Chargers-Rams formal negotiations start Monday

[Prime Time]

My hope is that the Chargers work out a new stadium deal with San Diego and stay there. I can't believe Kroenke wanted to share his stadium with another owner, especially someone like Dean Spanos since they apparently can't stand each other. SK threw the NFL a bone in order to get the okay to relocate. Spanos is not in a good position when it comes to any deal with the Rams. I'm guessing he will sign on as a tenant rather than foot half the bill for the stadium.
****************************************************************************
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/16/chargers-rams-negotiations-start-monday/

Chargers, Rams negotiations start Monday
Posted by Mike Florio on January 16, 2016

AP

Rams fans, get ready to boo some more.

On Monday, the Chargers will begin formal negotiations with the Los Angeles Rams regarding a possible joint venture at Kroenkeworld, according to Scott M. Reid of the Orange County Register.

The Chargers have a year-long window to work out a deal with the Rams. But the Chargers are expected to move quickly to strike a deal. Currently in limbo, the Chargers organization quickly must obtain certainty and clarity regarding its 2016 location; with employees who need to know whether they’re moving and other employees who won’t be making the move at all (and thus will be looking for other work), owner Dean Spanos needs to make a decision sooner than later. Or sooner than sooner.

The Rams also have an incentive to get this done. Currently, the Rams can’t begin to sell premium products at the new stadium until 2017. If/when the Rams strike a deal with the Chargers, the process can begin immediately.

Still, it’s far more important for the Chargers to get this done. Apart from the very important questions regarding the short-term and long-term futures of the human beings who make up the organization, the Chargers need to minimize the head start the Rams have when it comes to winning hearts and minds in L.A.

And that could give Stan Kroenke and company an incentive to tap the brakes for just a bit, delaying the start of the Chargers’ homecoming honeymoon until after the Rams’ homecoming honeymoon has ended. Still, the bigger prize will be lining up cash commitments at the new stadium, and Kroenke won’t want to wait too long to do that, especially given that Kroenke needs to come up with $2.66 billion to pay for the stadium.

No bake sales needed, however; Kroenke is worth $7.7 billion.

 

[OldSchool]

IMO Spanos would be making a huge mistake leaving San Diego.

 

[den-the-coach]

IMO Spanos would be making a huge mistake leaving San Diego.

I agree, he'll be the second banana and the Raiders will relocate to San Diego in a nanosecond.

 

[OldSchool]

Neither owner has the money for relocation so they will have to opt for the payment method which makes them pay an extra $110 million in the end. The Chargers will lose the vast majority of their fan base if they leave SD especially if the Raiders take it over. Rams/Raider fans won't follow the Chargers in LA if the Rams and Raiders are in SoCal. Raiders might survive but unless Davis sells of more of his team he can't afford this. Spanos can't afford it either and it's franchise suicide if he finds a way.

 

[IowaRam]

I wonder how many San Diego fans they'll lose if they move to LA

 

[FrankenRam]

I agree, he'll be the second banana and the Raiders will relocate to San Diego in a nanosecond.

What would the Raiders do for a stadium in SD?

 

[RocknRam29]

So if the Chargers are able to strike a deal with Kroenke to move to Inglewood, where would they play their games in the meantime? The Coliseum? I thought the Rams were the only team that would be allowed to play there...

 

[den-the-coach]

What would the Raiders do for a stadium in SD?

Hope that the voters approve the new public finance stadium in a vote in June, that's more than they got going in Oakland.

 

[CGI_Ram]

If I were the Chargers, I'd gamble and return to San Diego for 2016.

The city knows you're good as gone if they don't pass a stadium. Which would seem to really favour the team...

1. Stay put.
2. Keep your fans.
3. No relocation fee.
4. New stadium.

 

[FrankenRam]

Hope that the voters approve the new public finance stadium in a vote in June, that's more than they got going in Oakland.

Is there much chance of that happening? I know very little about that situation, but wouldn't Spanos likely stay in SD if there was a decent chance of that occurring?

 

[PartyKane]

Being in Los Angeles the Chargers do have a lot of fans here, but now with the Rams I'm sure there will be less. Los Angeles always has loved the Raiders, they could have been something.

 

[den-the-coach]

Is there much chance of that happening? I know very little about that situation, but wouldn't Spanos likely stay in SD if there was a decent chance of that occurring?

I don't think so, Spanos knows he has LA and you never give up a sure thing for a possibility.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Being in Los Angeles the Chargers do have a lot of fans here, but now with the Rams I'm sure there will be less. Los Angeles always has loved the Raiders, they could have been something.

Welcome PartyKane.

 

[rams2050]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...-l-a-inside-the-long-con-20160115-column.html


Michael Hiltzik Columnist
BUSINESS Michael Hiltzik
Column
The NFL in L.A.: Inside the long con

Savior or profiteer? St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, after gaining NFL permission to relocate his team to Los Angeles.

(Pat Sullivan / Associated Press)
The Economy Hub
The billionaire's club known as the National Football League is returning a team to Los Angeles after more than two decades.

