New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

Talk commences of a possible one-year L.A. delay
Posted by Mike Florio

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/28/talk-commences-of-a-possible-one-year-l-a-delay/

At a time when it’s become a foregone conclusion that the NFL will return to Los Angeles in 2016, a possible caveat has emerged

The return might come in 2017.

According to an item from the Editorial board of U-T San Diego, “There is speculation that the owners at the August meeting [to discuss Los Angeles] may delay the entire process for a year to let everything percolate in [Oakland, San Diego, and St. Louis] to see what develops.”

The paper calls it the “best possible outcome” for San Diego, since it would give the local politicians more time to properly pursue a vote regarding the use of taxpayer funds. It also would give both the city and the team cover, if the voters decide to reject the use of public money — necessarily paving the way for the Chargers to return to the city where the team spent its first season in 1960, the inaugural year of the AFL.

It’s unclear where the speculation came from. It could be something that the Editorial board of U-T San Diego conjured (“yes, there is speculation, started by us”) as a Hail Mary pass to keep an NFL team in town for U-T San Diego to cover. If, of course, a public vote regarding the use of taxpayer money would go against the current national trend against subsidizing billionaires’ ballparks.

Tapping the brakes could have unintended consequences. For example, if one of the three teams linked to L.A. gets too antsy about the situation, it could in theory decide to go rogue, moving without NFL approval and bracing to argue that a group of independent businesses ultimately can’t tell one of those businesses where it should conduct its business without violating the antitrust laws.

It’s also possible (“yes, there is speculation, started by us”) that the owners could decide to green light a return by the Rams to L.A. for 2016, with the question of whether the team’s new stadium in Inglewood would be shared with the Chargers or Raiders unresolved.

No amount of delay will change the fact that L.A. has quickly morphed from luxury to necessity for the NFL, with three teams having unsettled stadium situations and each circling the City of Angels. But if the eventual goal is to put two teams in L.A. and to ensure that the third has a new stadium in its current market, it could be that one more year will allow one of the teams to work out a deal locally, allowing the other two to move.

Under that scenario, it’s unlikely that the Chargers would accept an outcome that puts them in a new San Diego stadium and the Rams and Raiders back up the road in L.A. Delaying the process that would allow the Chargers to grab one of the two seats in Los Angeles increases the likelihood that, when the music stops, three franchises will be clustered into territory in which the Chargers currently enjoy their status as the only NFL show in town.

For that reason alone (and the fact that they’ve been trying for 14 years to bring this situation to a head), the Chargers probably aren’t inclined to wait any longer.

If Kroenke is going to go rogue, this would be the most likely time, IMO.

 

[OldSchool]

If Kroenke is going to go rogue, this would be the most likely time, IMO.

Florio is working off a speculation piece from a San Diego paper. I don't know that I'd put a whole lot of credence into this kind of report. Especially after the NFL has been looking into temporary stadiums for the 2016 season.

 

[snackdaddy]

Sometimes things just aren't fair. The Chargers and Raiders are in dire need of a better stadium. They've been playing in a dump for a long time. Rams stadium situation isn't near as bad as theirs. The EJD is far better than their stadium. And could get an even better deal with the new stadium. Yet, they might be the first team in LA. Stan's got a lot more money and money talks.

 

[The Ripper]

I'll remember how polite and civil the Rams are being when I watch the preseason games and follow some of training camp live from California.

What mud is being tossed at them that they haven't earned?

Whatever the Chargers are saying about their cities plan is irrelevant to SD getting another team.

The reason we get sympathy from people in regards to getting another team is because we have a solid plan on a good stadium. And because we are healthy market. Not because the Rams "no comments" on it. People understand that city that supported a team historically bad doesn't deserve to lose them the minute they sniff .500. Not because of anything the Rams say and do, that doesn't make the slightest bit sense.

I gotta stop coming to this thread every day. From the notion that the city should have started stadium plans before the paint dried on the ED, to this new idea that the Rams are being gracious to St Louis for not falsely trashing a perfectly good stadium proposal they barely look at, it's getting a bit out there.

I am not sure anyone is saying it's acceptable that Kroenke isn't talking. The point is that that Demoff is not Fabiani. What has Demoff done in St Louis, his charity work and the other community involvement. Where as Fabiani is doing the same thing he did in Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Florida recount and Lance Armstrong, he's an attack dog and creates villains out of the opposition. Demoff is playing the game assisting where he needs to be and not speaking publicly but at least he isn't trying to kill the Riverfront Stadium

 

[RamBill]

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer
LA scenario I've heard floated a lot is a little like this, with one big difference

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer
That scenario: Rams go to LA in '16, get head start for investing. Second Inglewood spot stays open, so Chargers/Raiders maintain leverage.


