duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

I think you're absolutely right. The Raiders would be a much stronger team to bring in, from a marketing perspective.

Whenever you have two teams, it helps to be able to distinguish them. The Yankees are the corporate behemoth, the Mets the scrappy underdogs. The Cubs are favored by beautiful people who go to be seen, and the White Sox are for the purists who don't care about stadium ambiance or quaint neighborhood bars. The Giants are NFL royalty and the Jets the counter-culture heroes.

Rams/Raiders seems perfectly poised to continue that. One the one hand, LA's first big team. Gone for a while, perhaps, but with a long legacy going back. The Raiders are the hated outsiders, grizzled and fierce. The Rams are champagne brunch, the Raiders a cheap beer chaser. That even runs down to the (presumed) uniforms, with the Rams in bright sunny colors and the Raiders in black and silver.

But the Chargers? How do they set themselves up in this crowded marketplace? The "not-Rams"?

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.

No, they wrote that extra NFL contribution into the financing bill passed by the city. That obligated the NFL to pay it as part of the deal or risk scuttling the whole thing.

This was after Goodell told Peacock twice not to include on it - once behind closed doors, and once privately. That's either staggering arrogance or desperation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you're correct about closed doors. This all took place in a week, and Goodell stated it after the initial version of the financing bill had already passed the Board of Alderman. There wasn't much chance of change at that point.

And in any case, it still remains a proposal. The fact that it was passed by the Board of Aldermen doesn't change that. The NFL rejected the proposal. But it was indeed a proposal and a request for consideration.

Again, I think the NFL's reasoning for doing it is sound if greedy. (Just as Peacock's reasoning was sound if arrogant.) My qualm would be if the NFL turns around and gives it to another market. It'd be even funnier if it was "because they asked nicer."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodell wrote his public letter before the final bill was voted on, and when changes could still be made.

In it, he reminds Peacock that they discussed the extra $100M in an earlier conference call, during which Peacock was told that the extra league contribution had its own process and couldn't just be assumed. Goodell seemed willing to work with him through that process, but would not allow him to just arbitrarily skip it.

Peacock decided not to formally request that extra $100M for the owners, instead allowing it to stay in the plan passed by the Board of Aldermen. Again, it's either staggering arrogance to dictate terms to the NFL, or it's desperation that they couldn't come up with that financing any other way.

So what did he think would happen when the NFL refused to automatically grant a 50% raise in league contributions? Did he expect the aldermen to just smile and pick up the check? Because if I had voted on a plan based on contributions from the league and owner, and then had a big part of that pulled out from under, I'd reconsider the entire thing.

This is another example which leads me to believe that the Peacock proposal really isn't a serious one. The financing has always been shaky, as indicated by the various conflicting proposals he submitted to the city, but the final one he brought forward was never going to be agreed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's inaccurate Goth.

The St. Louis Board of Alderman voted on December 15th to "perfect" the stadium funding bill. This was the day they could consider amendments to the bill before passing it. They voted to perfect.

On December 17th, Roger Goodell sent a letter to the Task Force saying the $300 million was too much. Final passage of the stadium bill was set for the following morning.

On December 18th, the bill received final approval from the BoA. But it has to be noted that they could NOT change anything about it. To make changes the entire bill would have had to have been scrapped and the process started all over. This was impractical as the NFL had forced a deadline to submit a final proposal by December 30th, and the Board of Alderman were due to end their session that day.

A special session could have been called, but even then it would have been a rush.

I'm not saying Goodell acted in a late manner intentionally. In fact, the $300 million didn't become known to anyone but those in the know until 11:00pm December 16th. The whole thing was rushed all the way around.

But I'm just correcting that there was nothing that could have been changed. At that point, what was done was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Carson project has officially been recommended by the six-member LA Committee.

That is all that means. We'll see where the owners as a whole go from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll gladly accept your timeline, but even so, the League told Peacock not to include the extra $100M during the conference call on the 15th. So it shouldn't have been in the original bill.

And then we come to this before the final vote.

A special session could have been called, but even then it would have been a rush.

A rush, yes. But they could have done it. Don't you think that would have been worth it, when the city and state were spending $400M or whatever, to actually get it right?

They chose not to, and it cost them any chance they still had at getting the plan approved by the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Carson project has officially been recommended by the six-member LA Committee.

That is all that means. We'll see where the owners as a whole go from here.

