NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[DustDevil61]

If the league is hinting at putting money into Oakland, that means the Chargers and Rams are moving. The Chargers don't have the scratch to move by themselves.

But the league also hinted mentioned at putting some of that money into the St. Louis stadium. It's not guaranteed, mind you, but it's there.* We haven't seen anything from Oakland yet.

The formal St. Louis stadium vote is tomorrow. What can we expect if/when it passes? Does it really tell us much? Will the league step in with their money?

I don't see exactly what the league sees in St. Louis, aside from being handed more public money...

*puts on tinfoil hat*

...unless there's some truth to that line about key NFL sponsors being based in St. Louis has anything to do with it. Maybe Anheuser-Busch and Dave Peacock?

*I hope you're right Goth, but I'm not sure if the league or its LA Committee see it that way--it makes too much sense. Between this and the Glendale/Boward County fiasco(s), I can't trust any sports league to manage franchise relocations that mean the most sense for their fans or business (!).

[Gothamite]

I think it's obvious what they see in St. Louis. They like public money, and won't ever dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think they like it enough to force Kroenke to put his own money into a substandard stadium, and then play there, but they won't ever dismiss it out of hand.

As far as the vote, people here in the know have indicated it'll pass easily. But the problem is that the league still hasn't seen the details - Peacock & Co. haven't released them. Or at least every time the proposal is called insufficient they step up and say "That's not the real term sheet. We didn't mean that term sheet. Um... this one, this is the real term sheet!"

[IceCap]

So...are the St. Louis Rams fans going to show up tonight?

[Gothamite]

Doesn't look like it.

[Gothamite]

On the subject of financing, the Commissioner sent Peacock a letter - if I'm reading this correctly, there's a problem with the financing bill being voted on. It assumes $300M in G4 money, but the league caps that kind of borrowing at $200M.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/4d/f4d03e47-076e-53de-8e5e-1641e41010d3/56734360b744d.pdf.pdf

Am I reading that correctly? Owners can vote to raise the cap but the city can't pass a bill premised on the fact they will vote to do that before they do vote to do that.

He reminds Peacock that they all clarified this issue a couple days ago, but then the language of the bill was left as it was.

[dfwabel]

On the subject of financing, the Commissioner sent Peacock a letter - if I'm reading this correctly, there's a problem with the financing bill being voted on. It assumes $300M in G4 money, but the league caps that kind of borrowing at $200M.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/4d/f4d03e47-076e-53de-8e5e-1641e41010d3/56734360b744d.pdf.pdf

Am I reading that correctly? Owners can vote to raise the cap but the city can't pass a bill premised on the fact they will vote to do that before they do vote to do that.

Correct. Andrew Brant was on San Diego radio on Tuesday and explained part of the issue(s) with the additional $100M.

http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/andrew-brandt-on-why-nfl-owners-dont-like-stl-plan-where-the-vote-is-headed/

[2001mark]

So...are the St. Louis Rams fans going to show up tonight?

They're all at home online tweeting angry Heyward messages.

[Mac the Knife]

On the subject of financing, the Commissioner sent Peacock a letter - if I'm reading this correctly, there's a problem with the financing bill being voted on. It assumes $300M in G4 money, but the league caps that kind of borrowing at $200M.

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/4d/f4d03e47-076e-53de-8e5e-1641e41010d3/56734360b744d.pdf.pdf

Am I reading that correctly? Owners can vote to raise the cap but the city can't pass a bill premised on the fact they will vote to do that before they do vote to do that.

He reminds Peacock that they all clarified this issue a couple days ago, but then the language of the bill was left as it was.

It's the NFL's way of telling St. Louis, "What you're putting together? It's not enough to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Grab your taxpayers' ankles and give them a few more shakes if you want to keep them."

[DustDevil61]

FWIW, ProFootballTalk's Mike Florio re-examines the Los Angeles situation:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/12/17/re-exploring-the-l-a-options/

Among new possibilities are:

- Chargers only in Carson

- Chargers/Rams in Carson

- A Chargers/Rams franchise swap, yielding Chargers in Inglewood

- All 3 teams moving, with Chargers/Raiders in Carson and Rams in Inglewood (Kroenke rogue scenario #1)

- Allowing no teams to move until 2017. While not in the article, other articles have mentioned the league punting on the issue to get everything just right (and further torture current markets).

"League sources" mention that the Chargers are pretty much a lock for Los Angeles, though the Raiders' part of the Chargers/Raiders partnership seems to be as much of a sticking point as St. Louis' efforts.