@AlbertBreer so screw STL with financing set?

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer
No. If St. Louis has a solid plan in place in the fall, things get more complicated.

 

[The Ripper]

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/6/ ... ually-want

STADIUM TALK: What do the Chargers actually want?

Do the Chargers want to stay in San Diego or do they want to leave for Los Angeles? It's not actually that simple.

I keep getting this same question from people that know how closely I follow the San Diego Chargers and the stadium negotiations: "What do the Chargers actually want? I can't figure it out. Do they just want L.A. and there's nothing San Diego can do?"

Here's my answer, as complete as I can give it....

You are asking the wrong question, or at least limiting yourself to the wrong potential answers.

It's not that the Chargers want Los Angeles or San Diego. What Dean Spanos wants is simple, and Mark Fabiani has been telling us for over a decade what it is. The team wants a new, state-of-the-art NFL stadium that doesn't potentially bankrupt the team's owner.

That's it. That's all.

Sure, it gets more complicated than that. The team is willing to kick in more money towards a Carson stadium than one in San Diego, but that's because the value of the franchise (and the stadium as a home to large NFL events) goes up significantly if the team can own the second largest market in the country.

They're also willing to kick in more towards a downtown San Diego option for similar reasons. Whether or not San Diego wants to admit it, Mission Valley is not a draw. A San Diego Super Bowl would be mostly centered in downtown, as it has been in the past, with the game being essentially the only thing that brings the focus to the stadium in Mission Valley. It would be more of a boon for the city than it would be for the team.

I'll gloss over this quickly, but the Mission Valley site also has a ton of issues. Traffic down there is already a nightmare. The environmental issues would make it difficult to build around it, and the space to do so is limited (due to the river, freeways, and existing development).

Petco Park got to expand downtown around the stadium, and essentially own the East Village area, and there's really no limit to how much they can grow and benefit from the area around it. The Chargers are (in their own way) competing with the Padres for the title of San Diego's Most Beloved Sports Franchise, and part of that is doing what the Padres did but better.

Keeping Options Open

Mark Fabiani has stated several different times now that his goal is not a stadium in San Diego, Carson or Inglewood. His goal is a stadium. He's paid by the Chargers to make sure they're playing somewhere nice and not bankrupting themselves in the process.

Until they're actually officially dead, Fabiani is keeping all options open for the Chargers to make sure that he can leverage them against each other....and to make sure that at least one chair is open when the music stops playing.

The only reason it seems like he's favoring Los Angeles is because Los Angeles doesn't need him or the Chargers. They have the Rams and probably a dozen other teams that would love to move to L.A. sometime in the next five years. San Diego doesn't have that same leverage. They need the Chargers, and Fabiani knows it.

Where the Mayor Screwed Up

Look, I like the CSAG group. I like all of those guys a lot. I think they did a good job, but I also think the Mayor put them in a no-win situation.

When the CSAG presented their stadium plan for Mission Valley, it was flawed. They admitted as much! This was not supposed to be a full proposal, but rather "a starting point for negotiations." Considering it took them four months to put together, with much fanfare (and a big press conference) when they announced, I'm not sure if the Mayor understands how negotiations actually go. They usually start with sitting down in a room together.

This would be like if the Chargers, as a way to start negotiations with Eric Weddle, gave him a low-ball offer ($5 million a year for two years) in a press conference to the whole of the San Diego media. Then, when everyone pointed out that he's worth closer to $10 million and probably wants four or more years, the team says "Well, this is just the start of negotiations." It's silly!

Due to the task they were given and the way they were told to go about it, CSAG got no assistance from the Chargers. We want to call the Chargers the bad guys for this, but they're actually not! If the Chargers interacted with CSAG and gave them some guidance, it would likely be their stamp of approval on the project, closing potential options in Los Angeles. Because they knew the big announcement was coming, their only option was to respond to it once it was out.

A starting point for negotiations should be figuring out deal-breakers and baselines. The Mayor should have met with the Chargers and figured out what types of things they would not be willing to do (or not able to afford) to get a stadium, then he could have had someone put together a starting point based on that. Instead, he did it backwards, and embarrassed the city in the process.

Financing

Let's do some quick, stupid-guy math on that CSAG proposal.

