NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[STL FANATIC]

Yeah, even the idea of a shift implies that the NFL was favoring Inglewood before. I don't think anyone ever knew anything because I don't think there ever has been a consensus opinion. It's all been speculation or reporting that is far too reliant on one or a small number of biased sources.

One thing that came through Twitter yesterday was that the 50/50 split proposed by Kroenke wouldn't truly be that. There was a couple of key components not being offered to the second team. One was development rights to the surrounding property. I can't remember the other. I want to say it was sponsorship money, which itself is probably a deal breaker.

In any case, Davis himself and Spanos via Fabiani made it sound like there's no chance at one of them breaking off to team with Kroenke. We know better than to rule anything out, but that's the current stance.

[Gothamite]

It's a shame that people seem compelled to think of this whole process as a game in itself - which team will win the race back to LA?

Feeding that false narrative makes for very sloppy journalism. Like the horse race between Carson and Inglewood.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, even the idea of a shift implies that the NFL was favoring Inglewood before. I don't think anyone ever knew anything because I don't think there ever has been a consensus opinion. It's all been speculation or reporting that is far too reliant on one or a small number of biased sources.

It's always been "get the Chargers to Los Angeles because Dean Spanos is everyone's friend, keep the Rams in St. Louis because we can extract money from them, screw the Raiders no one cares." I don't know what's so great about Dean Spanos that everyone wants to help him make more money when the Rams moving to L.A. could be more lucrative overall and make everyone more money.

[colortv]

Very, very informative article on the situation as it stands now:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/kroenke-694942-committee-stadium.html

[The_Admiral]

Per NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, a key piece of land initially viewed as parking and additional development space is no longer available. Rapoport discussed the issue on NFL Network's GameDay First on Sunday morning:

"A 200-acre plot of land adjacent to the Carson project put forth by the Raiders and Chargers for a possible move is now viewed as no longer available to them, according to sources briefed on their situation. The land -- The Links at Victoria Golf Course -- would have been used for future long-term development and parking in the potential new stadium. It was one of the plots considered for acquisition in the event NFL owners approve the Carson project at the slated January meeting. But based on a number of factors, including some politics, it's now viewed as not happening.

"What that means, according to those who have followed it closely, is that the Carson development may not be as large as some imagined."

Compton, Long Beach, INGLEWOOOOOOD

Hey, I'm getting a blank page on that OC Register link, so in case other people are too, I'm going to google-cache-text-only and just pasting it here:

IRVING, Texas – Houston owner Bob McNair, a member of the influential six-owner NFL Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities, was talking this week about St. Louis owner Stan Kroenke’s offer to the committee to make a second team an equal partner at the $1.86 billion stadium Kroenke wants to build for the Rams in Inglewood.

McNair said he appreciated Kroenke’s flexibility, his effort to “find a solution that’s workable.”

Was Kroenke’s second team proposal workable, I asked McNair.

“That remains to be seen because, again, the first thing is you’ve got to decide who’s eligible to be considered,” McNair said. “You can’t get to the second step until you go through the first.”

McNair’s answer offered yet another hint to the way the committee appears to be leaning between the Inglewood project and a $1.75 billion stadium in Carson proposed by the Chargers and Raiders. It also underscored the committee’s and the league’s top priority between now and a special NFL meeting on the Los Angeles relocation issue Jan. 12-13 in Houston – finding out if St. Louis, San Diego or Oakland can deliver a viable stadium plan.

For months, the Los Angeles committee – especially McNair, Pittsburgh’s Art Rooney, John Mara of the Giants and Carolina’s Jerry Richardson – has pushed for NFL relocation guidelines to be strictly enforced in the Los Angeles situation. Under those guidelines, the committee maintains, a franchise cannot relocate if it has a viable stadium option in its current market. If St. Louis can deliver a bulletproof plan for a $1 billion-plus stadium on the city’s downtown waterfront, there is a feeling within the committee that it would be difficult for Kroenke to make the case the Rams are eligible to return to the Los Angeles-Orange County market.

So what’s the NFL’s next step?

The league on Friday set a Dec. 30 deadline for St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland officials to send final stadium proposals to the committee.

“We have to finalize those and make sure they’re firm proposals before we can make any judgments,” McNair said. “Until then, it’s conversation.”

St. Louis has submitted two term sheets to the league. NFL senior officials will respond to the second sheet in the next few days if they haven’t already.

San Diego officials submitted a term sheet to the league on Sept. 25 for a proposed $1.1 billion, 68,000-seat stadium in Mission Valley. In a Nov. 10 letter to Chris Melvin, the top consultant to the city and county on the proposed stadium, two NFL officials wrote that the term sheet’s “currently undefined” financial terms on “critical issues” “need to be better understood.” San Diego officials recently responded to the league’s questions.

Oakland so far has not submitted any proposal to the league.

“There’s really nothing definitive that has been presented from San Diego and Oakland yet,” Giants co-owner Steve Tisch said.

So how definitive is the St. Louis proposal?

Tisch described the latest submission as “a partial proposal from St. Louis that I think they’re sharpening their pencils on.”

