NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[TheOldRoman]

I haven't read the details over the last 2-3 weeks, but I just can't believe the Rams would stay. Kroenke has shown no desire whatsoever to stay in St. Louis. I'm sure the NFL would prefer the Rams stay and the Chargers move to LA, but they can't force Kroenke. Unless they work something out where Kroenke gets to bang Goddell's wife, I think the Rams are going to do whatever the hell they want and it's going to go to court. At least that's my hope.

[The_Admiral]

This is so dumb. Carson is toxic waste!

[Gothamite]

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?

The owners will vote on each proposal. Each needs 24 votes to pass. The two plans are competing for attention but aren't necessarily mutually exclusive; it is almost certain that some owners will vote "yes" on both, some owners will vote "yes" on one but not the other and some may vote "no" on both.

At the moment, FWIW, it seems very possible that neither plan will meet the 24-vote threshold. A few weeks ago Kroenke announced that he'd be willing to take one of the other clubs as an equal partner, not just a tenant.

Which brings us to the possibility that an owner may relocate even if his plan is not approved. That seems unlikely in the case of Spanos and the Carson plan, but Kroenke could well do it since he doesn't actually need the NFL's G4 money to build his planned stadium. I don't think Spanos and Davis are in a position to forego the league's contribution.

[Gothamite]

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.

I found this section of Jenkins' piece really interesting.

Of course, pep rallies and blood drives don’t build stadiums, and Chargers owner Dean Spanos swears he has tried in vain for 15 years to negotiate a deal in San Diego. But for all the time the Chargers supposedly devoted to their stadium search, they never submitted a formal proposal or financing plan. In their defense, San Diego was on the brink of bankruptcy in the mid-2000s, and Spanos couldn’t have struck a deal even if he were serious. In 2004, The New York Times famously termed the city Enron-by-the-Sea, and six mayors later, Chargers’ stadium strategist Mark Fabiani is still trying to keep that outdated image alive. Fabiani, best known in the sports world for representing Lance Armstrong, has portrayed San Diego government leadership as “unsophisticated” and “unsuccessful”—or worse.

“At one time half the council went to jail,” Texans owner Bob McNair, a member of the NFL’s committee for Los Angeles opportunities, said last week. “It’s hard to negotiate when you’ve got to go to the jail.” Apparently, billionaires need fact checkers, too. One San Diego city council member spent 15 months in prison from 2012-13—seven years after he resigned from office.

In August, San Diego mayor Kevin Faulconer announced a proposal in which the city and the county offered $350 million toward a new $1.1 billion stadium, with room to maneuver. Approving public funds in California is always tricky, but the site in Mission Valley was the one the Chargers championed when this whole saga began. “Dean kept telling me back then, ‘If I get full support from the city council and the county commission, we’re going in,’” said former Chargers COO and executive vice president Jim Steeg, who was part of the nine-member stadium advisory committee appointed by the mayor. “Now he had full support to get it done. I thought it was there to do. The Chargers didn’t engage. They already made up their mind.”

I've been following the Rams situation much more closely than the one in San Diego, I guess because I'm a former Midwesterner with many ties to the region. I would feel the loss of one of those teams much more keenly than I would a California team. But if this is an accurate assessment, then Spanos has been doing exactly what Kroenke's harshest critics have accused him of doing. Not good.

[dfwabel]

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?

You can just go back three or four pages.

[dfwabel]

Ooo. That should be good.

Here is the meeting from YouTube.

While Alderwoman Tyus starts at around the 1:08:00 mark, there was another alderwoman (Marlene Davis) who gives us her good five minutes at about 37:00 mark after the caroling proresters. Before Davis there was an alderman who was up there for about 12 minutes and was pretty good too and Cara Spener was asking great question to the bill's sponsors at about the hour mark right before Tyus, Tyus was the passion plea, but Spenser was throwing the haymakers.

Also note than Tyus speaks for over 30 minutes.

[STL FANATIC]

I didn't see the entire meeting on Friday, but Scott Ogilvie, Cara Spencer, Shane Cohn, and Megan Green are the 4 aldermen that likely gave the best dissenting takes. Alderman Tyus is a fun and often smart listen, but then she rambles into weird remarks like that stripper one, lol.