The Chargers were asked to contribute $300 million.
The Chargers were asked to pay $173 million in rent.
The Chargers were asked to split $60 million in estimated PSL sales with the city/county, so that's another $30 million they're kicking in.
The Chargers were asked to share in the cost of operation and maintenance of the stadium, so tack on another million or so dollars per year.
The Chargers were asked to assume the cost of construction overages, which I'm estimating to be another $100 million (JMI's estimate for overages on a downtown stadium were about $120m).
So now we're over $600 million that the Chargers are potentially putting towards a new stadium in Mission Valley.

Flawed stadium site aside....the stadium proposed was a bit "bare bones" itself. The seating capacity is listed as somewhere between 65,000 and 72,000. There were no mention of luxury boxes and they're missing from the artist renderings (which is important because they affect construction costs and revenues in a pretty big way). There is no roof of any sort (because they said it would cost an addition $150 million), leaving out any chance of getting any sort of indoor event (such as the NCAA Basketball Tournament).

So, to quickly summarize, Mayor Faulconer wants the Chargers to pay over $600 million for a bare bones stadium in a part of the city that has no real room for expansion or growth. Is that a lot or a little? Let's find out!

Comparisons

Let's add in about $100m in construction overages and say the Mission Valley stadium is about $1.25 billion to build (not including development of the land around it). Let's assume that the Chargers are being asked to kick in $600 million for that. That's roughly 50%.

The city/count pay for half and the Chargers pay half. This seems fair, right? Well, on average, NFL teams are usually only on the hook for 35% of the cost of their new stadium. Asking the Chargers to compete with the rest of the league, while paying more for their stadium and losing the Los Angeles market? That doesn't seem fair. No wonder why they weren't satisfied with the CSAG proposal.

It's worth nothing that, in addition to wanting to grow the city like the Padres did, the Chargers would also like a deal similar to what the Padres paid for their stadium ($153m for a $456m project). The city is the one that most benefits from a new stadium, especially one downtown, so the team wants them to put up about 2/3rd of the money.

Are you wondering what Jerry Jones and the Cowboys paid for their 80,000 seat stadium with state-of-the-art everything that has been lauded as the best stadium in the country? Only $525 million of the $1.2 billion in total construction costs.

As best I can tell, the 49ers chipped in about $500 million towards the building of Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara (which has roughly the same capacity that the Mission Valley stadium would have but maybe a few more bells and whistles).

The Indianapolis Colts paid....wait for it....$100 million towards the building of Lucas Oil Stadium. They do pay rent though, to the tune of $250,000 a year. That deal has been a nightmare for the city.

The only recently-built stadium that saw a team kick in as much as CSAG is asking the Chargers to kick in? MetLife Stadium, which is basically the working blueprint for the Carson stadium project. Two teams, two loans from the NFL, one big shared loan with the bank that gets paid back with PSLs and revenues.

It appears that CSAG is asking for about $100 million more from the team than they probably should have, but maybe this is one of those things that was built into the proposal high with the intention of negotiating down.

A Dead End

As a resident of San Diego and a long time fan of the San Diego Chargers, I don't want the team to end up leaving and playing somewhere else. That being said, I understand their rejection of the CSAG proposal and the San Diego Mayor in general.

This is basically what Eric Grubman was upset about when he came and met with the CSAG. Why were they building a flawed plan, presenting it to the public, and not bothering to ask the Chargers what the team's potential "deal breakers" were? It was a recipe for failure, and in the end, it failed because the group ended up asking for so much from the team (comparatively) that it came off as an insult rather than a starting point for negotiations.

Maybe it was the Mayor's way of saying "We can't pay for 65% of a stadium, we can only pay for 50%." Which, you know, is fine. However, that's also why Mark Fabiani is now pushing for the Mayor to call on the hoteliers to get involved. A third party raising money towards the stadium is only going to help things, but the hoteliers aren't going to be on board to support a stadium in Mission Valley that is surrounded by condos and big box businesses.

So....downtown?

Probably.

Truth be told, the Chargers are already likely pushing the limits of their budget, and are "overspending" when it comes to what NFL teams spend on these stadium things.

What San Diego needs is a big idea mixed with some big action. A downtown stadium with a retractable roof would get the Chargers back to the table, especially if their investment isn't going up as a result. The only way to do that is with the backing of the hoteliers, and the only person who might be able to make that happen (Mayor Faulconer) doesn't seem interested in trying.

Sorry...

