New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[theramsruleUK]

Same guy who nailed the foles/Bradford trade :-/

 

[RamFan503]

What food do you serve in your restaurant man?

We have a BBQ restaurant and small brewery.

 

[iced]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...hings-Stand-Following-NFL-Owners-Meeting.aspx

Rams Future: Where Things Stand Following NFL Owners Meeting

Shane Gray posted on August 13, 2015 14:07


On Monday and Tuesday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Executive Vice President Eric Grubman and the entire collection of the league's 32 owners converged upon Chicago to update and discuss the possibility of one or more teams moving to Los Angeles as early as 2016.

Specifically, NFL owners heard presentations from Rams owner Stan Kroenke and Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff on the Inglewood option and Raiders owner Mark Davis, Chargers owner Dean Spanos and former NFL executive Carmen Policy on the Carson collaboration.

In addition, relocation lead man Grubman and the owner's comprising the NFL's Committee on L.A. Opportunities -- Kansas City's Clark Hunt, Houston's Bob McNair, Carolina's Jerry Richardson, New England's Robert Kraft, Pittsburgh's Art Rooney and the New York Giants' John Mara -- listened to a stadium presentation from San Diego leaders and updated the larger ownership contingent on L.A. related topics plus the home market efforts of St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland.

With that said, the top takeaways from the aforementioned NFL Owners Meeting.

Un-Silent Stan

In St. Louis, Kroenke has been verbally silent since the press conference announcing the hire of Jeff Fisher as head coach in 2012. With all that has transpired since then, his silence has been extremely frustrating for Rams fans.

In Chicago, however, NFL Network's Ian Rapaport reported that Kroenke was "passionate and powerful" while detailing his Inglewood vision alongside Demoff.

In sharing their plan, the Rams tandem presented arguments to support their assertion that their project would be the ideal one to bring the NFL back to Los Angles. These arguments included talks of bringing such things as Pro Bowls and scouting combines to the stadium as well as various prestigious awards shows that could be housed at a separate 6,000 seat theatre on site.

In follow-up interviews, Demoff played things close to the vest and revealed very little of what transpired during the Rams presentation. He did, however, suggest that "the thing we’ve always said in this process is you have to keep your options open" in regard to the possibility of either remaining in the Gateway City or moving west to the City of Angels.

As some may remember, a trusted, well-connected source revealed last month St. Louis remains a potential voluntary long-term option for the Rams and that the organization is "cultivating their options."

Lease Allows Leaving?

As expected, part of the case the Rams made in Chicago to garner support for the Inglewood plan revolved around St. Louis choosing not to implement the $700 million dollar dome renovation that the franchise was awarded during an arbitration process that concluded in early 2013.

The Rams argue that this not only freed them from the dome to explore other options, but automatically qualified them to become de facto free agents.

Others would argue that while it gave the Rams the option to go year-to-year on lease and/or explore other options in the market, it in no way automatically qualified them to relocate to another city nor did it serve to fulfill several different NFL relocation bylaws.

The Rams, after all, are still playing under the primary conditions of that lease this season.

Ultimately, of course, it will be up to league to determine whether this argument has any impact on whether the Inglewood site is eventually approved or if the Carson location is given the go-ahead.

That said, if the Rams going year-to-year somehow helps their case, then the Chargers going year to year since 2004 or the Raiders going year to year since 2013 would seem to help them just as much if not more so.

Policy's Presentation

Following the Raiders and Chargers presentation, Carson project point man Carmen Policy -- a retired, long-time NFL executive who remains highly revered among NFL ownership -- shared plentiful details of what he, the Raiders' Davis and the Chargers' Spanos emphasized in their proposal.

Among other things, the Carson offering emphasized an ability to solve the California problem with a California solution by tackling the two worst stadium situations in the entirely of the NFL with "teams who were born and bred in California. They've always been in California. They never left California."

In solving the California conundrum via Carson, Policy suggested a mega-market would be birthed that would stretch from Mexico to Santa Barbara and be larger in population than New York City.