But NFL officials and owners are encouraged, especially after the task force agreed this week to return proceeds from a naming rights deal to the stadium to the Rams. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen’s Convention and Tourism committee also removed another significant obstacle this week by voting down a proposal that would have required voter approval on $145 million in funding for the stadium. Had the committee voted for public approval, the earliest the issue could have been put on the ballot was March 15, and Kroenke could have started packing his bags for Inglewood.

The league, however, still has two primary concerns. The first is whether the aldermen will approve the financing plan before going on a holiday break on Dec. 11. The board does not return to work until Jan. 8, just four days before the special meeting opens in Houston.

“With action expected next week by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen following numerous public hearings, St. Louis is in a strong position to meet the Dec. 30 deadline,” Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said Friday in statement.

The second issue is that league officials believe the true cost of the proposed downtown stadium is somewhere in the $1.2 billion-$1.3 billion range. The task force currently lists the price tag at just less than $1 billion, meaning they have three weeks to identify and secure another $250 million in funding.

"They’ve restructured their deal somewhat and so I think they’ve made some good progress, but there’s a lot that remains to be seen in their proposal," McNair said.

The NFL has done market analysis on St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego and some Kroenke allies among the league’s owners have suggested St. Louis is no longer an NFL market. Will this be a factor?

Apparently not with the committee.

“The markets are OK,” McNair said. “There’s nothing wrong with the markets, but they have to have a place to play where they can be competitive. And that’s the real issue for them, and they do need some new stadiums.”

How firm is the Dec. 30 deadline?

When asked about the deadline this week, Tisch, a film and television producer who lives in Los Angeles cracked, “I thought it was 10 years ago.”

This deadline, he said, is “a hard date and I think they’re going to be held to that date.”

NFL senior staff, however, said the deadline is “not final” and there could still be additional time for officials in the home markets to submit material.

What should be made of Kroenke’s meeting this week with Nixon?

Kroenke has largely avoided Missouri officials in recent years, so his meeting with Nixon at Rams Park on Tuesday is something of a breakthrough. In searching for a deeper meaning to the meeting, there are two ways of looking at it. The first is that Kroenke could be just going through the motions and trying to demonstrate to the committee that he has pursued – and exhausted – all options in St. Louis. The second is that sensing a distinct shift in momentum behind the Carson project, Kroenke realizes he might be stuck in St. Louis and is now focused on getting the best deal possible, especially before a potential Jan. 13 vote, after which he would lose the leverage of moving west.

What are the chances of Kroenke working out a deal with Chargers owner Dean Spanos?

Right now? In a word: slim.

Spanos has never liked the Inglewood site, believing it has major traffic and parking issues. Spanos and the Chargers are more confident than ever that they can get the 24 votes needed to relocate. That confidence has been bolstered in recent weeks with Disney chief Robert Iger’s agreement to chair the company overseeing the development and construction of the Carson project, pending its league approval.

The Chargers also don’t view Kroenke’s proposed partnership as “equal,” a perception shared by others in the league. Funding for the stadium would come from loans from the league, personal seat licenses, sponsorship and naming rights revenues, as well as contributions from the two teams. But the design, development and construction of the stadium would be controlled by Kroenke. The second team would also have no financial interest in a 238-acre development surrounding the stadium or have any say on the nature of that development. So far Kroenke has also not addressed a formula for distributing non-NFL events at the stadium. Spanos is also committed to Davis and their partnership in Carson.

Kroenke has told NFL officials he began the process toward building the Inglewood stadium as far back as August 2013. He purchased the 66 acres for the stadium site for $90 million, according to NFL officials, and has a $71.7 million loan out on the tract. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said millions of dollars are being spent on the project on a monthly basis. So Kroenke might be willing to make further compromises to salvage the project.

There is also always the possibility of, after hours of deadlock in Houston, the league and key owners could lean on Kroenke to make concessions and Spanos to do a deal with the Rams boss. This likely would also entail the league helping Davis finance a 50,000-seat stadium in Oakland.

Which is more likely: One or two teams being approved for relocation?

“I think there’s a stronger feeling towards two at this point,” Indianapolis owner Jim Irsay said. “I don’t think anyone is opposed to two.”

Could the league really rule that the Rams are ineligible for relocation?

Yes.

“We have to decide first, in terms of relocation guidelines, have the clubs met the relocation guidelines,” McNair said not speaking about the Rams specifically. “If they have, they're eligible for consideration for relocation. If they haven’t met the guidelines, then they’re not eligible for consideration.”

Will the committee make a recommendation and if so what will it be?

The committee will make a recommendation and right now the majority of the committee is leaning toward the Carson project. The one wild card is Kansas City owner Clark Hunt, a committee member, who remains undecided and has even said he would be open to the possibility of the matter being rolled to March, something Kroenke supporters have pushed for in recent weeks.

Who’s supporting Kroenke?

A number of high-profile owners: Jones, Woody Johnson of the New York Jets, Daniel Snyder of Washington, Jeffrey Lurie of Philadelphia and Miami’s Steve Ross. This week Ross said who the best owner is should a leading factor in deciding which team should be approved for relocation, an apparent reference to the fact that Kroenke’s worth is substantially more than Spanos’ and Davis’ combined.

