I see, Superbowl 54 will be in 2021 but for the 2020-2021 Season. My bad. I don't think that time frame will make a huge impact on which project they decide to go with if they want to do what's best for the league. I'm sure they won't let a couple of years affect what would be best for them for the next 30 or so years. Just my opinion.
The only thing that makes me thing it could impact is the desire for the NFL to get LA done "right", I can't imagine that having these guys play 3 or 4 years in the Rose Bowl with 92,500 seats, or the Coliseum with 93,600 seats... Especially since the Coliseum being too big being part of why all three teams needed new digs in the first place. Dodger stadium is only 56,000 seats, that could be considered too small. You never know, but I'd assume the NFL wants the least amount of time in temporary venues. It's another plus for Inglewood, because the Rams can set up in the temporary gig, while the Chargers stay in San Diego giving them until it's completed, and then move if San Diego fails. So you have one team in a temporary stadium for two years, rather than two teams in a temporary stadium for three or four years. Especially since the temporary stadiums aren't ideal.
Maybe, maybe not, who knows at this point.
L.A. Super Bowl for 2021 could just as easily be in the Rose Bowl...the venue has hosted I think 5 previous Super Bowls and World Cup Finals and the annual Rose Bowl itself, and College title games...the reason the Rose Bowl (which was NEVER the home stadium of an LA team in the past yet STILL hosted the Super Bowl on numerous occasions) was removed from the Super Bowl "rotation" of New Orleans, Los Angeles and Miami was initially because the league rules say a team must play in the stadium's home MARKET...not the venue itself!
The idea that a 2021 Super Bowl in LA could ONLY happen in Inglewood is nothing more than pro-LA / pro-Inglewood spin. It COULD happen, sure...but its NOT the ONLY way a Super Bowl in LA happens for 2021.
I don't think the Rose Bowl is in play for a Super Bowl, and I don't think the NFL has any desire to push that. Given the comments from Grubman saying that the stadium would need to be in operation for a year, I'm going to say that if a Super Bowl happens in LA in that timeframe, it's an Inglewood. That doesn't mean they can't set a date further out if they want to go with Carson though, it just wont be that soon.
No offense, but you are stretching your own credibility to a thread with statements like that.
You REALLY think that is a plausible argument? That the clock on St. Louis should have started in 2005?
No.
Just no.
The team and the CVC were involved in a process that was governed by the lease. They still are. The Rams elected to convert the lease to a year-to-year starting...oh, yeah, THIS YEAR!!!
That means even before the team plays ONE game under a modified lease, St. Louis has a proposal in the works and one that has been deemed "viable" by the league.
St Louis knew what they were getting into when they signed that god awful lease to lure the team there, and they knew that time was running out in 2005 when the Rams let the top tier clause slide. We can be impressed by the speed that St Louis has moved since getting off their asses, but to pretend like they didn't know it was coming is just incorrect. St Louis got themselves into the situation with the poor lease, and being slow to act when they violated the terms of that lease. If they upheld their side of the lease then we wouldn't be here today, and when they decided it wasn't worth it, if they get something going before Kroenke took over, he may not have even wanted to take control, or when he did he works with the city to get a better stadium.
Maybe Kroenke takes over and stops negotiations and we're here again, then yeah that's different.
The fact is St Louis was slow to the table. They've been working fast and impressively since, but by taking too long to get there in the first place they could have set themselves up for failure.
It's a two way street, we can be upset at Stan wanting to move, but we also have to be upset at the city for dicking around playing politics.
but isn't that precisely what the league has stated as their most important criteria?
In terms of Los Angeles, yeah I believe so, but they also put a lot of importance in home markets, so they kind of screwed themselves there.
