New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Moostache]

Why would local owners want to buy the Rams at more than 150% of their value? From a business standpoint that doesn't really make sense, sure it's nice that they'll have the team, but it's not a smart buy. I'm pretty sure there's a limit to the amount of owners a team can have (Packers predate this rule) and I know that a lead owner must own at least 10% of a team, with his family owning the other 20% (so 30% total), which actually disqualifies Peacock since his net worth is reportedly less than what would be needed...

The $1.5 Billion price was derived from the $1.4 B sale of the Bills. Valuation versus sale price is the difference, and truth be told, I'd expect Kroenke to demand $2B...but that was not the original point. The idea is not to force out the current minority owners of the Raiders, only give them the option to retain partial ownership (but no controlling interest) in St. Louis. The money would not actually be spent unless the minority owners wanted out. I view it as a way to purchase the team essentially for $750M that would buy out Davis and then options to buy out the other owners. At any rate, it was all total speculation, but I remain unshakably convinced that the guy at the table with the least cash is the one who is gonna lose in the end, and no matter how its cut, that person is Mark Davis.

Plus why would Kroenke want to reward the guys who are throwing a huge wrench into his plan, what happens if Davis doesn't want to sell, or the other owners don't want to sell either? There's a lot of issues here that make it far more complicated and time consuming than I see Kroenke willing to put up with.

That is a big assumption - that Kroenke WANTS to move the Rams. I will concede that he wants to develop the LA land. That is what he does. But until he specifically attaches the St. Louis Rams to the Inglewood project in the form of branding or approved relocation application, I will simply remain convinced that his goal is an NFL stadium in L.A. and him owning that stadium. As far as who plays in it? Clearly there are differing opinions and options remaining to be seen on that...

 

[The Ripper]

The $1.5 Billion price was derived from the $1.4 B sale of the Bills. Valuation versus sale price is the difference, and truth be told, I'd expect Kroenke to demand $2B...but that was not the original point. The idea is not to force out the current minority owners of the Raiders, only give them the option to retain partial ownership (but no controlling interest) in St. Louis. The money would not actually be spent unless the minority owners wanted out. I view it as a way to purchase the team essentially for $750M that would buy out Davis and then options to buy out the other owners. At any rate, it was all total speculation, but I remain unshakably convinced that the guy at the table with the least cash is the one who is gonna lose in the end, and no matter how its cut, that person is Mark Davis.

There's a block of the Raiders ownership that won't sell their shares. The other issue is that the partnership agreement is very complex that may lead to some issues if the controlling interest is sold. It has survived twice in court but the transfer could bring up some unwanted complications when it comes to protecting the minority interests in the team.

 

[Moostache]

There's a block of the Raiders ownership that won't sell their shares.

If the league itself were to broker the deal, that would not be a problem...it might increase their equity share as minority owners in St. Louis, but it would not be a deal breaker.
The entire idea is basically a swap of franchise names and a removal of Davis from the NFL ownership club.

The St. Louis group (or single owner perhaps?) owner would replace Davis, the minority owners would choose to accept association with St. Louis Rams or sell their portion at the sale price.

Don't wanna sell? Congratulations and welcome to St. Louis! You have the same ownership role that you had before, just at a new address.
Wanna cash out? Congratulations, I hear there are some really nice PSLs for sale in Inglewood!

Why go through this exercise at all?
Because it allows the NFL to follow its relocation guidelines and allows significant wiggle room to sweeten the pot for Kroenke.
He would still get his L.A. stadium.
He would still be the landlord of the stadium to boot.
The league could easily determine that his contribution to resolving a sticky situation deserved a waiver on the relocation, essentially upping the G4 loan for Kroenke by that $500M waiver.

Until Mark Davis finds a sugar daddy, he is the one that is most likely to lose. Not the city of St. Louis. Not the Rams. Not the Chargers. Not Spanos. Not Kroenke. Oakland loses by choice and Davis loses by being the short stack and split suit hole cards 2 and 5 with no help on the flop!

 

[Goose]

StL's Shane Gray wrote a nice piece here. It's pro StL of course but he lays out the whole thing pretty well. As this thing unfolds enough pieces have come to focus and good arguments are there for all.
The funny part in all this banter is we may not have a clue what these guys really have in mind or what is most important to them.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...0/Gray-Rams-Remain-The-Task-Forces-Focus.aspx

It will be interesting to see if the other owners will buy the "We are a free agent" argument. The lease gave the Rams the option to convert the lease to a year to year process for the final 10 years of the lease if the top 25% clause was not met. It did not terminate the lease or break the lease. It gave the Rams an option and the Rams exercised it. All of the other terms of the lease are still in affect.