I know the picture I'm painting is rather bleak, and this isn't so much of a strong argument being made as much as it's a Sunday morning rant in response to a question that nobody seems to understand.

Jeff Siniard will be back at some point with some actual, thoughtful stadium information. In the meantime, it's worth noting that Jeff has been right all along...

Task forces are awesome for politicians, for one main reason: It allows the politician to present the illusion of taking action on an important issue without actually doing anything about it. I can't convey how disappointing this announcement is.

San Diego Chargers Stadium Update: Hoteliers vs. Spanos (1/16/2015)

The simplest way for the City of San Diego (City) to pay for a new stadium is to raise taxes in order to cover the public contribution. However, California law requires a 2/3rds supermajority vote to pass any tax increase for specific purposes.

In light of the extreme difficulty of passing a tax increase, the best tax to target in San Diego is the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), which is applied to persons staying at hotels and resorts for a limited (i.e. less than 30 days) time. The current TOT tax is set at 10.5%, which is lower compared to many other cities in the United States.

According to the City's proposed FY2015 budget, the City receives $174 million in revenue from the TOT. Of that $174 million, only $91.14 million reaches the General Fund. Without impacting other services, and assuming an added cost of about $20 million/year over 30 years, the TOT would have to be raised from 10.5% to at least 14% to completely cover the public cost of a new stadium.

In addition to general public anathema to raising taxes for anything, this proposal would find bitter opposition among hoteliers, who would much rather see any increase in the TOT be put towards a contiguous Convention Center expansion, which is expected to cost between $550-600 million.

How to Pay for a new Chargers Stadium in San Diego (2/16/2015)

 

[RamBill]

L.A.'s NFL stadium riddle: Three teams, two plans, what to expect next
By Sam Farmer contact the reporter

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0629-nfl-stadium-q-and-a-20150629-story.html#page=2

Almost six months ago, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans to build an NFL stadium in Inglewood on the site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack.

The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders responded with a competing plan of their own, a proposal for a shared stadium in Carson.

Both stadium visions cleared all the necessary entitlement hurdles with blistering speed.

Suddenly, the Los Angeles market, the NFL's most glaring vacancy for the past 20 years, was flush with options.

Now the hard part: whittling down those options to find an actual solution. In the coming months, the league will navigate a minefield — owners pitted against owners — in an effort to solve one of the biggest riddles in sports.

Times NFL writer Sam Farmer asks and answers some questions about the process and what we can expect:

Question: What's happening behind the scenes now?

Answer: Some if not all of the owners backing one proposal or the other are lobbying fellow owners by sharing the details of their plans. The general ownership will hear the Inglewood and Carson presentations Aug. 11 in a special meeting in Chicago.

Q: Should we expect big news coming out of that meeting?

A: Not in terms of site selection, but the league is likely to announce a revised schedule for accepting relocation applications and making an ultimate decision on a site and team or teams. The L.A. issue is big enough to warrant its own meeting, and this is a rare one-per-club meeting, meaning only principal owners (plus a family member) or one team representative is invited to attend. In general, owners are more comfortable hashing out tough issues when there are fewer people in the room.

Q: When it comes to applying for relocation, what's the process?

A: The current window for relocation applications is mid-January through February. The NFL wants to give more time to teams considering a move, and there's a reasonable chance it could begin accepting applications as soon as October. The league will work on those applications with teams before submission, so the NFL will have a good idea of what's contained in them. Then comes an accelerated review process. The Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities will be first to review the applications, then pass them on to the stadium, finance and labor committees, followed by a vote of the owners.

Q: Which owners are on the L.A. committee?

A: It is chaired by Pittsburgh's Art Rooney II, and includes New England's Robert Kraft, Houston's Bob McNair, Carolina's Jerry Richardson, Kansas City's Clark Hunt, and John Mara of the New York Giants.

Q: How soon could a final vote of all owners happen?

A: Opinions are all over the map on this. Some in the league believe L.A. could know it's getting a team by late December, before the end of the regular season. Others say there should be a vote either during the playoffs or Super Bowl week, although the NFL is mindful of not stealing the spotlight from those events. Still others believe a vote would happen in late March at the annual owners meetings, even though that would cut into the season-ticket selling season for fall 2016, so that could be a little late.

Q: What's a nightmare scenario for the NFL?

