Chargers, Rams reach agreement on sharing Inglewood stadium/ Chargers will play in San Diego in 2016

[BuiltRamTough]

1st - I don't think many of us knew who Stan was or even did until there was talk of him possibly exercising his right of first refusal. His name was pretty much mentioned in passing up until then.

2nd - I am not sure how you or anyone figures that holding up your side of the bargain means trading out a deal where you would have to pay nothing to maintain a top tier stadium until 2025, for a deal where you would have to pay over $700 million for a stadium on which you would have to pay over double the rent.

3rd - Where have you heard anyone contend that the Riverfront stadium would have qualified as top tier? I thought it was a cool concept and being next to the mighty Mississippi and The Arch would have been cool as well. But the stadium lacked quite a few elements (from my understanding) that would qualify it as top tier. I don't even think the task force ever called it top tier.

It would appear that SK was not willing to give up the top tier requirement as the CVC originally promised. Maybe that is akin to not negotiating in good faith. But I'm not sure how many people - billionaires or not - would offer to pay $700 million for something they would not own but would have to maintain as a demonstration of good faith.

Maybe one could say that because he was not offered ownership as part of his $700 million investment and after reneging on the top tier status not just once but twice - THAT would be considered not negotiating in good faith.

Stan would also be responsible for cost overruns. According to some, including Grubman, the cost of the stadium would have been 1.2 - 1.3 bill.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

It was a mistake for the Task Force to think the Riverfront stadium would pass muster with the NFL or the Rams...

I think the plan (hope) was the owners would block Stan from moving.

I never believed the riverfront stadium was real. Similar to the Carson site the goal was to block Stan from moving to LA.

 

[FrankenRam]

I don't know but I bet every single one of the other owners would want to get the best return on there 2B+ investment possible just like SK is negotiating for. Except probably none of them would spend their own money to build in the first place. I give SK a little respect for doing that.

Three-fourths of the NFL owners could have 'maximized their investment' by moving their team to LA. Would all have profited to the tune of at least doubling the team's value. No, but a whole helluva lot of them wouldn't have been far off that either.

 

[LesBaker]

Well, I feel that Georgia took the team away. Stan helped her to get part of the team. At the time, I knew nothing about him and didn't care.

Maybe the stadium would have been top tier. But I think there are still many questions about the financing and the plans they had. And why wait till the last minute before they mobilized? I believe there was a lot of opposition to that and that plan was built mostly with smoke and mirrors. I read many things about people in government that were pissed and there was going to be a fight over the non vote and how the public money was going to be spent. Bottom line is, I think it was a hail mary that fell short.

Kroenke paid her and the condition of getting the $$$ was to take the team to STL. At the time none of us knew anything about him, and there wasn't really any real news available on the net at that time. So he was a mystery.

I just think the irony is pretty thick.

 

[DaveFan'51]

This seems likely to me. Neither Spanos or Davis look to want to be a tenant in someone else's stadium, but I don't see either of them being able to front over a billion to be a partner in the Inglewood supercomplex AND paying another half billion for the privilege of moving.

 

[Ramfansince79]

Chargers expected to make a decision on L.A. soon
By Vincent Bonsignore, Los Angeles Daily News

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20160125/chargers-expected-to-make-a-decision-on-la-soon

While the Rams continue the arduous process of moving back to Los Angeles, the San Diego Chargers are still deciding whether to join them or not.

The agreement between the two teams to go silent while the situation unfolds has left the rest of us in guess mode.

On the other hand, if the Chargers had any trust issues dealing with the Rams beforehand, the silence over the last week has to bode well. It means everyone is keeping their word about respecting the information blackout.

That said, there is an ominous clock ticking in the background. The Chargers have a schedule to market, a staff and roster to either move or keep in place, and a deadline to inform Qualcomm Stadium whether they are opting out of their lease or not.

Ideally, their decision will come sometime this week. Waiting any longer really puts them behind the eight-ball, not only in Los Angeles, where they will share the market with a Rams brand that just lined up more than 45,000 season-ticket deposits over just 48 hours for the 2016 season, but also San Diego, where they’d have to make up with a scorned fan base.

The consensus is, the Chargers will pull the trigger on a decision this week. They’ve spent the last seven days digging into the Inglewood stadium partnership with the Rams, seeking a comfort level they will be protected over the long haul of the relationship.