 

[Goose]

Chargers, Raiders appoint Carmen Policy to oversee Carson stadium plan

By Vincent Bonsignore, Los Angeles Daily News
POSTED: 05/18/15, 7:02 PM PDT |

SAN FRANCISCO — Even as San Diego leaders unveiled plans to help build the Chargers a new stadium in San Diego on Monday, the Chargers remained focused on their potential new home 90 miles away in Los Angeles.

And making big news in the process.

The Chargers and Oakland Raiders, who are teaming to build a joint stadium in Carson as a fallback plan should stadium deals not materialize back home, are retaining longtime NFL executive Carmen Policy to serve as the Director of Carson Holdings LLC, the joint venture in charge of the stadium project in Carson.

Policy, who rose to fame as president and CEO of the San Francisco 49ers during their championship years in the 1980s and ’90s, brings much-needed clout and punch to a project that might soon go to the NFL for consideration as the preferred Los Angeles venue.

Carson is one of two local stadium projects under consideration along with the Inglewood stadium being pushed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

At some point in the next six months, the NFL is expected to decide what site and what team or teams will make the long-anticipated return to Los Angeles, which has been without pro football since 1995.

Policy will help lead that charge, first assuming a lead role in convincing NFL owners that the Carson stadium is a worthy, logical landing spot and that the Raiders and Chargers have clear justification to relocate to Los Angeles after waging decades-long battles to build new homes locally.

“These are two California bred teams with California roots and history,” Policy said. “It makes the most sense on various levels that they are the teams to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles. It’s the logical decision. And I don’t think anyone sees the sense in adding a fourth team to California.”

Bringing on Policy represents a significant step in the process and follows the completion of step one — getting the project approved by the city of Carson.

With that objective met, the Raiders and Chargers turned their attention to successfully introducing themselves to Los Angeles and reintroducing the NFL back to the L.A. marketplace, should it come to that.

Policy, with his deep and respected NFL ties and his experience relaunching the new Browns back in the Cleveland market in the mid-1990s, was a name that kept coming up as Raiders and Chargers officials contemplated putting a lead face to their potential march to Los Angeles.

Much to the surprise of Policy.

“I was a shocked when they called. It was literally a case of, who is pulling whose leg” he said.

But after getting updated on the project, Policy was immediately intrigued.

And convinced he was joining a winning team.

“The last thing I want to do is jump on board of something with no chance of success,” Policy said. “And after looking into this and talking it over it didn’t take me long to figure out this is a tremendous opportunity for the teams, for the league and most importantly Los Angeles. This stadium will offer a game-day experience second to none. I could not be more excited.”

Meanwhile, in San Diego on Monday, the Citizen’s Stadium Advisory Group, appointed by San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, released its promised plan for a new multiuse stadium in San Diego.

The plan is intended to offer a path to keeping the San Diego Chargers in town.

The mayor’s committee reports that a multi-use stadium in Mission Valley is the most viable option — and estimates the cost at $1.1 billion, excluding land. The report also outlines $1.4 million in revenue streams, without increasing taxes.

The NFL and Chargers previously had issues with the Mission Valley site and financing plans that the mayor’s committee proposed.

Among key points in the plan:

— A $950 million proposed stadium designed by MEIS, a New York-based stadium design firm.

— Sixty acres of land from the City of San Diego valued at $180 million

— Other funding sources that exceed $1.4 billion.

For more of the latest news on possible NFL moves to Los Angeles, followthe NFL in L.A. blog.

http://www.dailybreeze.com//sports/...-carmen-policy-to-oversee-carson-stadium-plan

 

[Goose]

 

[RamBill]

Comparing St. Louis and San Diego stadium financing plans
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...t-louis-and-san-diego-stadium-financing-plans

SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Diego stadium task force unveiled its plan for financing a new, $1.4 billion football stadium in Mission Valley on Monday afternoon. It's the first hint of what a stadium could cost the Chargers and the people of San Diego and at least provides an initial framework if conversations between the city and team are to commence.