A: It would be a major headache if all three teams apply for relocation, even though we appear to be headed that direction now. There aren't going to be three teams moving to L.A., so if three teams were to apply, at least one of them would be sent back to a market it tried to leave. That's not good. It would be much better for the NFL to have a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a wide-open horse race. The coming months will be about orchestrating the outcome so each of the three teams comes away with something positive — a tricky proposition.

Q: What are the selling points of the competing projects?

A: Kroenke controls nearly 300 acres in a location L.A. sports fans know well. His Rams have a long and nostalgic relationship with the market, and he has the deepest pockets by far of the three relocation-minded owners. He would not have a problem financing his futuristic, $2-billion stadium, which features a roof but is open on the sides. There's an argument that he should stay in St. Louis if the deal there is compelling enough, but he can counter that he didn't ask that city to come up with a new stadium plan and that he already satisfied his requirements to leave.

The Chargers and Raiders have a plan for a football-only, open-air facility, one with excellent freeway access and proximity to Orange County. The Raiders have a robust fan base in Southern California, and are financially hurting in their current situation. The Chargers and Raiders play in two of the league's worst stadiums, and a new shared home could be a silver-bullet solution for a pair of clubs that for years have failed to get traction on new homes in their current markets.

Q: A team needs a three-quarters majority of the 32 owners for permission to move. Does this boil down to the Rams looking for 24 votes, and the Chargers and Raiders lobbying for nine votes to block them?

A: The league is looking to avoid that type of vote. Owners will get the chance to hear the specific details of each plan and make a decision about which one is better for the NFL as a whole. The challenge for Commissioner Roger Goodell, and for Eric Grubman, the executive vice president overseeing this process, is untangling this knot in a way that allows each of the three owners to walk away at least somewhat satisfied.

Q: What would speed up or simplify this process?

A: If one of the three teams were to agree to stay in its home market, an L.A. deal could come together quickly. Neither the Chargers nor the Raiders are optimistic about what they've seen in their home markets so far, and — although St. Louis is off to the most promising start on a new stadium — the Rams have given no indication they want to stay there.

Q: Is it likely this decision will be delayed a year, so that a team doesn't come to L.A. until 2017?

A: There are two ways of looking at this. First, the meandering return to the L.A. market has been defined by 20 years of false starts and dashed dreams. Nothing is a sure thing until it actually happens. In that sense, yes, this could get pushed back a year or more.

But this is a different situation than we've seen before. There are two viable proposals with all the necessary entitlements and financing plans to begin construction — and, most important, they are sites backed by existing team owners, as opposed to local developers and business leaders pushing their own stadium dreams. The stars are in alignment for the NFL to return, and the league knows that delays, postponements and loss of momentum are the death knell of these types of projects. So there would be strong resistance by owners and NFL executives to pushing the pause button here.

That said, if one or more of the home markets were close to proposing a deal, or taking a public vote, and the situation looked especially promising from the NFL's perspective, the league might be swayed to pump the brakes. After all, it's more important to do L.A. the right way than it is to do it right now.

Q: Will those home markets get a chance to make their case before all the owners?

A: Yes. Any of the three cities who are making what the league considers a serious proposal will be invited to present it at the annual October meetings in New York. Representatives from St. Louis and San Diego almost certainly will be there. The way the league sees it, Oakland has yet to put forth a serious proposal, so at this point that market probably has yet to make the list.

Q: The NFL reached out to potential temporary venues this week, asking them to submit their proposals to host a relocated team or teams for at least two seasons, starting in 2016. Why is the league taking over those duties?


A: There are a few reasons why the NFL is handling negotiations with potential temporary homes. First, it's against league rules for any team to sign a lease outside of its home market. (Those can be negotiated, but not signed.) Next, it's best for temporary stadiums to have as much lead time as possible to work through any scheduling constraints, and those are considerable in the case of the Coliseum and Rose Bowl. Imagine how it would blow up potential negotiations with a home market if word got out that Team X had secured a deal to play the 2016 and '17 seasons at the Coliseum. But if the NFL strikes such a deal, without identifying a team, that news is not as disruptive. And finally, there are persistent rumors that some stadiums have blackballed the Raiders. If so, the league can better deal with that issue if it is handling negotiations.

Q: Is it possible that one temporary stadium could host two teams? And is the 27,000-seat StubHub Center in the mix?

A: Having one stadium host two NFL teams is theoretically possible but highly unlikely. In the case of the Coliseum or Rose Bowl, home to USC and UCLA, respectively, scheduling would be next to impossible and the natural-grass fields would look like the day after Woodstock.