The alderman picture in that video preview is Alderman Tamika Hubbard, a co-sponsor of the bill, and she is just BRUTAL. Immature and uninformed. Not that I'm some well-versed expert, but she's the only alderman I've ever seen decline a request to respond to questioning during a floor debate. But she knew she'd be made to look bad, and she's terrible at her job, so she did it. More than once.

[dfwabel]

I didn't see the entire meeting on Friday, but Scott Ogilvie, Cara Spencer, Shane Cohn, and Megan Green are the 4 aldermen that likely gave the best dissenting takes. Alderman Tyus is a fun and often smart listen, but then she rambles into weird remarks like that stripper one, lol.

The alderman picture in that video preview is Alderman Tamika Hubbard, a co-sponsor of the bill, and she is just BRUTAL. Immature and uninformed. Not that I'm some well-versed expert, but she's the only alderman I've ever seen decline a request to respond to questioning during a floor debate. But she knew she'd be made to look bad, and she's terrible at her job, so she did it. More than once.

Then it was Hubbard who refused to answer questions had, those answers fell to Coatar, who did not know who is on the RSA and told the Board that the RSA never provided them documents and have never approached the Board (and may not be under any obligation to do so).

[STL FANATIC]

Yep. Coatar was the other sponsor. He's not afraid to take the heat, and he actually seems to have gone to the trouble to understand the bill he's sponsoring (unlike Hubbard), but that only goes so far when the bill itself is a turd. The RSA isn't under any legal obligations to show up, but that doesn't make it any better that they didn't or that the sponsoring Alderman are clueless about the entities that will receive and handle this money.

Also, I left out Alderman Carter who may also having given an informed dissenting take. I never actually heard him speak against it at the meetings, but I know he's a good one and did disagree with the bill, and I may well have simply missed it.

[StlEagle]

How can anyone (besides LA fans and Stan K) honestly justify the Rams leaving at this point? The NFL asked STL to come up with a plan and they did. If they do allow them to leave, then they can't really pressure existing markets to hand over tax dollars in the future. They also would have falsely led STL on when in reality they had no chance to keep the Rams. Not sure if there are any legal ramifications since STL spent millions coming up with this plan.

3 teams are trying to move. 2 don't have stadium plans. The answer to the LA problem is so simple & that's what makes this so frustrating.

[TheOldRoman]

Before this vote, San Diego had done more than St. Louis had to keep its team. The NFL is propping up the St. Louis bid even though the Rams don't want to stay. Meanwhile, the NFL is ignoring the fact that San Diego put together a very reasonable package and the Chargers are just being dicks and saying any stadium is crap it it's not downtown and isn't built exclusively on odd-numbered days.

[STL FANATIC]

Before this vote, San Diego had done more than St. Louis had to keep its team. The NFL is propping up the St. Louis bid even though the Rams don't want to stay. Meanwhile, the NFL is ignoring the fact that San Diego put together a very reasonable package and the Chargers are just being dicks and saying any stadium is crap it it's not downtown and isn't built exclusively on odd-numbered days.

I hate what St. Louis is doing, but I don't see how you can play the "before the vote" game. San Diego's plan also always relied on a vote, and one that was much more unclear on whether it would pass, and also one that couldn't be voted on for some time still.

I think it's all garbage. But from the NFL's perspective the STL plan was always more advanced and more solid.

In the end, it too may not be good enough, though.

[FiddySicks]

How can anyone (besides LA fans and Stan K) honestly justify the Rams leaving at this point? The NFL asked STL to come up with a plan and they did. If they do allow them to leave, then they can't really pressure existing markets to hand over tax dollars in the future. They also would have falsely led STL on when in reality they had no chance to keep the Rams. Not sure if there are any legal ramifications since STL spent millions coming up with this plan.

3 teams are trying to move. 2 don't have stadium plans. The answer to the LA problem is so simple & that's what makes this so frustrating.

Haha, just watch them.

This really isn't all that simple, either. That's why this whole thing is stretching past two decades of planning and discussion. And as for the whole two teams don't have a plan while one does talk, that's not necessarily true. St. Louis' stadium plans are still flimsy at best and any move the city of San Diego has made, such as offering up $350 million in public funds, has been scoffed at by the Chargers. And while you're right that the Raiders have basically ziltch when it comes to a stadium plan, they also have even less of another key resource. Cash. That's kind of important when you're talking about billion dollar stadium plans.