Unlike the task force proposal in St. Louis, an initial glance at the San Diego financing idea looks to ask for more contributions from the team in the form of upfront payments as well as rent dollars that might normally be used for things like stadium upkeep. The St. Louis stadium proposal more closely resembles the blueprint left by the under construction project for the Minnesota Vikings, which aims for a nearly 50/50 split between public and private dollars.

Here's a breakdown of what San Diego is proposing followed by what St. Louis is hoping to accomplish for its plan on the north riverfront:

San Diego stadium proposal

Team/owner funding: $300 million

Capital from team rent: $173 million (over 30 years)

NFL G4 loan: $200 million

San Diego county: $121 million

San Diego city: $121 million

Gain from sale of Qualcomm stadium land: $225 million

Personal seat licenses: $60 million (of $120 million, split with Chargers)

San Diego State rent: $21.6 million (over 30 years)

Bowl games rent: $21.6 million (over 30 years)

Ticket surcharge: $84.7 million (over 30 years)

Additional funding (naming rights, etc.): $50 million (over 30 years)

Total recommended revenues: $1.4 billion

St. Louis stadium proposal

Team/owner funding: $250 million

NFL G4 loan: $200 million

City and state bond extensions: $250 million

Brownfield and Missouri Development Finance Board tax credits: $150 million

Personal seat licenses: $100-120 million

Total recommended revenues: $950-985 million

A few quick notes worth adding here:

The San Diego stadium proposal clearly asks for more than just $300 million from the Chargers, though the proposal categorizes it as such. The rent money, in particular, looks like a potential sticking point. In St. Louis, there's been no such discussion of rolling rent money into bonds as a way of creating more revenue. As mentioned above, rent money is typically used more for stadium upkeep and things of that nature than a form of revenue to pay off a stadium.

It's unclear how San Diego plans to navigate the public portion of the financing. In St. Louis, there are current bonds already in place that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon believes he has the power to extend without a public vote. There are arguments brewing on whether that can actually happen or not but the possibility remains. In San Diego, the proposal doesn't really specify how that $242 million in county and city money is to be obtained and whether or not a vote will be required.

One thing worth noting is the similar expectation on the personal seat licenses. Remember, neither San Diego nor St. Louis is a major market with the dollars of, say, San Francisco. So estimates of about $120 million in PSL's is probably about right for markets of similar size.

Keep in mind, both of these proposals are fluid and in no way set in stone. The St. Louis plan is much further along than San Diego and it's been estimated that about two thirds of the land has already been acquired in St. Louis via option agreements.

But as San Diego sorts through its plans and asks much of the Chargers, the St. Louis proposal is far more reasonable on both sides. That doesn't mean that Rams owner Stan Kroenke will agree to it but clearly, St. Louis is at least offering something more palatable than San Diego is offering the Chargers.

 

[blue4]

It will be interesting to see if the other owners will buy the "We are a free agent" argument. The lease gave the Rams the option to convert the lease to a year to year process for the final 10 years of the lease if the top 25% clause was not met. It did not terminate the lease or break the lease. It gave the Rams an option and the Rams exercised it. All of the other terms of the lease are still in affect.

This I did not know.

 

[RamFan503]

It will be interesting to see if the other owners will buy the "We are a free agent" argument. The lease gave the Rams the option to convert the lease to a year to year process for the final 10 years of the lease if the top 25% clause was not met. It did not terminate the lease or break the lease. It gave the Rams an option and the Rams exercised it. All of the other terms of the lease are still in affect.

And that affects this situation how? I'm guessing it means a pretty owner friendly lease while the Rams occupy the dome. Maybe it means that Stan is in no hurry to solidify a good deal in St Louis for the new stadium lease. Maybe it lets him watch the other two teams to see if they flounder or if the clean-up in Carson goes astray. I really don't know. But my hunch is that it really doesn't affect much of anything except give Stan maybe some more leverage time. Not good as I'm sure most of us would want this thing done yesterday at the latest.

 

[The Ripper]

If the league itself were to broker the deal, that would not be a problem...it might increase their equity share as minority owners in St. Louis, but it would not be a deal breaker.
The entire idea is basically a swap of franchise names and a removal of Davis from the NFL ownership club.

The St. Louis group (or single owner perhaps?) owner would replace Davis, the minority owners would choose to accept association with St. Louis Rams or sell their portion at the sale price.