In addition, Policy touted the Carson plan as having better highway and freeway access, a better parking situation, a better location for football, eight plus acres available to NFL to do as they please, an option for a west coast wing of the Hall of Fame and -- very critically -- the full financial backing of investment banking giant and stadium kingpin Goldman Sachs to make the financials rock solid.

Finally, Policy asserted after their presentation that an NFL connected study shows that the Chargers and Raiders are preferred in the area over the Rams and that an approved Carson project could eventually work in conjunction with a stadium deal in St. Louis to solve the NFL's stadium puzzle.

Overall, the Carson contingent accomplished at least two key things in Chicago:

One, they alleviated any doubts from ownership as a whole that their proposal was viable and two, both the Chargers and Raiders were able to reiterate that they are all in and fully committed to building in Carson and moving to Los Angeles together.

Goodell and Grubman

AS expected, both Goodell and Grubman offered up little in the way of specific predictions in regard to how things would eventually crystallize in regard to L.A. or any of the local markets such as St. Louis.

As for St. Louis, Goodell was asked about where things stand here as well as Kroenke's silence.

"I am not going to speak for Stan (Kroenke), " Goodell said. "That is something that Stan needs to do, but what I’ve said to the Governor is we need to focus on developing a potential solution. A solution that will work for the fans of St. Louis. We recognize that we have great fans in that market and if there’s a potential solution, then we want to know it and I know the membership wants to know it and that’s just the focus we’ve kept."

Grubman's words regarding St. Louis were similar to that of all the local markets in the sense that -- regardless of how far a market has or has not come to date -- they have to cross the finish line to position themselves to reach their goals.

"With respect to St. Louis, they have made consistent progress in over quite a number of months," Grubman asserted. "They’ve described this process themselves... so I won’t go into the detail. There is a litigation threat. They are continuing to assemble the land and the financing strategies do have to be finalized. Risks remain. They’re dealing with these risks similarly to San Diego or any market that would be going through this. We ask about the risks and the mitigation strategies and we keep asking about them until they’re eliminated. I know they have a great deal of optimism. We’re asking all of the questions to give us certainty and they’re dealing with it. But, we still have some information to get and some risks to eliminate."

The Spanos Factor

The NFL will make sure Spanos is taken care of by one means or another, at least according to the highly-regarded Sam Farmer of the L.A. Times.

​

At this point, however, there are any number of permutations that could theoretically satisfy Spanos going forward.

And while there could be several options at hand that could please the Chargers owner, one wonders what would happen if nothing will deter Spanos from continuing to insist upon Carson.

If Spanos is unwilling to be contented with any solution other than a Chargers move to L.A., then it could weigh heavily on the collective mind of ownership in the event they are eventually asked to formally choose between Carson and Inglewood.

Some have suggested that the Chargers could join the Rams in Inglewood, but unless Kroenke would be willing to make Spanos an equal partner on the project rather than a tenant, that theoretic option could have exceptionally long odds of ever firming up -- assuming Kroenke would be willing to welcome a second team into his complex.

Home Market Happenings

San Diego, as mentioned above, was the only home market to present to the league's relocation committee in Chicago due to the fact that St. Louis had already presented to them previously and Oakland is still not in position to present a plan that is remotely within range of being actionable.

All that considered, none of the home markets are out of it just yet -- not even Oakland -- in regards to the hope of retaining their team. The October meetings will be crucial in determining what ultimately plays out in these three markets fighting to retain their respective franchises.

Optimizing for October

Speaking of October, the St. Louis Task Force has all eyes focused on the vital upcoming league meeting in New York. Simply put, this could be make it or break time for the Riverfront Stadium backers.

Between now and then, Task Force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz will be working to have all their ducks in a row -- financing, stadium design, land acquisition and more assurances on corporate support -- to optimally position themselves to persuade ownership and the NFL's power brokers to keep the Rams in the STL.

