duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

I'm in phone, but I remember reading about the NFL not wanting Mark Davis in their club as soon as he gained control of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html

NFL consensus builds for a Rams-Chargers stadium project in Inglewood

"One owner said that the NFL has to realize that "we just can't solve all three stadium problems in one fell swoop."

It would mean striking a bargain that keeps the Raiders out of L.A. but doesn't leave them empty handed. Such a maneuver could mean that the Raiders return to Oakland in the short term, but can explore relocating to other cities, among them San Diego, St. Louis or joining the San Francisco 49ers in their new stadium in Santa Clara."

To add on to this, I've seen numerous tweets from that reporter La Canfora, saying that Rams-Chargers in Inglewood is the preferred pairing and from another reporter that if the LA committee makes a recommendation, it'll be that duo, in Inglewood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll direct some of the relocation fee to Davis to help him build a new 50K Oakland Stadium.

Spanos can then save face and stay loyal to Davis.

Everyone wins, except San Diego and St. Louis.

Hope I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So next season USC, the Rams and Chargers may all be calling the LA Coliseum home til the Inglewood Stadium is built? If so, I guarantee that field will be wrecked by the second week of October. Hope they have a good grounds crew.

Nope. USC already has an agreement in place with the Coliseum Commission that only one team will use the Coliseum as a temporary venue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said San Diego would come through at the last minute and I still think they will somehow. It's happened to lesser teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if, part of this agreement, that the Rams and Chargers build the stadium with their own money and their portion of the NFL's G4 $200 million loan goes to the Raiders (giving them $600 million) in their quest in trying to build a stadium.

I know the Raiders haven't been looking to build a stadium, but if $600 million were suddenly available, perhaps they go that route?

If the NFL decides that the Raiders are a worthwhile investment, they can just bump up the loan amount themselves; they make the rules. They don't need to do smoke and mirrors with the "Rams" loan and the "Chargers" loan both going to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll do what they want, and they'll have business reasons for doing so. But man it will be a hoot if the NFL gives Oakland anything beyond $200 million in G4 money after specifically saying St. Louis' stadium proposal is inadequate because it requests $300 million in league money vs. the $200 million that is standard.

The problem isn't that St. Louis asked for extra money; they almost certainly would have gotten it. The problem is that St. Louis didn't bother to ask, they just spent that extra money, and when called on it Peacock doubled down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California, and indeed this entire situation is an entirely different animal though.

Exactly. San Diego can't "come through" in the way the league wants with public assistance until 2017 at the earliest.. There will be no last minute reprieve due to city machinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing reports on Twitter that the league is going to recommend the Carson site. This league can't manage anything right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll do what they want, and they'll have business reasons for doing so. But man it will be a hoot if the NFL gives Oakland anything beyond $200 million in G4 money after specifically saying St. Louis' stadium proposal is inadequate because it requests $300 million in league money vs. the $200 million that is standard.

The problem isn't that St. Louis asked for extra money; they almost certainly would have gotten it. The problem is that St. Louis didn't bother to ask, they just spent that extra money, and when called on it Peacock doubled down.

Maybe we just have different definitions of proposal. St. Louis didn't spend any of the NFL's money. They sent a proposal to the NFL. The proposals requests the extra money.

It tells you the mindset of the NFL that they needed some behind the scenes begging for this money separate from the proposal which in all practicality is one big "does this work for you?" question.

I actually don't blame the NFL for saying they've never done this before and sticking to that principle (though you have to accept the NFL as a beyond greedy organization to reach that point). I just think it would be pretty crazy for them to then turn around and award a larger contribution to another city. Crazy, but not unthinkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing reports on Twitter that the league is going to recommend the Carson site. This league can't manage anything right.

Technically everything can be called "the league," but this calls for some clarity.

There are three parties or subsections of the league in play here.

1. The League offices. This is Goodell and Grubman and all those executives. Officially, it appears they are not making any recommendations. They're simply facilitating information. They may attempt to guide owners (and I think they are), but they aren't making a clear recommendation.

2. The LA committee. This is a committee comprised of 6 league owners. They were tasked with studying all factors of the situation and—if they could—making a recommendation to the rest of the league owners. At one point it seemed like they may simply offer information as well, but reports today suggest they will make a recommendation.