Don't wanna sell? Congratulations and welcome to St. Louis! You have the same ownership role that you had before, just at a new address.
Wanna cash out? Congratulations, I hear there are some really nice PSLs for sale in Inglewood!

Why go through this exercise at all?
Because it allows the NFL to follow its relocation guidelines and allows significant wiggle room to sweeten the pot for Kroenke.
He would still get his L.A. stadium.
He would still be the landlord of the stadium to boot.
The league could easily determine that his contribution to resolving a sticky situation deserved a waiver on the relocation, essentially upping the G4 loan for Kroenke by that $500M waiver.

Until Mark Davis finds a sugar daddy, he is the one that is most likely to lose. Not the city of St. Louis. Not the Rams. Not the Chargers. Not Spanos. Not Kroenke. Oakland loses by choice and Davis loses by being the short stack and split suit hole cards 2 and 5 with no help on the flop!

That's not correct. The change in the majority owner of the partnership causes many issues and add relocation potentially opens up a lot of legal issues. I have first hand experience with being a minority owner of business with a similar structure and have explored the legal options.

 

[Goose]

And that affects this situation how? I'm guessing it means a pretty owner friendly lease while the Rams occupy the dome. Maybe it means that Stan is in no hurry to solidify a good deal in St Louis for the new stadium lease. Maybe it lets him watch the other two teams to see if they flounder or if the clean-up in Carson goes astray. I really don't know. But my hunch is that it really doesn't affect much of anything except give Stan maybe some more leverage time. Not good as I'm sure most of us would want this thing done yesterday at the latest.

I think it contradicts the CVC or STL defaulted on the lease and the Rams are free to move about the country. The lease was very slanted towards the Rams and was the envy off the league of the longest time. However, in my opinion, and I know that it is not the one that matters, I don't believe the Rams are no longer tied to the market.

 

[RamFan503]

I think it contradicts the CVC or STL defaulted on the lease and the Rams are free to move about the country. The lease was very slanted towards the Rams and was the envy off the league of the longest time. However, in my opinion, and I know that it is not the one that matters, I don't believe the Rams are no longer tied to the market.

I think the lease is what it is. A VERY owner friendly lease intended to lure a team to the new dome. I don't think the idea that the Rams are somehow now no longer bound by their lease actually says to the NFL that they are free agents market wise. Maybe they can lean on that in some way but IMO that would be bogus and only intended to give them an excuse should they choose the Inglewood project. St Louis is the Rams market as far as I can see. I realize they spent more years in LA and I grew up watching them there.

But no matter how you slice it, Georgia was the majority owner of the Rams. Stan was the minority owner of the Rams. When they moved, they intentionally gave up the LA market and claimed the St Louis market.

Personally, I think the only way they should be able to move, is if the St Louis plan somehow either has a flaw in its financing or if the city/state is wanting Stan to give up more than would be a league standard OR change the lease conditions so much that it would have never gotten the team to come to St Louis in the first place.

 

[iced]

Not correct. Stan gives up all the PSL's and the Chargers get 1/2 making their contribution 240 million

That's an assumption; it's never been quoted what is done with PSL profits

 

[bluecoconuts]

i began my love of football watching
the football Cardinals, lived and died with the team, watched every game after they left town, couldnt imagine rooting for another team, then the Rams moved to town, by the time the 95 season started the Rams were my team, the Cardinals were an afterthought. you would be suprised how quickly a city adopts a team and how fast old alliegences crumble.

So he's going to risk 75% of his fanbase to attempt to keep 25%? He would probably lose some of the fans, but he'll also risk losing some if another team goes there as well, plus he'll potentially lose a sizable portion of the 75%. However that would explain why he doesn't want the Rams, while is okay with the Raiders. It's not likely people will make that switch, but switching to the Rams would be easier.

Either way I'd guess that the split would go Rams, Lakers, Kings, Dodgers and Chargers, Clippers, Ducks, Angels. Similar to the Jets, Nets, Islanders, Mets and Giants, Knicks, Rangers, Yankees split in New York. I think he'd save more of his fanbase in San Diego by sharing with the Rams than the Raiders, because sharing with the Raiders adds that bit of insult to injury.