As for using StubHub Center, the league has entertained the idea of creating an intimate, high-end game experience, so it hasn't ruled out that venue. Still, given there are more traditional options, the NFL isn't likely to stack experiment upon experiment in returning to a market that already has lost three teams.

Q: What's most likely to happen when the dust settles on this entire process?

A: Don't be surprised if there's some type of grand bargain, one that none of these three owners would be willing to accept now. That could be the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium at Hollywood Park; or the league telling the Rams the deal in St. Louis is too enticing to leave on the table, thereby paving the way for the Chargers and Raiders in Carson; or a host of other scenarios.

Even the league doesn't know how this is going to end. For now, it's less football and more crystal ball.

 

[Legatron4]

L.A.'s NFL stadium riddle: Three teams, two plans, what to expect next
By Sam Farmer contact the reporter

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0629-nfl-stadium-q-and-a-20150629-story.html#page=2

Almost six months ago, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans to build an NFL stadium in Inglewood on the site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack.

The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders responded with a competing plan of their own, a proposal for a shared stadium in Carson.

Both stadium visions cleared all the necessary entitlement hurdles with blistering speed.

Suddenly, the Los Angeles market, the NFL's most glaring vacancy for the past 20 years, was flush with options.

Now the hard part: whittling down those options to find an actual solution. In the coming months, the league will navigate a minefield — owners pitted against owners — in an effort to solve one of the biggest riddles in sports.

Times NFL writer Sam Farmer asks and answers some questions about the process and what we can expect:

Question: What's happening behind the scenes now?

Answer: Some if not all of the owners backing one proposal or the other are lobbying fellow owners by sharing the details of their plans. The general ownership will hear the Inglewood and Carson presentations Aug. 11 in a special meeting in Chicago.

Q: Should we expect big news coming out of that meeting?

A: Not in terms of site selection, but the league is likely to announce a revised schedule for accepting relocation applications and making an ultimate decision on a site and team or teams. The L.A. issue is big enough to warrant its own meeting, and this is a rare one-per-club meeting, meaning only principal owners (plus a family member) or one team representative is invited to attend. In general, owners are more comfortable hashing out tough issues when there are fewer people in the room.

Q: When it comes to applying for relocation, what's the process?

A: The current window for relocation applications is mid-January through February. The NFL wants to give more time to teams considering a move, and there's a reasonable chance it could begin accepting applications as soon as October. The league will work on those applications with teams before submission, so the NFL will have a good idea of what's contained in them. Then comes an accelerated review process. The Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities will be first to review the applications, then pass them on to the stadium, finance and labor committees, followed by a vote of the owners.

Q: Which owners are on the L.A. committee?

A: It is chaired by Pittsburgh's Art Rooney II, and includes New England's Robert Kraft, Houston's Bob McNair, Carolina's Jerry Richardson, Kansas City's Clark Hunt, and John Mara of the New York Giants.

Q: How soon could a final vote of all owners happen?

A: Opinions are all over the map on this. Some in the league believe L.A. could know it's getting a team by late December, before the end of the regular season. Others say there should be a vote either during the playoffs or Super Bowl week, although the NFL is mindful of not stealing the spotlight from those events. Still others believe a vote would happen in late March at the annual owners meetings, even though that would cut into the season-ticket selling season for fall 2016, so that could be a little late.

Q: What's a nightmare scenario for the NFL?

A: It would be a major headache if all three teams apply for relocation, even though we appear to be headed that direction now. There aren't going to be three teams moving to L.A., so if three teams were to apply, at least one of them would be sent back to a market it tried to leave. That's not good. It would be much better for the NFL to have a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a wide-open horse race. The coming months will be about orchestrating the outcome so each of the three teams comes away with something positive — a tricky proposition.

Q: What are the selling points of the competing projects?

A: Kroenke controls nearly 300 acres in a location L.A. sports fans know well. His Rams have a long and nostalgic relationship with the market, and he has the deepest pockets by far of the three relocation-minded owners. He would not have a problem financing his futuristic, $2-billion stadium, which features a roof but is open on the sides. There's an argument that he should stay in St. Louis if the deal there is compelling enough, but he can counter that he didn't ask that city to come up with a new stadium plan and that he already satisfied his requirements to leave.

The Chargers and Raiders have a plan for a football-only, open-air facility, one with excellent freeway access and proximity to Orange County. The Raiders have a robust fan base in Southern California, and are financially hurting in their current situation. The Chargers and Raiders play in two of the league's worst stadiums, and a new shared home could be a silver-bullet solution for a pair of clubs that for years have failed to get traction on new homes in their current markets.