We in the community are supposed to be delighted at the prospect of the St. Louis Rams relocating to L.A., a community the team abandoned after the 1994 season. Local football fans will have the opportunity, denied them for all those years, to brave traffic jams so they can witness in person a team that can be followed from the comfort of their own homes -- assuming they can afford the tickets or gain luxury-box access in the team's new "privately financed" stadium, which is priced at more than $2 billion.

I have tried, as has the governor and others in St. Louis, to engage the Rams without success. - St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, on trying to keep the Rams at home
Will Los Angeles -- or more specifically, the small city of Inglewood -- be happy with the NFL as a partner? Let's look at the long, discreditable record.

According to my colleagues Sam Farmer and Nathan Fenno, Rams owner Stan Kroenke got teary-eyed the other day when discussing the wrenching emotional toll of moving his team halfway across the country to its new home. "I never dreamed I'd be put in this position," he said, calling himself a "victim" of circumstances.


The NFL's return to Los Angeles
This is the sort of thing you say when you're blindsided by an act of God, as when a meteor comes crashing out of the sky and destroys your neighborhood. The truth is that the decision to move the Rams out of St. Louis was 100% under Kroenke's control. St. Louis and Missouri officials moved heaven and earth to keep Kroenke in St. Louis, offering more than $400 million in public assistance to build a new stadium. By November, when plans for the relocation were well under way, Kroenke had met only once with Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and never with St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay. "I have tried, as has the governor and others in St. Louis, to engage the Rams without success," Slay said.

Will Kroenke be the kind of pro sports owner who garners the respect and devotion of the fans by delivering winning teams, like the NBA Lakers' Jerry Buss, or a detested profiteer like the former owner of the NBA Clippers, Donald Sterling? My colleague Bill Plaschke says Kroenke better emulate the former, or else, because L.A. likes champions: "You must win. You must entertain. You must do both with ... decency and integrity."


How NFL stadium promoters are snowing the city of Inglewood
But St. Louis likes champions, too. Kroenke never seemed deeply moved by the mandate. He acquired a large minority holding in the Rams in 1995 to help finance their move to St. Louis, (imagine that), then bought the rest in 2010. Since 1995, the Rams have posted a win-loss record of 142-192, or .424. Since 2010, under his full ownership, the team record is even worse, 36-59, or .379. The team hasn't been in the playoffs since 2004 and regularly makes it onto lists of the worst teams of the 21st century.

One thing the NFL does very well is maintaining a competitive balance between its big-market teams and smaller teams. At the moment, the list of teams in playoff contention include franchises representing Kansas City and Green Bay, while those from the big cities of New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., are gone. Will Kroenke really have to field a winning team to make it in L.A.? It's doubtful; like his fellow owners, he can continue to collect millions in profits and potential capital gains by fielding mediocrity.

The feature of this deal that should really give taxpayers pause is the assertion that the new stadium will be entirely privately financed. As I reported last February, when the Inglewood stadium first took on the glint of reality, that's simply not so.


The NFL prepares to squeeze L.A. -- and St. Louis -- just a little bit tighter
According to the development plan that was slapped together for the Inglewood City Council with suspect haste last year, taxpayers will be on the hook for unspecified "public services and infrastructure." Some gains expected by the city from stadium operations will be eaten away by the cost of traffic control and police and fire protection for game attendees, which the city will cover from its share of revenues.

It would be lovely to have more details, but they're not forthcoming because the City Council voted to exempt the project from the California Environmental Quality Act, which demands facts and figures. There won't be a new environmental impact study, either.

Nor willInglewood residents get a vote on the deal, because the City Council blocked that, too. How come? It's possible that the council members were swayed by the more than $118,000 in campaign contributions made since 2006 by the development firm building the stadium and an associated retail and residential complex. Political corruption, by the way, is also a taxpayer cost.

For some reason, Inglewood officials have been blinded to the NFL's dismal record as a corporate citizen in the communities hosting its franchises. St.Louis is a great example. As of a year ago, the taxpayers still owed $129 million on the bonds floated to finance the Edward Jones Dome, built for the Rams in 1995 -- that's an annual financing bill of $12 million to the state, and $6 million each to the city and county of St. Louis. In return, the Rams have been paying direct rent of $250,000 a year.

Then there's San Diego, which hosts the NFL Chargers in the publicly owned Qualcomm Stadium. The Chargers have long been agitating to flee to the Los Angeles market. The league has given the team a one-year option to join the Rams in Inglewood.

Just as St. Louis officials have accused Kroenke of not dealing with them candidly (there's that "decency and integrity" issue again), San Diego has found Chargers owner Dean Spanos cool to its offer of more than $350 million in public funds for a new stadium. The city still owes more than $50 million on a Qualcomm renovation it financed in the mid-1990s -- an annual bill of nearly $5 million a year to the cash-strapped municipality. According to the Chargers' lease, if the team leaves at any time in the next year, it would owe a termination fee of at least $12.8 million. But that wouldn't be enough to retire the outstanding debt.