The $1.5 Billion price was derived from the $1.4 B sale of the Bills. Valuation versus sale price is the difference, and truth be told, I'd expect Kroenke to demand $2B...but that was not the original point. The idea is not to force out the current minority owners of the Raiders, only give them the option to retain partial ownership (but no controlling interest) in St. Louis. The money would not actually be spent unless the minority owners wanted out. I view it as a way to purchase the team essentially for $750M that would buy out Davis and then options to buy out the other owners. At any rate, it was all total speculation, but I remain unshakably convinced that the guy at the table with the least cash is the one who is gonna lose in the end, and no matter how its cut, that person is Mark Davis.

Forbes has their value at about 900 million, if Kroenke demanded 2 billion that'd be double their value, it would be incredibly foolish to pay that, even 1.5 billion would be foolish. I'm a bit confused are you suggesting they do a franchise swap and then try to buy out Davis? If they try to buy from Kroenke first, they need to spend that money though. I agree that the person most likely to lose out of the three owners is Davis, but I don't think that means they force him out (to essentially turn a team over to the guy with even less cash) I think it means he just doesn't get LA. If you're suggesting a franchise swap in name only maybe, but I don't see how Kroenke comes out ahead of that. Fact he is probably gets more value with the Rams in LA than the Raiders, plus he doesn't need to worry about re-branding efforts. I don't see the incentive for him to swap when he can probably end up moving the Rams to Inglewood anyway.

That is a big assumption - that Kroenke WANTS to move the Rams. I will concede that he wants to develop the LA land. That is what he does. But until he specifically attaches the St. Louis Rams to the Inglewood project in the form of branding or approved relocation application, I will simply remain convinced that his goal is an NFL stadium in L.A. and him owning that stadium. As far as who plays in it? Clearly there are differing opinions and options remaining to be seen on that...

I would disagree, and apparently so would Peacock. He's attached the Rams to Inglewood by virtue of having Demoff part of the planning and development of the LA site. Demoff's isn't Vice President of Kroenke Group, or Chief Operating Officer of Kroenke Group, he's Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Rams. If Kroenke didn't want the Rams to go, Demoff would not be needed to be part of those discussions. By attaching Demoff to Inglewood, he attached the Rams. I think just about everything indicates he wants to move the Rams.

 

[RAMSinLA]

Are you sure about that?

Not a 100% RamFan503...but if I were living in St Louis I would be starting a (keep the Rams here and pay the tax increase drive)...that is for sure.

 

[iced]

If you're suggesting a franchise swap in name only maybe, but I don't see how Kroenke comes out ahead of that. Fact he is probably gets more value with the Rams in LA than the Raiders, plus he doesn't need to worry about re-branding efforts. I don't see the incentive for him to swap when he can probably end up moving the Rams to Inglewood anyway.

that's another assumption

you could easily make the same argument for raiders - there's still a lot of Raider fans in LA, and the Raiders also never left the state of CA.. Can just as easily having more fans there than the Rams. The only one who will have an educated guess at the answer are market studies

 

[RamBill]

NFL in LA gaining momentum at Spring League Meeting

By Albert Breer
NFL Media reporter
Published: May 18, 2015 at 09:10 p.m.
Updated: May 18, 2015 at 11:08 p.m.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-la-gaining-momentum-at-spring-league-meeting

The NFL's future in Los Angeles hasn't popped up much in the news cycle since the league's annual meeting in March, but that doesn't mean progress hasn't been made.

According to multiple involved parties, momentum continues to build toward the league returning to the L.A. market in 2016 after 21 years away.

One NFL source said the league is "confident there'll be multiple options" on the table to make that a reality by the end of the calendar year, as the owners gather for the spring meeting in San Francisco.

Barring a surprise, those will be the Hollywood Park project in Inglewood (driven by Rams owner Stan Kroenke) and the Carson project (with a Raiders/Chargers partnership behind it). And the race between those two remains as it was in March, with the Hollywood Park project maintaining an incremental lead and the deep pockets of Kroenke giving it an inherent advantage.

Over the last two months, the Carson project has become entitled, and the Raiders and Chargers have begun moving transactions to put parcels of land in the area in the right hands. Both projects have made advances in the design phase, as well.

The league will inform teams Tuesday that they should expect proposals and designs at a later date.

There will, however, be more extensive talks on the current markets of the Rams, Raiders and Chargers. The league did site visits this spring to St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego and will give reports on their market surveys, and talk through the timeline and process in each of those cities.

