector can surmount the inevitable environmental lawsuits."

...and...

"Equally important, the Chargers probably would have to raise their contribution and agree to wait nearly as long as they might in Mission Valley."

...

"Wait" just doesn't seem like a word that should be thrown around in San Diego right now. And "decade"? Well...

Well to be fair San Diego isn't 14-15 years in. San Diego hasn't been seriously trying to do anything until about 2 months ago. The Chargers never brought a serious proposal to the city, and the city had no desire to do anything independently after they expanded and renovated the existing stadium in the late 90's at city cost. If the Chargers had really wanted a stadium the last 20 years they wouldn't have wasted their and the city's time asking for Qualcomm to be expanded in the 90's was the city's correct view of the issue.

That's how I read it as well - he would be perfectly happy to keep it to himself, but if another team comes along to pay rent and fill empty dates, then that would be okay.

I don't think he's particularly interested in a true groundshare, but there's no team in a position to demand one either.

And given the Chargers/Raiders partnership is simply the Chargers running the show and the Raiders latching on as a second team it sure seems like it's really going to be a battle between the Chargers and Rams to get their respective plans done and the Raiders will simply latch on to whichever of the more proactive teams is actually successful.

[Gothamite]

If the Chargers had really wanted a stadium the last 20 years they wouldn't have wasted their and the city's time asking for Qualcomm to be expanded in the 90's was the city's correct view of the issue.

I don't think that's quite fair. "Cutting edge" is always subject to a sliding scale, and we've seen that stadiums are hardly immune. What the Chargers would reasonably have thought sufficient in the 1990s would be inadequate today.

Just ask the Rams about how quickly "first tier" standards can skyrocket.

[vmd9]

Trying to set a record for most LED Ribbon Boards in a stadium? Holy crap...that would be distracting.

[dfwabel]

I understand the $1.8 billion figure likely includes the cost of the land, but holy crap. That's just an obscene amount of money for something which will get used at little as a football stadium. But it's privately financed, so whatever. Let the dick waving commence. I eagerly await Jerry Jones announcing extensive renovations to AT&T Stadium to combat this.

There's also the demolition of Hollywood Park. It was build in the 30's, so there was both Asbestos and lead paint to dispose of.

Seismic code also adds to the price. Don Dethlefs, CEO of Sink Combs Dethkefs was quoted in 2012. "When you add New York into the equation, it skews the numbers by 30 or 40 percent. Los Angeles is the same, and then you add all the seismic requirements. On the coasts and in the Big Three cities in particular, you're definitely going to pay more per square foot."

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/stadium-arena/how-stadium-construction-costs-reached-the-billions.html

[CubsFanBudMan]

Trying to set a record for most LED Ribbon Boards in a stadium? Holy crap...that would be distracting.

Tell me about it. The fans would be watching all game to see if just one of their tweets makes it to the Twitter ribbon (the one on the left).

[BBTV]

Is it enclosed with glass in between those squares, or is that just a design element of some sort? I imagine the roof structure must be functional, right?

[Gothamite]

Looks like a glass roof open on the sides. Have to read the details.

[dfwabel]

Looks like a glass roof open on the sides. Have to read the details.

It's not glass. It's ETFE.

http://www.birdair.com/tensile-architecture/membrane/etfe

[CubsFanBudMan]

The story made it sound like they could project images on to it... in case those ribbons can't do the trick.

[dgthree]

The story made it sound like they could project images on to it... in case those ribbons can't do the trick.

Well, the projections were for advertising on non-gamedays.

[BBTV]

Looks like a glass roof open on the sides. Have to read the details.

It's not glass. It's ETFE. http://www.birdair.com/tensile-architecture/membrane/etfe

Looks like a glass roof open on the sides. Have to read the details.

That sucks. Even if it's the least sucky of the covered stadiums, it still sucks and seems unnecessary.

It would be great if Skydome or any of the stadiums that really need roofs could use that stuff, but I guess it's not good at trapping heat (or blocking cold).

[Gothamite]

Looks like a glass roof open on the sides. Have to read the details.

It's not glass. It's ETFE.

http://www.birdair.com/tensile-architecture/membrane/etfe

Ah, the stuff they use in the Eden Project. I've seen that.

Be curious to hear what the benefit is, rather than an open roof.