I doubt all 3 will move, but I can see Chargers in Carson, Rams in Inglewood (Kroenke rogue scenario #2).

That way, Carson gets all the league facilities and big events (i.e., Super Bowls) while Kroenke gets his own LA stadium. The Raiders find a way to finance a new stadium in the Bay Area while sharing Levi's stadium with the 49ers for a few years...everyone wins! I'm not sure why that hasn't been floated as a possibility if Kroenke wants to move that badly.

[bosrs1]

I think the Chargers have been toast in San Diego since the last stadium deal fell through; I don't think I've had a moment where I've seen Rams & Raiders happening since then.

Last stadium deal? The last stadium deal in San Diego would be the first stadium deal in San Diego. Which is part of the problem. The Chargers came to the city less than 5 years after a city paid expansion of Qualcomm Stadium at the Chargers behest hat in hand suggesting a new stadium with no specific plan presented, and were rightfully told to shove it. Since then the Chargers had proposed zip, zilch, nada.... and yet claim they've "tried" for 15 years. They're full of proverbial :censored:.

[STL FANATIC]

St. Louis just passed the funding bill officially, 17-10 with one vote present (and 10 non-votes). While passage was never in doubt, I wouldn't term it "easily" either, as a majority of the full board of 28 is required to pass, and that means 15 yes votes were necessary. So it wasn't as easy a passage as the 17-10 tally suggests.

I have no idea what the implications of Goodell's clarification of the extra $100m are. Peacock didn't make that number up, he was told it by someone. I think this is just more good cop/bad cop and moving goalposts by the NFL.

It maintains there leverage and their ability to defend whatever choice they make.

Whatever.

[Gothamite]

I dunno, Peacock seems to be the one moving the goalposts. He's done it before.

[dfwabel]

I must find Alderwoman Sharon Tyus' speech tomorrow.

[Gothamite]

Ooo. That should be good.

[dfwabel]

Ooo. That should be good.

CBS St. Louis reports she also said this,

" If this was your daughter or your son chasing after someone and they were doing this, you would all be so embarrassed and ashamed of them. You would be sitting them down in the corner telling them, Dont run after people like this.' "

[STL FANATIC]

Alderman Tyus is funny. She rambles A LOT. But she's smart and makes good points. You combine the two, and you get things like that part of her speech lol. It was something else listening to that...

But her point was super legit.

[STL FANATIC]

I dunno, Peacock seems to be the one moving the goalposts. He's done it before.

I don't have a whole lot of affinity for Peacock in this stadium game, but I don't think he came up with the $100 million extra out of nowhere. It had to be suggested to him. That's what we've been led to believe happened.

And I suspect it did. But since it wasn't all 32 owners suggesting it to him, but maybe 1 or 2, this is the resulting situation.

Man, the more things clear up, the uglier and messier they get. I look forward to some semblance of a conclusion in mid-January. My only concern moving forward is that whatever happens somehow helps land STL an MLS team, whatever that is.

[Gothamite]

I was referring more to his "You don't like that term sheet? That's because it's not actually the real term sheet! Um... this one here! This is the real one. I swear. Oh, you don't like that one? Well..."

I have no doubt that an owner suggested to him that the G4 money could conceivably be raised to 300M. But I don't believe for a second that anyone guaranteed it, or encouraged him to go public with it. Quite the opposite - I believe Goodell here. It doesn't fit their pattern to make something like that common knowledge unless they absolutely need to. Then once the NFL said that he couldn't put that in the original deal, why did Peacock allow that bill to come up for a vote the next day?

The most logical interpretation is that he's trying to force the NFL's hand. Good luck with that.

As for MLS, I fear that they're poisoning the well with this slapdash, scummy and irresponsible process. And that would be a shame, for St. Louis and for the league.

[Telemundo219]

Great article (with some legit points) from SI writer Lee Jenkins, who is a San Diego native and Chargers fan.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/12/20/nfl-week-15-chargers-final-home-game-dolphins-philip-rivers

Also another hoghlighting Chargers S Eric Weddle's postgame response:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/12/20/chargers-relocation-eric-weddle-qualcomm-stadium-photo-video

Personally, if anyone should move, it should be the Rams and/or Raiders.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I've been sort of out of the loop, just waiting to see what happens, but can someone give me a quick rundown of the situation?

I read the si.com article and it looks like the proposal is:

1. Rams to Inglewood

2. Chargers/Raiders to Carson.

I understand there's a vote on Jan 13- is the vote on the whole situation eg. both scenarios would happen, or is it possible for just one or the other?