3. The 32* owners. This is where the power lies. They'll—as a group of individuals—make the decision. Presumably they'll give a lot of credence to the information and/or recommendations of the two groups above, but whatever happens—or at least who is approved—will come down to their vote. And it's entirely possible that the LA committee's recommendation could be decided against.

(* I'm assuming each vote will be 31 or 29 owners depending on whether all three of the owners competing for LA are asked to abstain from voting or if just the individual up for that particular vote is asked to abstain.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA radio/KNBC sports guy Fred Roggin tweeted that work from inside is that they're already near a decision.

Also, one would think that whatever "recommendation" would be irrelevant since they're having to broker a three-team appeasement as opposed to which site would be prettiest. Carson has the better freeway access but take that with the toxic waste and they're pretty even.

Plus, there's the whole issue with Richardson and Iger at play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to be very curious to see how well LA embraces two teams. I think one would be more prudent (but I assume the costly stadium deal is part of why we are talking 2...I don't follow this thread or this issue in the news too closely).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to be very curious to see how well LA embraces two teams. I think one would be more prudent (but I assume the costly stadium deal is part of why we are talking 2...I don't follow this thread or this issue in the news too closely).

Its not just the costly stadium deal. It's the short-term gains.

The other 30 owners don't give a crap if one of the LA teams ends up struggling long-term.

Short-term, it means 2x the (reported) $550 million relocation fee and stronger leverage for renegotiating the television contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to be very curious to see how well LA embraces two teams. I think one would be more prudent (but I assume the costly stadium deal is part of why we are talking 2...I don't follow this thread or this issue in the news too closely).

Its not just the costly stadium deal. It's the short-term gains.

The other 30 owners don't give a crap if one of the LA teams ends up struggling long-term.

Short-term, it means 2x the (reported) $550 million relocation fee and stronger leverage for renegotiating the television contracts.

Makes sense...hilarious. LA will embrace, say, the Rams. The Chargers will suffer and in 10 years pay another relocation fee (albeit, much smaller, I suspect) to go back to San Diego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said before that I thought the two team thing would go best if the Chargers moved first, then the Rams came a year or two later. The Rams have a built-in fanbase, so those people would jump right back to the Rams when they came. But the Chargers would be better served to have an advantage of a year or two to get people attached to them and build a fanbase. I mean, they're a crappy franchise that often doesn't try that hard. Their uniforms suck. Their owner sucks. They'd play in the same stadium as the Rams and represent the same geographical region. Why would anybody pick the Chargers to root for? I believe the Rams are going to go on a nice little run in the coming years, but even setting that aside, the only reason to root for the Chargers would be if you're a contrarian, because I'd imagine most other people would root for the Rams.

That is, unless the league figures LA has awful fans who will go to games just to say they did, calmly golf-clapping for whichever Los Angeles team is playing that day. I can't imagine a large number of people actively rooting for both teams for many years. I think in a Chargers-Rams situation with them moving in at the same time, the Chargers would get left in the dust unless they built a solid annual contender while the Rams kept middling.

Obviously, this situation doesn't apply to a Rams-Raiders tandem since the Raiders also have their own built-in fanbase. along with a large group of people who will automatically associate with them above any other team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^To be fair, there are about 100 more logical reasons to root for the Chargers than the Rams. But your first point about the built-in pre-existing fan base does trump them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, neither team is a powerhouse. Neither team has a strong historic legacy of winning. It's basically the league saying, "Here you go, Angelinos. Root for both these fabulous teams and buy all their gear!" These aren't action figures where they complement each other and you want to collect them all. I don't think there will be a substantial group that decides they will commit to actively following and rooting-for both teams. A thirteen year-old might get matching Rams and Chargers hats for Christmas next year, but would he still be following both teams when he's 23? I'd imagine that outside of the Rams lifers, most people would casually follow both teams until one really establishes itself. I just don't see enough differentiation in the product for a huge number of people to eschew historical ties and root for the Chargers, barring the Chargers becoming a good franchise and the Rams staying crap. And like I've said, I expect the Rams to do significantly better than the Chargers over the next five years, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.