Process Must Play Out

As Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan suggested, the Chicago meetings equated to more of an unofficial beginning to this process than a sign of everything nearing a conclusion.

In short, there yet remains a long way to go, much to decide and various potential end games in play for all teams and cities involved. There will likely be many twists and turns and ups before all said and done and long-term resolutions are reached.

Final Thoughts

-This could get all get very intense and potentially ugly before all is said and done, as the aforementioned Farmer alluded to in his above linked-feature.

-Either L.A. proposal has the ability to bring an extraordinary stadium to L.A. and the return of pro football to the nation's No. 2 market.

-Nothing has been decided in terms of either 2016 or the Rams' long-term future in St. Louis, nor has anything yet to be determined in San Diego, Oakland or even L.A., for that matter.

-If you think things have been crazy in regard to the relocation ruckus to this point, just wait: it's about to get a whole lot crazier before this drama comes to a close.

 

[blue4]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...hings-Stand-Following-NFL-Owners-Meeting.aspx

Rams Future: Where Things Stand Following NFL Owners Meeting

Shane Gray posted on August 13, 2015 14:07


On Monday and Tuesday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Executive Vice President Eric Grubman and the entire collection of the league's 32 owners converged upon Chicago to update and discuss the possibility of one or more teams moving to Los Angeles as early as 2016.

Specifically, NFL owners heard presentations from Rams owner Stan Kroenke and Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff on the Inglewood option and Raiders owner Mark Davis, Chargers owner Dean Spanos and former NFL executive Carmen Policy on the Carson collaboration.

In addition, relocation lead man Grubman and the owner's comprising the NFL's Committee on L.A. Opportunities -- Kansas City's Clark Hunt, Houston's Bob McNair, Carolina's Jerry Richardson, New England's Robert Kraft, Pittsburgh's Art Rooney and the New York Giants' John Mara -- listened to a stadium presentation from San Diego leaders and updated the larger ownership contingent on L.A. related topics plus the home market efforts of St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland.

With that said, the top takeaways from the aforementioned NFL Owners Meeting.

Un-Silent Stan

In St. Louis, Kroenke has been verbally silent since the press conference announcing the hire of Jeff Fisher as head coach in 2012. With all that has transpired since then, his silence has been extremely frustrating for Rams fans.

In Chicago, however, NFL Network's Ian Rapaport reported that Kroenke was "passionate and powerful" while detailing his Inglewood vision alongside Demoff.

In sharing their plan, the Rams tandem presented arguments to support their assertion that their project would be the ideal one to bring the NFL back to Los Angles. These arguments included talks of bringing such things as Pro Bowls and scouting combines to the stadium as well as various prestigious awards shows that could be housed at a separate 6,000 seat theatre on site.

In follow-up interviews, Demoff played things close to the vest and revealed very little of what transpired during the Rams presentation. He did, however, suggest that "the thing we’ve always said in this process is you have to keep your options open" in regard to the possibility of either remaining in the Gateway City or moving west to the City of Angels.

As some may remember, a trusted, well-connected source revealed last month St. Louis remains a potential voluntary long-term option for the Rams and that the organization is "cultivating their options."

Lease Allows Leaving?

As expected, part of the case the Rams made in Chicago to garner support for the Inglewood plan revolved around St. Louis choosing not to implement the $700 million dollar dome renovation that the franchise was awarded during an arbitration process that concluded in early 2013.

The Rams argue that this not only freed them from the dome to explore other options, but automatically qualified them to become de facto free agents.

Others would argue that while it gave the Rams the option to go year-to-year on lease and/or explore other options in the market, it in no way automatically qualified them to relocate to another city nor did it serve to fulfill several different NFL relocation bylaws.

The Rams, after all, are still playing under the primary conditions of that lease this season.

Ultimately, of course, it will be up to league to determine whether this argument has any impact on whether the Inglewood site is eventually approved or if the Carson location is given the go-ahead.

That said, if the Rams going year-to-year somehow helps their case, then the Chargers going year to year since 2004 or the Raiders going year to year since 2013 would seem to help them just as much if not more so.

