NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[Gothamite]

So uprooting the real turf every weekend? I'd more likely see it the other way, like at Yankee Stadium - the guests lay their turf down on top of the regular field.

[BBTV]

You could sit around for hours, days, weeks, months, or years trying to figure out a way to make London work. It doesn't matter - it can't.

In theory, I would love a more world-wide game, and for there to be a team on a different continent - but there's as much of a chance of putting a team in Pyongyang as there is in London.

[Gothamite]

That's why you can tell that when someone mentions London, he's not really serious.

Like when anyone associated with the league says "concussion", you know they're hoping you won't realize the real danger to the sport's future is the repeated sub-concussive impacts. "Concussion" is a talking point meant to steer the conversation in their preferred direction, like "London".

[CubsFanBudMan]

"Synthetic surface would sit under movable grass pitch in £400m stadium"

Not that it matters. I've long said London is just for leverage... that shouldn't work.

Even before L.A. got seriously discussed again -- the obvious choice -- Goodell was talking about London being next as if Los Angeles wasn't sitting right here, teamless.

[DaytonBlue]

London can only work when we have invented a successor to Concorde that can cross the Atlantic in 3 hours or less.

[BBTV]

London can only work when we have invented a successor to Concorde that can cross the Atlantic in 3 hours or less.

That's not even the only problem though. Game times are also a big issue. What time do you start a London @ LA Rams game? Does London ever play on Thursday nights? Or any night?

[STL FANATIC]

I suspect that long before we see a London team, we'll see a series of games in Berlin and Madrid and Paris.

And then when they expand to Europe, they will expand to Europe.

But I actually think football will be in the midst of it's downfall by then, so never mind, I take it back.

[Gothamite]

Some drama out of San Diego.

NFL could oppose stadium initiative, mayor suggests (Union-Tribune)

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has suggested to NFL executives that “potential impacts” from a ballot initiative to a stadium deal “could certainly be mitigated” if the Chargers opposed the initiative.

This is a head scratcher, because the initiative in question, authored by public-interest lawyer Cory Briggs, would (among many other things) remove key environmental obstacles to stadium construction —including those confronting the mayor’s preferred site in Mission Valley, as well as an alternative downtown near Petco Park.

The suggestion came in a letter sent last week to league executives by Christopher Melvin, a lawyer based in New York hired by the city and county governments to help negotiate a stadium deal.

Not incidentally, the letter also offers a timeline that fits with previous statements by the mayor: If the Chargers, city and county can reach a deal by Feb. 1, the San Diego public can vote on a stadium deal in June.

Matt Awbrey, the mayor’s chief spokesman, said Faulconer and county Supervisor Ron Roberts reviewed and approved the letter.

Less clear is what this all means. Is San Diego’s mayor asking the NFL to compel the Chargers to spend money fighting the initiative?

No, he most certainly is not, Awbrey said Tuesday. Later in the letter, the mayor’s team reiterates that, although they think the Qualcomm Stadium site is superior, they are willing to work with the team on a downtown stadium if the NFL wants to give everybody more time.

But the Chargers seemed skeptical.

“Call us old-fashioned, but how is it appropriate for the mayor to spend taxpayer money to urge private parties to oppose a citizens’ initiative?” said Mark Fabiani, the team’s counsel.

The NFL’s owners are meeting Wednesday in Dallas to review competing proposals for Los Angeles-area stadiums from the Rams and a partnership of the Chargers and Raiders. They also will discuss whether to schedule a special meeting to vote on which teams can move to L.A., or give San Diego and St. Louis officials more time to come up with subsidies to keep their teams.

This brings us back to the Briggs initiative, which is in the signature-gathering phase and supported by several prominent citizens, including former councilwoman Donna Frye and former Padres owner John Moores.

The initiative has more than a few moving parts. It would raise hotel taxes while banning a contiguous expansion of the convention center toward San Diego Bay, a condition that favors a competing proposal for expansion near Petco, adjacent to land owned by Moores.

It would also outlaw commercial development at the Qualcomm site if the Chargers leave, reserving the land for a university campus or park.

As for stadiums, the measure would provide environmental permits — immediately upon passage — for either the downtown or Qualcomm site. This is potentially faster than the mayor’s present plan, which under authority granted by Gov. Jerry Brown would require environmental challenges to be completed within 270 days of a city council vote certifying the city’s review of a site.