Much is being said about the Inglewood stadium's state-of-the-art design. If Inglewood thinks that makes the stadium future-proof, it should think again. Almost every stadium built for an NFL team is declared to be state-of-the-art upon its opening, but it isn't long before it's being decried as the next thing to a slum by team owners and league officials demanding a new arena or costly renovations.

The Jones Dome was just such a marvel when it was built in 1995, but by 2008 it was ranked by fans as the worst in the NFL and still one of the worst in 2012, even after renovations in 2009 and 2010. That became a real problem for St. Louis, as the Rams lease states that the stadium must rank among the top tier of NFL arenas in 2015 or the team could break the lease -- perhaps the most astonishing giveaway in the original deal luring the team from Los Angeles.

Inglewood may believe that it has secured a place as a major league city for all time, but memories are short, and the National Football League is expert at putting a gun to muncipalities' heads. Within a decade or so, you can expect the Rams and the league to start complaining about the stadium's outdated facilities and demanding public concessions.

As the largest community in the country without an NFL team, Los Angeles has been wielded by the league as a threat to other NFL cities judged too stingy with taxpayer subsidies.

Is that threat now ended? Not by a long shot. If Inglewood doesn't give the NFL what it wants in the future, there are plenty of alternatives within an hour's drive of LAX, all of which have received at least a preliminary going-over by league officials -- Carson, downtown Los Angeles, and the City of Industry all had projects that looked inviting enough. Ten or 20 years from now, at least some of them will still be alive, looming as a threat to Inglewood. With the NFL, the con game never ends.

Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see our Facebook page, or email michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.

 

[DaveFan'51]

My hope is that the Chargers work out a new stadium deal with San Diego and stay there. I can't believe Kroenke wanted to share his stadium with another owner, especially someone like Dean Spanos since they apparently can't stand each other. SK threw the NFL a bone in order to get the okay to relocate. Spanos is not in a good position when it comes to any deal with the Rams. I'm guessing he will sign on as a tenant rather than foot half the bill for the stadium.

If Spanos signs in as a "Tenant" He'll have to kick back a chunk of change to Kroenke, I don't see Spanos wanting to do that. But that's what "Renter's" have to do in this state!!
It's a fee based on square footage of the property, and profits!! I don't believe this practice has changed since I retired from the retail business.

 

[IowaRam]

I read somewhere yesterday , his rent would only be a dollar a year

 

[RamFan503]

I wonder how many San Diego fans they'll lose if they move to LA

Only anecdotal I understand but the two Chargers fans (good friends of mine) I have talked to at least say they will not follow them if they move to LA. Of course they hate Spanos and his dad like St Louis fans hate on Stan - maybe more.

Honestly, if anyone has been to SD, I can't understand ever wanting to leave. Talk about the most perfect weather in the world. And I went to a game a few years ago in that supposed decrepid stadium and the atmosphere was great.

Meh - who knows. But I can't imagine that Spanos' situation will improve by becoming roomies with Stan.

 

[RamBill]

If there has to be a 2nd team in LA (which sounds inevitable), it's better for the Rams if it's the Chargers. If the Raiders come to LA they will be at least as popular as the Rams, probably more. If it's Rams-Chargers, the Rams are clearly the A-team.

 

[RamFan503]

If there has to be a 2nd team in LA (which sounds inevitable), it's better for the Rams if it's the Chargers. If the Raiders come to LA they will be at least as popular as the Rams, probably more. If it's Rams-Chargers, the Rams are clearly the A-team.

Can't agree with this at all except that the metter team to be in LA from a Rams standpoint would be the Chargers. Would the Raiduhs be more popular in LA than the Chargers? Almost without doubt. Would the Raiduhs be more popular than the Rams? Not a chance in hell. The way that the Raiduhs sold tickets in the Coliseum ain't happening in a stadium like they are building in Inglewood - let alone what they were wanting to build in Carson. The Chargers were going to play second fiddle no matter which venue got built. The Raiduh brand however is not a high ticket brand and likely never will be.

The Raiduhs never did really take in LA. Sure you see a bunch of Raiduh jerseys but you see them in virtually every large city in America. It's cool to wear black and silver. That doesn't mean they pay for tickets outside of Oakland.

 

[8to12]

Is that threat now ended? Not by a long shot. If Inglewood doesn't give the NFL what it wants in the future, there are plenty of alternatives within an hour's drive of LAX, all of which have received at least a preliminary going-over by league officials -- Carson, downtown Los Angeles, and the City of Industry all had projects that looked inviting enough. Ten or 20 years from now, at least some of them will still be alive, looming as a threat to Inglewood. With the NFL, the con game never ends.

I think this writer seems to have the Inglewood stadium situation mixed up with other Stadiums in other cities. There is no contract between Inglewood and the Rams/Kroenke. The stadium is privately financed on private land. The city will have a windfall of Tax revenue over the next 10 years. If, for some reason the Rams lost much of their fan support and decided to play elsewhere, Inglewood will still have tax revenue from the site due to the mixed use of Commercial / Retail and residential. Inglewood would not need to provide subsidies to the Rams just to keep them playing in the stadium. The city's only loss would be some seasonal part time jobs.