Q: A team needs a three-quarters majority of the 32 owners for permission to move. Does this boil down to the Rams looking for 24 votes, and the Chargers and Raiders lobbying for nine votes to block them?

A: The league is looking to avoid that type of vote. Owners will get the chance to hear the specific details of each plan and make a decision about which one is better for the NFL as a whole. The challenge for Commissioner Roger Goodell, and for Eric Grubman, the executive vice president overseeing this process, is untangling this knot in a way that allows each of the three owners to walk away at least somewhat satisfied.

Q: What would speed up or simplify this process?

A: If one of the three teams were to agree to stay in its home market, an L.A. deal could come together quickly. Neither the Chargers nor the Raiders are optimistic about what they've seen in their home markets so far, and — although St. Louis is off to the most promising start on a new stadium — the Rams have given no indication they want to stay there.

Q: Is it likely this decision will be delayed a year, so that a team doesn't come to L.A. until 2017?

A: There are two ways of looking at this. First, the meandering return to the L.A. market has been defined by 20 years of false starts and dashed dreams. Nothing is a sure thing until it actually happens. In that sense, yes, this could get pushed back a year or more.

But this is a different situation than we've seen before. There are two viable proposals with all the necessary entitlements and financing plans to begin construction — and, most important, they are sites backed by existing team owners, as opposed to local developers and business leaders pushing their own stadium dreams. The stars are in alignment for the NFL to return, and the league knows that delays, postponements and loss of momentum are the death knell of these types of projects. So there would be strong resistance by owners and NFL executives to pushing the pause button here.

That said, if one or more of the home markets were close to proposing a deal, or taking a public vote, and the situation looked especially promising from the NFL's perspective, the league might be swayed to pump the brakes. After all, it's more important to do L.A. the right way than it is to do it right now.

Q: Will those home markets get a chance to make their case before all the owners?

A: Yes. Any of the three cities who are making what the league considers a serious proposal will be invited to present it at the annual October meetings in New York. Representatives from St. Louis and San Diego almost certainly will be there. The way the league sees it, Oakland has yet to put forth a serious proposal, so at this point that market probably has yet to make the list.

Q: The NFL reached out to potential temporary venues this week, asking them to submit their proposals to host a relocated team or teams for at least two seasons, starting in 2016. Why is the league taking over those duties?


A: There are a few reasons why the NFL is handling negotiations with potential temporary homes. First, it's against league rules for any team to sign a lease outside of its home market. (Those can be negotiated, but not signed.) Next, it's best for temporary stadiums to have as much lead time as possible to work through any scheduling constraints, and those are considerable in the case of the Coliseum and Rose Bowl. Imagine how it would blow up potential negotiations with a home market if word got out that Team X had secured a deal to play the 2016 and '17 seasons at the Coliseum. But if the NFL strikes such a deal, without identifying a team, that news is not as disruptive. And finally, there are persistent rumors that some stadiums have blackballed the Raiders. If so, the league can better deal with that issue if it is handling negotiations.

Q: Is it possible that one temporary stadium could host two teams? And is the 27,000-seat StubHub Center in the mix?

A: Having one stadium host two NFL teams is theoretically possible but highly unlikely. In the case of the Coliseum or Rose Bowl, home to USC and UCLA, respectively, scheduling would be next to impossible and the natural-grass fields would look like the day after Woodstock.

As for using StubHub Center, the league has entertained the idea of creating an intimate, high-end game experience, so it hasn't ruled out that venue. Still, given there are more traditional options, the NFL isn't likely to stack experiment upon experiment in returning to a market that already has lost three teams.

Q: What's most likely to happen when the dust settles on this entire process?

A: Don't be surprised if there's some type of grand bargain, one that none of these three owners would be willing to accept now. That could be the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium at Hollywood Park; or the league telling the Rams the deal in St. Louis is too enticing to leave on the table, thereby paving the way for the Chargers and Raiders in Carson; or a host of other scenarios.

Even the league doesn't know how this is going to end. For now, it's less football and more crystal ball.

I feel like this would be more interesting if I was born yesterday. Because anybody who's been paying attention already knows we have no fucking clue what's going to happen.

 

[rams2050]

I feel like this would be more interesting if I was born yesterday. Because anybody who's been paying attention already knows we have no freaking clue what's going to happen.

Exactly how I feel, too.