The NFL will tell the owners that St. Louis' progress toward a downtown stadium remains steady, design work has continued and that the confidence the league has in state money there remains high, despite a lawsuit between the state and city. San Diego, meanwhile, took a step forward this week with its stadium task force issuing a report. Oakland, on the other hand, has moved backward since March, losing time without making any progress.

In addition to the NFL's report, the Rams, Raiders and Chargers will give their own reports on what they're seeing and hearing in their home markets.

And the other area that will be covered, in relation to L.A., at the San Francisco meeting will be the relocation window, which allows for teams to declare the intention to move between Jan. 1 to Feb. 15, a timeframe designed to make a move official at the March meeting. There is a likelihood that an adjustment to the window will be made Tuesday or Wednesday to allow for the process to wrap up closer to the Super Bowl, to give a relocating team more time to execute the move.

At this point, an outcome is unlikely to crystallize before late in the fall, perhaps ahead of the league's meeting in December.

 

[blue4]

I think the lease is what it is. A VERY owner friendly lease intended to lure a team to the new dome. I don't think the idea that the Rams are somehow now no longer bound by their lease actually says to the NFL that they are free agents market wise. Maybe they can lean on that in some way but IMO that would be bogus and only intended to give them an excuse should they choose the Inglewood project. St Louis is the Rams market as far as I can see. I realize they spent more years in LA and I grew up watching them there.

But no matter how you slice it, Georgia was the majority owner of the Rams. Stan was the minority owner of the Rams. When they moved, they intentionally gave up the LA market and claimed the St Louis market.

Personally, I think the only way they should be able to move, is if the St Louis plan somehow either has a flaw in its financing or if the city/state is wanting Stan to give up more than would be a league standard OR change the lease conditions so much that it would have never gotten the team to come to St Louis in the first place.

I agree.

 

[The Ripper]

That's an assumption; it's never been quoted what is done with PSL profits

Yes, it's right in the financing for the Riverfront Proposal that all PSL's goes to the stadium. In San Diego it's in their proposal that the Chargers get half of the PSL's sales. The will be sold by San Diego to pass on the proceeds tax free to the Chargers.

 

[RamBill]

NFL to update owners on Rams, stadium plans
• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_19d07342-0695-529a-a6ec-9af9c8bd5339.html

The Los Angeles-relocation/St. Louis stadium issue is on the formal agenda at the NFL’s May meetings this week in San Francisco. There will be no votes and no outside speakers this time around.

Instead, the full membership is expected to hear an update from NFL executive Eric Grubman on where things stand on all fronts. Specifically with regard to last month’s presentation in New York from representatives of stadium projects in St. Louis, Inglewood (Calif.) and Carson (Calif.) to the league’s committee on Los Angeles operations.

There had been some earlier rumblings weeks ago that a St. Louis delegation headed by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz might make a presentation at these meetings, but that turned out not to be the case.

If nothing else, owners from all 32 teams will be brought up to date on what’s going on at the locales in question. But as the weeks fly by and the time creeps closer to when a decision could be reached on the fate of the Rams in St. Louis, there could be movement on a couple of fronts.

For one, results are expected soon on market assessment surveys done not only in St. Louis, Inglewood and Carson, but also Oakland and San Diego. In St. Louis, those surveys consisted of email questionnaires, focus groups involving current and former Rams season ticket holders, and phone interviews with executives of area companies. A few preliminary results have dribbled in to the St. Louis task force, but nothing substantive.

Also, there could be a decision made in San Francisco on moving up the timetable for relocation to Los Angeles. Under normal relocation guidelines, the next window for the Rams, the Oakland Raiders and the San Diego Chargers to file for relocation is Jan. 1 through Feb. 15, 2016.

The NFL is considering moving up that window to the fall of 2015. Proceeding earlier would give relocating teams a better opportunity to properly transition to a new marketplace.

“Which is the goal if there is a relocation,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said at the league’s March meetings. “So that’s been discussed. We certainly have not come to any conclusion on that.”

Obviously, an earlier relocation window does no favors for the three cities attempting to keep franchises in their markets — St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego.

St. Louis is significantly ahead of Oakland and San Diego when it comes to formulating a stadium plan, but work remains in terms of land assembly and financing. With the threat of a new timetable looming, Peacock and Blitz need to have both those boxes checked by the fall to have a chance at keeping the Rams in St. Louis.

Even without St. Louis representation in San Francisco, the May meetings represent another milepost in the process. Barring a special session, this will be the last time the entire membership of owners meets until October.