This speedy aspect complicates life for the mayor, politically speaking. He has cited the NFL’s requirement for haste in pushing his Mission Valley plan.

Yet he has also endorsed a contiguous convention center expansion in the past. And his own task force proposed commercial development on the rest of the Qualcomm site to help pay for a stadium while limiting taxpayer funds, an idea the mayor later dropped.

For now, the mayor neither endorses nor opposes the “complicated and wide-ranging” initiative, while he is reviewing it, Awbrey said.

“We know that the most certain path for getting an NFL and multi-purpose stadium built within the timeframe set by the NFL is to move forward with the Mission Valley proposal that the city and county have put forward,” he said.

For yet more context in the stadium drama, NFL executives in early November sent the mayor a critique of his Sept. 25 “term sheet” document. Their observation, which I echoed in a column Sunday, was that the document lacked most of the terms required to actually build a stadium. Those terms ranged from rent to capital reserves to parking spaces.

The mayor has said, quite reasonably, that all those terms were missing because the Chargers refused to negotiate, and he doesn’t want to negotiate with himself.

True enough. Yet the mayor has also avoided making a firm offer, from the NFL’s perspective. He proposes $200 million of borrowing backed by general funds from the city, and $150 million from the county. Yet he offers no legislative votes to solidify the funds until a final deal is completed.

The past few months of presentations to NFL owners — and the San Diego public — have been the negotiating equivalent of a half-time show, in my view.

Last week’s letter from the mayor’s team firms up a few details, such as the number of parking spaces. Yet, by asserting his neutrality on the Briggs initiative, it allows him to again have it both ways.

This makes perfect political sense. Until the league closes the door to the lucrative L.A. market, the Chargers have little business incentive to seriously pursue a stadium deal in San Diego.

Faulconer knows this full well. Endorsing the Briggs initiative could speed stadium construction, but that would amount to taking sides on the convention center, and foreclose future development at the Qualcomm site. On the other hand, active opposition would favor developers over university students and parks.

That’s a choice the mayor undoubtedly wants to avoid, if he can, until after voters decide whether to reelect him in June.

Very interesting.

[The_Admiral]

“Call us old-fashioned, but how is it appropriate for the mayor to spend taxpayer money to urge private parties to oppose a citizens’ initiative?” said Mark Fabiani, the team’s counsel.

Oh, lick a thousand sacks.

[STL FANATIC]

Stan Kroenke has apparently modified his proposal so that he could take on the Chargers as a partner in Inglewood and not just a tenant.

Supposedly, though, it's not being received particularly well to this point.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1snviho

Rams Owner Stan Kroenke last week wrote Panthers Owner Jerry Richardson, a key member of the L.A. Owners Committee, outlining changes to the proposed Inglewood stadium that would allow the Chargers to become an equity partner. However, while Kroenke -- who unveiled the Inglewood project in January -- would allow the Chargers to pay for some of the stadium, the team would not get design input and have no role in surrounding development. It is also unclear from the proposal whether the Chargers would be 50-50 partners. It is not believed the Chargers, who are pushing a joint project with the Raiders in Carson, will accept the plan. The Chargers declined to comment. The shift is likely a recognition that the previous Inglewood proposal would not get the 24 owner votes necessary to pass. Kroenke in August told owners any second team would be a tenant in his stadium, so the letter marks a big shift in his approach and signals that his initial response was not well received. Owners are meeting today in Dallas to discuss L.A. and whether one or two teams should relocate there next season, if at all.

More from Kaplan here: http://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ

[Gothamite]

Wow. This is getting interesting. If, as it appears, neither plan has the votes to pass, they're going to have to meet in the middle. Kroenke has just indicated a willingness to do so.

Now we see if the Chargers really want to stay in San Diego. If they truly want out, they can start negotiating for better terms in Inglewood.

But here's the thing - I suspect at this point the Chargers are more serious about keeping the Rams out of LA than they are moving themselves. If the market stays vacant they can hold on to their 30% or whatever percentage of their fanbase they want to claim comes from there. But I don't see the league being willing to block Kronke just to preserve that percentage. They won't let it continue to lie fallow indefinitely just to appease Spanos.

The ball is in their court.

Here's a thought - can the Raiders back out of the Carson deal? Seems like the Rams need to convince one of the others to sign up, but it doesn't matter which one. Kroenke could recreate Spanos's master stroke and in doing so kill his plan.