Color me surprised: They recommended Iger, they told St. Louis that they'd give an extra $100M...yea, of course they'd recommend the competing project. :rolleyes:

But yea, we'll see how the owners vote--odds are Jerry Richardson, Bob McNair and Co. bought the next 4 votes with how much involvement they've had. #MeddlingExecutives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we're hearing that the general consensus developing is to try to get Spanos into Inglewood. But things can change quickly, and nothing is done until it's done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-sponsored-by-five-119078/raiders-to-san-antonio-talk-resurfaces-14265482

As the NFL team owners prepare for a meeting in Houston which could give the green light to one or two teams moving to Los Angeles, there is increasing talk that a team who is left out of the L.A. sweepstakes may be interested in moving to San Antonio, especially if that team is the Oakland Raiders, News Radio 1200 WOAI reports

Read more: http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-sponsored-by-five-119078/raiders-to-san-antonio-talk-resurfaces-14265482#ixzz3x3sDoQDx

I mean I'm sure there's a chance, but how likely of a chance does this still actually have...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA Times article poll asking which team would fans like to see move to LA?:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-los-angeles-owners-meeting-htmlstory.html

49% want the Rams, 20% for the Raiders and only 5% for the Chargers but the league recommends the Chargers and Raiders, who got 11%. What's so great about the Carson project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the league, the 6-member LA Committee. And the committee likes Spanos.

As for San Antonio, I don't know. The Alamodome is a very old facility. There's a report that Davis bought a plot of land between San Antonio and Austin, but a plot of land isn't a stadium. Does he have the money to turn one into the other? I don't know if Goldman Sachs would be lining up to give him LA money if he's moving to Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, Art Rooney or Mara convinced Bob Kraft to change his mind on Inglewood as I'm not sure if Richardson or McNair could've done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance but I assume there are going to be 3 separate votes for the 3 teams. So, hypothetically, all 3 teams could be approved to be in L.A. next year?

Yes. Each application is a separate action, and as such they're voted on individually.

I kinda half expect all three teams to get rejected and we end up back at square one because, "We need to give it more time. $$$$$." or whatever.

They can't do that this time - it'd put at least the Chargers and Rams into a "lame duck" situation akin to the Oilers last season in Houston. They won't let that happen.

If we're doing predictions, then I think it'll be the Rams and Chargers in LA, playing in the Inglewood stadium with the NFL helping the Raiders build a stadium in Oakland.

I've been saying this (save the Raiders part) for quite some time.

My question is that if two teams are approved to relocate, where's the second team going to play? The Coliseum will only allow one team to play there.

That's an interesting question. The Rose Bowl has said they won't be part of this, and Anaheim Stadium reportedly has been reconfigured in a fashion that football can't be played there anymore. Dodger Stadium?
The Dodgers only have one weekend home series after Labor Day. They seem to be open to host a team.

I didn't think to look at the Dodgers schedule. Really looks like Dodger Stadium is the dark horse 2nd temporary site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Carlos Brito, president of AB-InBev, called the NFL on St. Louis' behalf. I don't know that that it will do anything, but he's a powerful voice. And I have to say an unexpected one. InBev has kept the North American headquarters of AB in STL, but I can't say they've been the best thing for this city. And Brito is an InBev guy, not an AB guy (meaning he didn't have pre-existing STL ties).

Just thought that was interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, Art Rooney or Mara convinced Bob Kraft to change his mind on Inglewood as I'm not sure if Richardson or McNair could've done it.

The committee vote was 5-1, so someone still voted against Carson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, Art Rooney or Mara convinced Bob Kraft to change his mind on Inglewood as I'm not sure if Richardson or McNair could've done it.

The committee vote was 5-1, so someone still voted against Carson.
It was Clark Hunt who has never been for his current division foes to share a venue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this mean that the Carson proposal was approved, but the Inglewood proposal wasn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It means the LA Committee recommended the Carson stadium site and with it the Chargers and Raiders as the tenants.

I believe both stadiums are league approved.

The owners have not voted on who will be allowed to relocate. Each of the three teams and each of the two stadiums remain possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this mean that the Carson proposal was approved, but the Inglewood proposal wasn't?

No. This is just the recommendation from the 6-owner LA Committee. Barring any delays, owners will vote, either today or tomorrow, over which plan is approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Carson project has officially been recommended by the six-member LA Committee.

That is all that means. We'll see where the owners as a whole go from here.

Somehow, Art Rooney or Mara convinced Bob Kraft to change his mind on Inglewood as I'm not sure if Richardson or McNair could've done it.

The committee vote was 5-1, so someone still voted against Carson.

If Carson got 5 votes from the committee, then either (i) the Chargers/Raiders move is going to pass, (ii) Kroenke had better go to Spanos on his knees, or (iii) there's something behind the scenes that no one outside the inner circle's been made aware of yet.

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.