[Gothamite]

How can anyone (besides LA fans and Stan K) honestly justify the Rams leaving at this point? The NFL asked STL to come up with a plan and they did. If they do allow them to leave, then they can't really pressure existing markets to hand over tax dollars in the future. They also would have falsely led STL on when in reality they had no chance to keep the Rams. Not sure if there are any legal ramifications since STL spent millions coming up with this plan.

That's not really true. The NFL never made any promises that a stadium plan would prevent the Rams from moving. The city is merely hoping that it will, and any costs are entirely on them.

Unfortunately for them, the plan itself is half-baked and has huge holes in the financing. Giving it the name is a bit generous.

There's also the small problem that the owner appears to have given up on the market. And the NFL's own market analysis is not terribly very flattering to St. Louis, so there may not be a great desire to force him to stay there, in a new stadium that he doesn't want and that nobody can quite figure out how to pay for. All of that has to be factored in.

[TheOldRoman]

Before this vote, San Diego had done more than St. Louis had to keep its team. The NFL is propping up the St. Louis bid even though the Rams don't want to stay. Meanwhile, the NFL is ignoring the fact that San Diego put together a very reasonable package and the Chargers are just being dicks and saying any stadium is crap it it's not downtown and isn't built exclusively on odd-numbered days.

I hate what St. Louis is doing, but I don't see how you can play the "before the vote" game. San Diego's plan also always relied on a vote, and one that was much more unclear on whether it would pass, and also one that couldn't be voted on for some time still.

I think it's all garbage. But from the NFL's perspective the STL plan was always more advanced and more solid.

In the end, it too may not be good enough, though.

I wasn't playing a game, as I don't have a vested interested in any of these teams. I could be wrong, but it seemed a few months back that the NFL was desperately propping up a STL deal that the Rams didn't want which would have required the Rams to come up with a substantial percentage of the stadium funding. The Rams' contributions have assuredly gone down since then. Meanwhile, San Diego had put a preliminary package which would have had the Chargers pay a smaller percentage than the Rams in STL, and the NFL just went along with Spanos saying, "SD won't even come up with a proposal!"

[StlEagle]

Another thing is, if they do allow the Rams to move, what do you then do with SD & OAK? Oakland isn't getting a new stadium there. SD has already said they aren't willing to partner with Kroenke. I'm sure that could change if it's the only option. It still doesn't solve Oakland's issues though. Carson is the only solution that solves all 3 teams' stadium problems.

[Gothamite]

It still doesn't solve Oakland's issues though. Carson is the only solution that solves all 3 teams' stadium problems.

Carson doesn't do anything to solve the Rams' problems.

As for Oakland, the NFL has already indicated that it may be willing to help build an Oakland stadium itself. Far from a commitment, but still a very interesting proposition.

[IceCap]

Another thing is, if they do allow the Rams to move, what do you then do with SD & OAK? Oakland isn't getting a new stadium there. SD has already said they aren't willing to partner with Kroenke. I'm sure that could change if it's the only option. It still doesn't solve Oakland's issues though. Carson is the only solution that solves all 3 teams' stadium problems.

Carson doesn't solve St. Louis' stadium issues. Kroenke's the only one willing to self-fund.

The Chargers allying with Kroenke in Inglewood while the NFL pitches in to get the Raiders a new stadium in Oakland is actually the best deal for all involved. The Chargers get in with Kroenke in a privately funded LA stadium that won't cost the taxpayers anything. The Raiders get help from the NFL, which should lessen the burden on the taxpayers in Oakland. St. Louis loses the Rams, but save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. And it's not like the fanbase will miss the team any if attendance is any indication. So St. Louis still comes out ahead.

True, Spanos has said he won't ally with Kroenke. Spanos doesn't have nearly as much money as Kroenke though. And money talks.

[StlEagle]

If the NFL actually pitches in to get Oakland a new stadium I can agree with that. However, if the Rams get blocked from moving to LA, I think Kroenke takes the STL deal. It would really be his only option.

[IceCap]

If the NFL actually pitches in to get Oakland a new stadium I can agree with that. However, if the Rams get blocked from moving to LA, I think Kroenke takes the STL deal. It would really be his only option.

Or he could just go to LA anyway. The NFL can't actually stop him from moving his team. They could try to sue him but no judge is going to tell a man he can't move the business he owns to land he owns in a more lucrative market.

Plus moving both the Raiders and Chargers to LA would mess up the historic AFC West.