So does either side have the 24 votes needed for relocation approval?

No.

“If we were voting today, I don’t see anything getting 24 votes right now,” Irsay said. “That certainly can change with more discussion.

“I don’t think we’re extremely close right now.”

Will there actually be a vote in Houston?

Privately, NFL officials say Houston will produce a decision, a view shared by at least a significant portion of the owners.

“I think there’s a lot of hope that it will be the definitive vote,” Tisch said. “But this has been so unpredictable, very predictable to give a really accurate timeline. So it’s a bit of a moving target. So can I tell you today that on Jan. 13 we’re going to walk out of a meeting saying here’s who’s coming to L.A.? No. I think everybody on the committee, and I’m sure most of the 32 owners in that room, would like there to be something definitive sooner than later.

“We’re going to have some kind of decision made on the 13th. If there are issues that prolong a vote beyond Jan. 13 that are not under our control or the committee’s control, that’s one thing. To the extent that the committee can present to full ownership on the 13th and say it’s time to vote, guys, let’s vote, that’s in everybody’s best interests. This does need to get done.”

Said McNair: “I think one way or another we’ll get this resolved, yeah.”

[colortv]

1. Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 8h8 hours ago

   Carmen Policy, Carson's advocate, told me: "We have our core piece of land, we don't need anything else." To look elsewhere for development

1. Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 8h8 hours ago

   The #Chargers/#Raiders plan in Carson may now be a bit smaller than some imagined, though the golf course wasn't in their "core" plan.

1. News on Carson Project: A 200-acre plot some thought would be available for parking/development— Links at Victoria Park — now not available.

[Gothamite]

It's been reported that the NFL is interested in folding some development into the stadium site: studio space for the NFL Network and maybe a West Coast branch of the Hall of Fame. If Spanos can't offer that after all, that might strengthen Stan's hand. How much that could possibly influence the decision, we don't know.

[The_Admiral]

What Spanos lacks in studio space he makes up for in gently fondling Jerry Richardson's nads.

[Gothamite]

That's why this could actually be important - both teams have owners in their camp. They'll each need to find ways to make their proposal stand out.

If I was looking for approval to move my team, I'd be playing up how much money the other owners would be earning under my plan.

[rams80]

Well, we may not have anything official, but it sure looks like the Rams players and coaching staff have quit on the season over the last few weeks. Especially Sunday.

That has been a canary in the coal mine in the past.

[Gothamite]

I don't know about that. Plenty of teams have quit on a season without relocation being remotely involved.

[rams80]

I don't know about that. Plenty of teams have quit on a season without relocation being remotely involved.

The team hasn't quit on Fisher before.

And Fisher's responses in this week's postgame presser indicate he's done with everything too.

[DustDevil61]

I don't know about that. Plenty of teams have quit on a season without relocation being remotely involved.

I think he meant that every team that has moved quit on the season, not the other way around.

[Gothamite]

Even if that were true, we can't presume one from the other. It'll just be a quirky historical footnote when this is all said and done.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm pretty sure the Rams just suck (as usual). This year they're extra disappointed to suck because they had high expectations, and as a result, the wheels are falling off. I think everyone can also see the end of the rope for Jeff Fisher (though it remains to be seen if Kroenke's even looked at the rope).

Basically, I think it's totally unrelated to the relocation talk. In a sport with such limited playing tenures, I don't think that stuff ways as heavily on guys. There's plenty of chance they won't be with the Rams anyways. That's just my view though.

With that said, here's something out of left field that would show you where the league stands on St. Louis (and it isn't good). But it'd be great for Oakland.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/12/07/nfl-in-talks-on-new-raiders-stadium.html

[Gothamite]

Holy .

The NFL might step in to fund Coliseum City?

If they do that, and Kroenke builds a stadium in LA with his own money, it could conceivably kill the public-financing model for sports stadiums.

EDIT: And I guess this means the Raiders could indeed pull out of their Carson agreement without too much trouble.

[TheOldRoman]

That would be great, but I don't think it would kill the model. That would mean every NFL had gotten either a new stadium or massively renovated one in the last twenty years, with some teams already getting big renovations on stadiums built in that time. There's just no new markets out there for the NFL right now to threaten with. Toronto's a bad market and wouldn't build them a free stadium, anyway. However, if 30 years from now, there are somehow a few new cities which grew into metropolises of 10 million people, you're going to have cities and businesses throwing around money to lure teams, and existing cities will still be faced with the possibility of losing their teams if they don't pony up.

[The_Admiral]

tfw you go from living in an apartment with a pig and not a slovenly roommate but an actual literal pig that goes oink-oink and detects truffles to owning an NFL team and getting a free stadium

[TheOldRoman]

If the NFL were to step in and finance this thing, I wonder if that fully makes the Raiders the NFL's bitch. Like, would they be the NFL's whipping boy made to wear the most ridiculous Nike uniforms at any whim? Would the NFL completely corporatize the Raiders and beat every ounce of resistance and soul out of them?

[The_Admiral]

Oh no, am I going to have to go back to being a Bears fan?