The Rams have insisted from the beginning they would be willing partners, a message owner Stan Kroenke and CEO Kevin Demoff delivered to the rest of the NFL two weeks ago in Houston, when they were approved for relocation to Los Angeles with the understanding a second spot was open to either the Chargers or Oakland Raiders.

The Rams understand the eyes of the NFL are upon them, and promise they will uphold their promise to be good partners.

Now it’s up to the Chargers to decide whether that comfort level is with the Rams in Los Angeles, or in San Diego, using the leverage of L.A. to spur local leaders into approving a stadium deal.

It’s been quiet on that front for a week now. But after seven days of silence, expect some action at some point this week.

In the meantime, the Rams are laying the foundation for their return, and could soon be closing in on a temporary headquarters site for staff to work and players and coaches to work out. Among the locations they are looking at is Oxnard, where the Dallas Cowboys hold training camp.

RAMS MAKE MOVES

As expected, the Rams have lifted the interim from Rob Boras’ title as offensive coordinator and added Mike Groh as wide receivers coach and passing game coordinator.


The move to make Boras the permanent offensive coordinator was expected after he ably handled the job over the final four games of the 2015 season upon replacing Frank Cignetti.

But with Boras more apt in the running game and Rams head coach Jeff Fisher wanting to also tap into more passing game expertise, Groh was a logical candidate. He spent the past three seasons as wide receivers coach with the Chicago Bears and previously worked at the college level at Virginia, Alabama and Louisville.

LONG OPEN TO PAY CUT

As the Rams make their way back to L.A., one of the pressing questions is how many of their current players will make the trip with them from St. Louis.

And for some, that might mean adjusting their salaries to help ensure they will land in Los Angeles along with the Rams.

Veteran defensive end Chris Long is already bracing for that reality. Long is entering the final year of his contract and is set to make a team-high $14.25 million. That is a significant hit to the Rams’ salary cap, especially for someone who missed 14 games over the last two seasons and managed just four sacks between 2014 and 2015 after recording 33 over the previous three seasons.

As a result, Long’s future with the Rams could mean having to adjust his salary to fit his current level of reliability and production.

Long expressed a willingness to ESPN.com to do just that in order to play out the final year of his Rams contract.

“Of course,” Long said. “But I’m not a guy that, I mean, the last two years I have been paid more than I’ve performed. That’s just the bottom line. It’s a business. Sometimes teams win and sometimes teams lose with that stuff, so you’re certainly not rushing to give the money you earned back.

“You can’t control certain things with injuries and such, but of course I’m open to doing something like that. It’s not about the money at this point for me.”

Howie and his wife did a great job raising him, I hope he stays and has a couple of good years.

 

[Ramfansince79]

From what I've read, I don't think either Spanos or Davis has the money to have any bargaining leverage. Nearly all of their respective net worth is team related. (Spanos supposedly took a bath in the real estate collapse) and it's common knowledge that Davis is cash poor.

 

[Akrasian]

No, I'd agree that's likely. The only reason for Spanos to hurry it up would be so that the Rams wouldn't have a year all to themselves in LA, winning fans over and being on tv every week. Of course, it's in the Rams' interest to drag things out for that reason, even if the Chargers ultimately go to LA too. Until it's too late, I see the Rams offers being of a sort that guarantee the Rams will come out ahead in the deal, even if the Chargers tap into some of the fan base.

 

[FrankenRam]

Well, I feel that Georgia took the team away. Stan helped her to get part of the team. At the time, I knew nothing about him and didn't care.

Maybe the stadium would have been top tier. But I think there are still many questions about the financing and the plans they had. And why wait till the last minute before they mobilized? I believe there was a lot of opposition to that and that plan was built mostly with smoke and mirrors. I read many things about people in government that were pissed and there was going to be a fight over the non vote and how the public money was going to be spent. Bottom line is, I think it was a hail mary that fell short.

Because, if you recall, the entire country was barely 2 yr removed from teetering on the brink of financial collapse when Kroenke took full ownership of the team. And a lot of financial uncertainty still existed at the time.

Some people would argue that building stadiums with public $$ never really benefits the state/city/whatever sufficiently well to offset the $$ spent on the stadium. I'm not one of those, but I have little doubt any local elected official that would have proposed spending $1bill + on a pro football stadium in 2010 would have been literally raked over the coals.

There was some of that type opposition even over the course of the last yr when the Peacock task force took over, but in 2010, it just would have been financial heresy to propose such a project.

 

[thirteen28]

I don't think you're being too cynical at all. They've been winking at Kroenke ever since he took full ownership of the Rams when it comes to that cross ownership stuff.