 

[ChrisW]

I feel like this would be more interesting if I was born yesterday. Because anybody who's been paying attention already knows we have no freaking clue what's going to happen.

What you can most likely expect is:

1. If STL gets financing done by the fall, the Rams may be staying in the Lou.
2. If they don't get financing by fall, it won't look good at all.
3. Focus on financing if you want the Rams to stay in St. Louis. It's not worth worrying over anything else right now.

 

[RAGRam]

Q: What are the selling points of the competing projects?

A: There's an argument that he should stay in St. Louis if the deal there is compelling enough, but he can counter that he didn't ask that city to come up with a new stadium plan and that he already satisfied his requirements to leave.

So wait, it could be argued that Kroenke's utter unwillingness to work with the city, and the cities ability to come up with a viable stadium on it's own, without any input from the team, is a reason why Kroenke should be allowed to move?

 

[ChrisW]

So wait, it could be argued that Kroenke's utter unwillingness to work with the city, and the cities ability to come up with a viable stadium on it's own, without any input from the team, is a reason why Kroenke should be allowed to move?

Yea, I'm not so sure Farmer knows what the rules are.

On the other hand, he might be hanging his hat on "the arbitration negotiating". But, IMO, that doesn't exhaust all options.

 

[Angry Ram]

What you can most likely expect is:

1. If STL gets financing done by the fall, the Rams may be staying in the Lou.
2. If they don't get financing by fall, it won't look good at all.
3. Focus on financing if you want the Rams to stay in St. Louis. It's not worth worrying over anything else right now.

Yeah, and the sad part is if it weren't for these pesky lawsuits, financing would have been done already.

 

[snackdaddy]

What you can most likely expect is:

1. If STL gets financing done by the fall, the Rams may be staying in the Lou.
2. If they don't get financing by fall, it won't look good at all.
3. Focus on financing if you want the Rams to stay in St. Louis. It's not worth worrying over anything else right now.

Its pretty clear Kroenke wants LA. I know he hasn't said anything, but actions and body language are telling. Doesn't part of the financing require him to fork out $250 mil? If so, can he be forced to if he doesn't want to?

 

[Loyal]

So wait, it could be argued that Kroenke's utter unwillingness to work with the city, and the cities ability to come up with a viable stadium on it's own, without any input from the team, is a reason why Kroenke should be allowed to move?

From the Ram's point of view, they were willing during arbitration over Dome upgrades to follow the result of that process...Rams won, and the other side reneged on following the arbitration results...That was it, for the Rams. The current stadium proposal is too little, too late..I get this from what Demoff said recently in ownership meetings, according to anonymous sources.

 

[ChrisW]

Its pretty clear Kroenke wants LA. I know he hasn't said anything, but actions and body language are telling. Doesn't part of the financing require him to fork out $250 mil? If so, can he be forced to if he doesn't want to?

He can't be forced to pay for anything. It'll be his choice to play in the dome, or pay up his portion to play in a new stadium. It should be a no brainer for him to pay his part in the new stadium if he doesn't win the LA race.

 

[snackdaddy]

He can't be forced to pay for anything. It'll be his choice to play in the dome, or pay up his portion to play in a new stadium. It should be a no brainer for him to pay his part in the new stadium if he doesn't win the LA race.

So if he chose to stay in the dome out of spite because he got his feelings hurt, what happens with the new stadium?

 

[nighttrain]

Its pretty clear Kroenke wants LA. I know he hasn't said anything, but actions and body language are telling. Doesn't part of the financing require him to fork out $250 mil? If so, can he be forced to if he doesn't want to?

I think his own plans to build a stadium in Inglewood answer this question. This project is mostly his own money
train

 

[ChrisW]

So if he chose to stay in the dome out of spite because he got his feelings hurt, what happens with the new stadium?

Well, AFAIK, he can stay in the dome for another 10 years on a year to year lease. He then either has to renegotiate, or throw his portion of money into the Riverfront Stadium.

 

[snackdaddy]

I think his own plans to build a stadium in Inglewood answer this question. This project is mostly his own money
train

Playing devil's advocate here. So he's a multi billionaire who's used to getting what he wants. He wants LA. The new stadium plan calls for him to invest money in a project he doesn't want. How's that gonna end up?

On the flip side, the city's got this good deal where most of the financing is not paid by him. And he had an owner friendly deal with his previous stadium. No reason to think he won't get a good deal with the new one. Holding out for so long just might net him a good deal and make him some money in the process.

But he don't talk. So anything we come up with is pure speculation.