[TheOldRoman]

If the outcome of this whole thing is that the league tells Kroenke he can't move, he says "screw you, I'm moving," Goddell sues, NFL loses in court, Kroenke builds new stadium and Goddell is fired for another national embarrassment, I think most of us would he happy. Either way, at this point I'm rooting for Kroenke to get pissed and go against the league.

[bosrs1]

Wow. This is getting interesting. If, as it appears, neither plan has the votes to pass, they're going to have to meet in the middle. Kroenke has just indicated a willingness to do so.

Now we see if the Chargers really want to stay in San Diego. If they truly want out, they can start negotiating for better terms in Inglewood.

But here's the thing - I suspect at this point the Chargers are more serious about keeping the Rams out of LA than they are moving themselves. If the market stays vacant they can hold on to their 30% or whatever percentage of their fanbase they want to claim comes from there. But I don't see the league being willing to block Kronke just to preserve that percentage. They won't let it continue to lie fallow indefinitely just to appease Spanos.

The ball is in their court.

Here's a thought - can the Raiders back out of the Carson deal? Seems like the Rams need to convince one of the others to sign up, but it doesn't matter which one. Kroenke could recreate Spanos's master stroke and in doing so kill his plan.

Well this may throw a wrench into that...

http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/roger-goodell-says-san-diego-does-not-have-a-viable-plan-to-keep-the-chargers/

Goodell says San Diego does not have a viable plan in the time allotted which means LA is their only viable option at present. Definitely bolsters their case. And the local radio this morning also said that the Chargers may (or may not) in fact have the votes to push Carson through, which may have prompted Kroneke's overtures to break the stalemate. Either way it's not looking good for the Chargers future in San Diego. The Raiders may end up the odd man out, particularly due to their lack of funds, and their seeming willingness to entertain ideas in San Antonio and elsewhere.

[STL FANATIC]

This is all based on things I've seen come through Twitter, so no links, sorry.

• NFL says home cities have until Dec. 28 to submit their final offer.

• St. Louis is the only home city who has a shot at that, and I'd estimate it's 50/50-ish whether they speed things up to accomplish that.

• Relocation can be filed for on January 4th.

• The next meeting is scheduled for January 12-13. It is anticipated that this will be decided and voted on then, but the NFL won't commit to it.

• The NFL reiterates that they want solutions in the home markets first.

• The NFL reiterates that they can leave even if there is a viable solution in a home market.

• St. Louis has tweaked their plan. No longer are they leveraging the naming rights money and then paying it back. They're directing that money directly to the team now. At last check it was unclear how they're making that up...something about gameday revenues.

• A Board of Alderman bill to require a public vote on stadium funding failed to get out of committee today and is dead. It would have meant having a vote in March.

[Gothamite]

Well this may throw a wrench into that...

http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/roger-goodell-says-san-diego-does-not-have-a-viable-plan-to-keep-the-chargers/

Goodell says San Diego does not have a viable plan in the time allotted which means LA is their only viable option at present. Definitely bolsters their case.

Misleading headline is misleading.

Commissioner Roger Goodell... says that the league is unwilling to wait for a vote and that it does not appear San Diego has a viable plan to keep the Chargers inside of the league's timetable.

Hardball, to be sure, but not a definitive rejection.

[HedleyLamarr]

London can only work when we have invented a successor to Concorde that can cross the Atlantic in 3 hours or less.

That's not even the only problem though. Game times are also a big issue. What time do you start a London @ LA Rams game? Does London ever play on Thursday nights? Or any night?

The way I see it, there is a way you could have a team call London 'home', but there would have to be some accommodations made for them, as well as the visiting team:

1. The London team would have to have a state-side 'home' to go to for practices, training camp, OTA's, etc. Their state-side home would need an adequate practice facility as well as an already-built stadium. A place that's obviously got flights to London, yet fairly central in the US...haven't looked at airlines and such, but cities that could work as a practice home would be cities like Louisville or Memphis or (if they lose the Rams) St. Louis.

2. The NFL would have to fund two practice facilities in London: One for the home team and one for the incoming visiting team.