And it's pretty clear the NFL 'Relocation Guidelines' are an utter joke. However they are actually written, all they really mean is.....

"We, the ownership group of the National Football League, do hereby declare that we will not allow any individual team owner among us to unilaterally move their team to a city of their choosing..........UNLESS, of course, said owner agrees to pay the rest of us one big honkin' relocation fee. In the case such owner is willing to throw each of us something in the neighborhood of $17-18mill cash money, then said owner is free to do as they please and screw anyone that doesn't like it."

The relocation guidelines certainly don't carry much weight. I realize they are only guidelines and not hard and fast rules, but in the latest round of relocation, the one city that made the most effort to keep its team was the one that lost it ... so that the owner (and NFL owners at large) could make more money. So yes, they are worth as much as the wet cocktail napkin which they are scrawled upon.

I understand it's the NFL's objective to make money, but I'd have more respect if they didn't go through the charade of having such guidelines when it's clear that they carry no weight whatsoever.

 

[RamFan503]

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...ve-to-los-angeles-snapchat-logo-change-012716

 

[Merlin]

Dean is going to wait for the vote in June. If it goes his way he will stay in San Diego until his new stadium is built. If it goes against him it's over and they will complete the move with Stan.

IMO the agreement is probably hammered out for the most part and just awaiting that vote in June.

 

[nighttrain]

Exactly what motivation do the Rams have to work a deal?

none that i can see. Having LA all to themselves best for Kroneke and the Rams
train

 

[D L]

Oh I'm just so surprised...

The whole thing was a charade imo.
St Louis came up with a plan and the NFL wasn't expecting that.... but everything else has went according to plan.

Yep. Total joke.

Rams alone to LA was supposedly taken off the table at the meetings, but yet, now it looks like that's what's actually gonna happen! LOL!!!!!!

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...s-acquire-land-for-practice-facility/#content

Report: Chargers acquire land for practice facility
Posted by Mike Florio on January 28, 2016

The Chargers have yet to work out a deal to share space with the Rams in Kroenkeworld. But they’ve taken another tangible step toward shedding the “San Diego” and returning to L.A.

Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports that the Chargers have acquired land in Orange County, and that the property will be used for a team headquarters and practice facility.

“The plans are for a five-acre parcel in Santa Ana that would be the location of the team’s interim headquarters and training facilities in the event the team exercises its option to relocate to the Los Angeles area,” the Chargers said in a statement, via Acee.

The news comes at a time when the L.A. Coliseum is clearing a path for hosting two NFL teams, one of various needles that need to be threaded to allow the Chargers to move. The Chargers nevertheless insist that a move is not imminent.

“The franchise is continuing to review all of its options, and no final decision on relocation has been made,” the Chargers said. “It was necessary for the team to submit the grading and landscape plans now because of the long lead time necessary to secure land use approvals and to prepare the natural grass practice fields in time for the team’s offseason workout schedule.”

Whatever happens, a decision must be made sooner than later. Apart from the logistics associated with getting ready for the 2016 season, the Chargers have plenty of employees who need to know whether — and where — they’ll have jobs.

 

[Zaphod]

I really hope they don't move the Chargers or Raiders to LA.

LA has a team again. Football is back. And the Rams should be the focal point of that.

This could and should be viewed as a turning point. An emergence of a forsaken team and market.

I'm over being pissed about the move, and I'm all about preaching for separation of football and state. I never did like the thought of paying for our stadium in St. Louis with tax dollars in the first place, and I sure as heck didn't want to add more to that to upgrade what I feel is a perfectly good stadium. Does anyone really think that a new stadium in St. Louis would have given him the profit he was dreaming for, or changed the NFL's designated punching bag status for the team? I'd have preferred that Stan built his own stadium in the county, but I understand why he opted rather to build his new stadium in a larger market poised to make more money, which is the goal in the first place.

To be honest, I hope this actually works out and lays the foundation for any capable owner to relocate their team to a larger market in control of their own stadium. Funding any stadium with tax dollars is virtually stating that the city doesn't otherwise justify an owner's investment into a team there, and that those who don't benefit are subsidizing for those who will.

 

[RamBill]

If Chargers move here, it seems likely they'd be Stan Kroenke's tenant

By Sam Farmer and Nathan Fenno

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-chargers-20160129-20-story.html

The San Diego Chargers have insisted for nearly a year that they wanted to be an equal partner in a Los Angeles stadium were they to move north. But if they choose to relocate, there is a strong likelihood that it will be as a tenant paying $1 per year to play in Rams owner Stan Kroenke's planned Inglewood stadium.

A deal between the Chargers and Rams seems inevitable, but an agreement doesn't guarantee that the Chargers will play in L.A. for the 2016 season — or ever.

The basic structure of the NFL-brokered arrangement hasn't changed in the 2 1/2 weeks since owners approved the Rams' relocating and building a new stadium in Inglewood. Now everyone is waiting for the Chargers, who have a one-year option to move to L.A., to make up their minds.

Negotiations between staffers from the Rams and Chargers — Kroenke and Chargers owner Dean Spanos aren't directly participating — started in L.A. on Jan. 18. Both teams declined to comment on the discussions.

The situation is seen as less of a back-and-forth negotiation than a choice confronting the Chargers.

Multiple individuals familiar with the league's position, as well as the ongoing discussions between the teams, revealed details to The Times on the condition they not be identified.


In a statement Thursday announcing plans for a potential interim training facility on five acres in Santa Ana, the Chargers said that "no final decision on relocation has been made."

Time is of the essence. The Rams have already established a foothold in L.A., accepting more than 50,000 refundable deposits from people interested in buying between one and eight season tickets to watch the team at its temporary home in the Coliseum.

The discussions between the Rams and Chargers continue as attention builds for Super Bowl 50 in Santa Clara on Feb. 7. The NFL prefers not to have any news upstage the game between the Carolina Panthers and Denver Broncos.

There are two plausible strategies for the Chargers. They could agree to a deal and move to L.A. for the 2016 season — a choice that must be made by March 23 — or accept a deal in principle with the idea of restarting negotiations for a new stadium in San Diego and keep L.A. as a fallback.

"The door is open for a San Diego solution," a spokesman for San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer said. "We have a fair plan in San Diego. … The mayor remains ready to resume talks."

For now, the Chargers are talking to the Rams.

The framework for a landlord-tenant agreement between the teams was put in place earlier this month by the NFL's finance, L.A. and stadium committees. It was one of several contingencies discussed the week before the full complement of owners voted on L.A.

The foundation of the proposed deal for the Chargers as a tenant involves two theoretical buckets that contain various revenue streams.

One bucket has seldom-sold assets connected to the stadium such as naming rights and personal seat licenses from both teams. The $200-million loan each team would receive from the NFL toward stadium construction would go in the bucket, along with revenue from non-football events like soccer matches and conventions.

Most of the first bucket would go to pay off the multibillion-dollar stadium. Each team would receive a percentage of revenues from that bucket. The league has suggested 18.75% for each team.

The second bucket contains annually sold items connected to the teams such as tickets, game-day sponsorships, signage, concessions and parking. Each team retains its revenue from that bucket.

Those familiar with the arrangement say it makes far more sense for the second team to be a tenant instead of a co-owner in what is expected to be the most expensive stadium in U.S. history. As a tenant, the Chargers would share in some of the financial reward without assuming any of the risk.

Much of Kroenke's financial windfall will be as a result of mixed-use development surrounding the stadium on the 298-acre site. The NFL has not asked Kroenke to allow Spanos to be a partner in the larger development.

Kroenke benefits from adding a second team in a number of ways. There's the additional $200-million loan from the NFL and personal-seat-license money to help finance the stadium. The second team also doubles the number of NFL dates on the site, bringing more people to the entire complex.

Like the Rams, the Chargers would be required to pay a $550-million relocation fee. It can be paid over 10 years, starting in 2019 when the Inglewood stadium opens. That money would be distributed evenly among the 30 teams that aren't moving.

 

[D L]

Vincent Bogsignore or however you spell it tweets that theres a deal in place.

 

[OldSchool]

Vinny just restating what we've already known, there's been a deal in place since the Houston meetings. Spanos has to be convinced to take what the owners outlined then.

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2016/01/29/chargers-and-rams-reach-an-agreement-in-principal/

The San Diego Chargers and Los Angeles Rams have agreed in principal to a deal that will make them stadium partners in Los Angeles.

The question now is, will the Chargers join the Rams in time for the 2016 season or next year or never?

That is a decision Chargers owner Dean Spanos must decide.

According to sources, a deal between the two teams was reached Friday and now it’s up to Spanos to decide
whether to exercise his relocation option immediately, or wait until January 2017 to do so and in the meantime continue his 14-year-long effort in San Diego.

IN essence, the ball is in the Chargers court.