3. Playing in the 4pm block won't be that much of a change than us on the East Coast watching the Sunday or Monday night games....west coast games would be a 9pm kickoff in London time. England would get the luxury of all their road games being played in the evening their time, and could even have some of their home games be 6pm kickoffs (the 1pm slate of games). There's a reason the NFL's experimented with early games in London (the 9:30am ET kickoffs)...to see if both the locals attend the games and folks here watching games that early in the morning. Plus, playing those early games can lead to expanded TV opportunities, whether it's a network hosting a tripleheader or both networks getting to do a doubleheader on the same Sunday.

4. Scheduling: The London team would have to have block scheduling: two home, two away, three home, two away. etc. When the London team is in their block of road games, their state-side home would serve as their headquarters.

5. Their state-side home would host their preseason games and, possibly to have a bone thrown their way, one of the regular season games (especially if it's a home Thursday or Monday night game).

6. As for hosting home playoff games, the best solution is probably traveling on the Monday before the game (teams generally don't practice on Mondays) and have five full days to adjust to the time difference. Or, fly out as late in the week as possible and keep your body clocks on your normal time instead of adjusting to London time. Or, as a last resort, the state-side home hosts the playoff game.

7. Arrange the schedule to where a team leaving London plays a game on the east coast the following week so that you don't need to have byes each time a team goes to London. Again, travel on Sunday afternoon/evening, find a temporary venue for the week to practice, etc. Teams already do this when they have paired games on the opposite coast.

[BBTV]

London can only work when we have invented a successor to Concorde that can cross the Atlantic in 3 hours or less.

That's not even the only problem though. Game times are also a big issue. What time do you start a London @ LA Rams game? Does London ever play on Thursday nights? Or any night?

The way I see it, there is a way you could have a team call London 'home', but there would have to be some accommodations made for them, as well as the visiting team:

1. The London team would have to have a state-side 'home' to go to for practices, training camp, OTA's, etc. Their state-side home would need an adequate practice facility as well as an already-built stadium. A place that's obviously got flights to London, yet fairly central in the US...haven't looked at airlines and such, but cities that could work as a practice home would be cities like Louisville or Memphis or (if they lose the Rams) St. Louis.

2. The NFL would have to fund two practice facilities in London: One for the home team and one for the incoming visiting team.

3. Playing in the 4pm block won't be that much of a change than us on the East Coast watching the Sunday or Monday night games....west coast games would be a 9pm kickoff in London time. England would get the luxury of all their road games being played in the evening their time, and could even have some of their home games be 6pm kickoffs (the 1pm slate of games). There's a reason the NFL's experimented with early games in London (the 9:30am ET kickoffs)...to see if both the locals attend the games and folks here watching games that early in the morning. Plus, playing those early games can lead to expanded TV opportunities, whether it's a network hosting a tripleheader or both networks getting to do a doubleheader on the same Sunday.

4. Scheduling: The London team would have to have block scheduling: two home, two away, three home, two away. etc. When the London team is in their block of road games, their state-side home would serve as their headquarters.

5. Their state-side home would host their preseason games and, possibly to have a bone thrown their way, one of the regular season games (especially if it's a home Thursday or Monday night game).

6. As for hosting home playoff games, the best solution is probably traveling on the Monday before the game (teams generally don't practice on Mondays) and have five full days to adjust to the time difference. Or, fly out as late in the week as possible and keep your body clocks on your normal time instead of adjusting to London time. Or, as a last resort, the state-side home hosts the playoff game.

7. Arrange the schedule to where a team leaving London plays a game on the east coast the following week so that you don't need to have byes each time a team goes to London. Again, travel on Sunday afternoon/evening, find a temporary venue for the week to practice, etc. Teams already do this when they have paired games on the opposite coast.

Exactly. It can't work.

3 - (this is a relatively minor one) - those games wouldn't end until 12:30 ish, which sucks. I kind of hate when the Eagles are on Sunday or Monday nights for that reason. I'm actually OK with this suggestion as it gives the Londoners a true sample of NFL football, rather than odd times like 6PM starts, but as far as US TV goes, these games would either compete with SNF/MNF, or simply not be broadcast outside of the visiting market. I guess the packages would be reworked, but it's tough for me to see this working.

4 - That makes sense logistically, but it totally removes the London team from London, which means no local coverage for weeks at a time. You're not going to get the daily pressers, the after-practice interviews, the players on local radio, etc. while the team is stateside for 2-3 weeks. It's impossible to grow a fanbase when you flat out take the team away from the fans.

5 - Again, you don't build a fanbase by taking the team away from the fans. Starting in a new city and immediately removing games from it just seems counter intuitive (yes, I know this may be the case with the Rams next year but I think it's a little different.)

6. see 4, 5

[Mac the Knife]

Stan Kroenke has apparently modified his proposal so that he could take on the Chargers as a partner in Inglewood and not just a tenant.

Supposedly, though, it's not being received particularly well to this point.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1snviho

Rams Owner Stan Kroenke last week wrote Panthers Owner Jerry Richardson, a key member of the L.A. Owners Committee, outlining changes to the proposed Inglewood stadium that would allow the Chargers to become an equity partner. However, while Kroenke -- who unveiled the Inglewood project in January -- would allow the Chargers to pay for some of the stadium, the team would not get design input and have no role in surrounding development. It is also unclear from the proposal whether the Chargers would be 50-50 partners. It is not believed the Chargers, who are pushing a joint project with the Raiders in Carson, will accept the plan. The Chargers declined to comment. The shift is likely a recognition that the previous Inglewood proposal would not get the 24 owner votes necessary to pass. Kroenke in August told owners any second team would be a tenant in his stadium, so the letter marks a big shift in his approach and signals that his initial response was not well received. Owners are meeting today in Dallas to discuss L.A. and whether one or two teams should relocate there next season, if at all.

More from Kaplan here: http://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ

I don't want to say I told you so about a Rams-Chargers deal... but I told you so. They're going to get it done somehow, and leave the Raiders in the dust.

[DustDevil61]

Stan Kroenke has apparently modified his proposal so that he could take on the Chargers as a partner in Inglewood and not just a tenant.

Supposedly, though, it's not being received particularly well to this point.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1snviho

Rams Owner Stan Kroenke last week wrote Panthers Owner Jerry Richardson, a key member of the L.A. Owners Committee, outlining changes to the proposed Inglewood stadium that would allow the Chargers to become an equity partner. However, while Kroenke -- who unveiled the Inglewood project in January -- would allow the Chargers to pay for some of the stadium, the team would not get design input and have no role in surrounding development. It is also unclear from the proposal whether the Chargers would be 50-50 partners. It is not believed the Chargers, who are pushing a joint project with the Raiders in Carson, will accept the plan. The Chargers declined to comment. The shift is likely a recognition that the previous Inglewood proposal would not get the 24 owner votes necessary to pass. Kroenke in August told owners any second team would be a tenant in his stadium, so the letter marks a big shift in his approach and signals that his initial response was not well received. Owners are meeting today in Dallas to discuss L.A. and whether one or two teams should relocate there next season, if at all.

More from Kaplan here: http://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ

I don't want to say I told you so about a Rams-Chargers deal... but I told you so. They're going to get it done somehow, and leave the Raiders in the dust.

I don't know...the NFL in general seems to be leaning toward Chargers/Raiders in Carson. Even though Kroenke is hellbent on moving to LA (to the point that he's offering a virtual 50-50 split in stadium revenue with Spanos), it all seems too little, too late. Roger Goodell has expressed doubt about the Chargers' future in San Diego, and that apparently the Chargers and Raiders aren't very fond of the Inglewood plan. Also, having either one of the Chargers or Raiders split from Carson could spell legal trouble.

That's not to say a Carson split won't happen nor that Stan Kroenke can say "to hell with it, I'll see you in court" (and we all know Goodell's track record of keeping things under control), nor that any other possible situation for that matter (Chargers/Rams in Carson?)* but it seems that there's a shift in the direction of Carson.^

*Kroenke might be desperate enough to get to LA to make it happen if that can secure the votes.

^Unfortunately.

[Gothamite]

I dunno if there's really a shift in favor of Carson. Lots of buzz, but almost all of it is just reporters picking up on what other reporters are saying. The reporting has been shockingly lazy of late, which is maybe not surprising for a subject that has so much interest but not a lot going on right now.

Like your article - he's trying to gin up a controversy where none exists.

its entirely possible that certain fiduciary or other legal duties have attached to Spanos and the Chargers

any owners encouraging Spanos to ditch Davis and to embrace Kroenke could be tortiously interfering with existing business relations.

"Could be". "It's entirely possible." He's making it up. Couldn't even find a contract lawyer or professor to speculate, so he's doing it himself, throwing scenarios around without the foggiest idea what their agreement actually states.

Can't wait for something to really happen, so we can get past the third-hand sources and open speculation.