Policy's Presentation

Following the Raiders and Chargers presentation, Carson project point man Carmen Policy -- a retired, long-time NFL executive who remains highly revered among NFL ownership -- shared plentiful details of what he, the Raiders' Davis and the Chargers' Spanos emphasized in their proposal.

Among other things, the Carson offering emphasized an ability to solve the California problem with a California solution by tackling the two worst stadium situations in the entirely of the NFL with "teams who were born and bred in California. They've always been in California. They never left California."

In solving the California conundrum via Carson, Policy suggested a mega-market would be birthed that would stretch from Mexico to Santa Barbara and be larger in population than New York City.

In addition, Policy touted the Carson plan as having better highway and freeway access, a better parking situation, a better location for football, eight plus acres available to NFL to do as they please, an option for a west coast wing of the Hall of Fame and -- very critically -- the full financial backing of investment banking giant and stadium kingpin Goldman Sachs to make the financials rock solid.

Finally, Policy asserted after their presentation that an NFL connected study shows that the Chargers and Raiders are preferred in the area over the Rams and that an approved Carson project could eventually work in conjunction with a stadium deal in St. Louis to solve the NFL's stadium puzzle.

Overall, the Carson contingent accomplished at least two key things in Chicago:

One, they alleviated any doubts from ownership as a whole that their proposal was viable and two, both the Chargers and Raiders were able to reiterate that they are all in and fully committed to building in Carson and moving to Los Angeles together.

Goodell and Grubman

AS expected, both Goodell and Grubman offered up little in the way of specific predictions in regard to how things would eventually crystallize in regard to L.A. or any of the local markets such as St. Louis.

As for St. Louis, Goodell was asked about where things stand here as well as Kroenke's silence.

"I am not going to speak for Stan (Kroenke), " Goodell said. "That is something that Stan needs to do, but what I’ve said to the Governor is we need to focus on developing a potential solution. A solution that will work for the fans of St. Louis. We recognize that we have great fans in that market and if there’s a potential solution, then we want to know it and I know the membership wants to know it and that’s just the focus we’ve kept."

Grubman's words regarding St. Louis were similar to that of all the local markets in the sense that -- regardless of how far a market has or has not come to date -- they have to cross the finish line to position themselves to reach their goals.

"With respect to St. Louis, they have made consistent progress in over quite a number of months," Grubman asserted. "They’ve described this process themselves... so I won’t go into the detail. There is a litigation threat. They are continuing to assemble the land and the financing strategies do have to be finalized. Risks remain. They’re dealing with these risks similarly to San Diego or any market that would be going through this. We ask about the risks and the mitigation strategies and we keep asking about them until they’re eliminated. I know they have a great deal of optimism. We’re asking all of the questions to give us certainty and they’re dealing with it. But, we still have some information to get and some risks to eliminate."

The Spanos Factor

The NFL will make sure Spanos is taken care of by one means or another, at least according to the highly-regarded Sam Farmer of the L.A. Times.

​

At this point, however, there are any number of permutations that could theoretically satisfy Spanos going forward.

And while there could be several options at hand that could please the Chargers owner, one wonders what would happen if nothing will deter Spanos from continuing to insist upon Carson.

If Spanos is unwilling to be contented with any solution other than a Chargers move to L.A., then it could weigh heavily on the collective mind of ownership in the event they are eventually asked to formally choose between Carson and Inglewood.

Some have suggested that the Chargers could join the Rams in Inglewood, but unless Kroenke would be willing to make Spanos an equal partner on the project rather than a tenant, that theoretic option could have exceptionally long odds of ever firming up -- assuming Kroenke would be willing to welcome a second team into his complex.

Home Market Happenings

San Diego, as mentioned above, was the only home market to present to the league's relocation committee in Chicago due to the fact that St. Louis had already presented to them previously and Oakland is still not in position to present a plan that is remotely within range of being actionable.

All that considered, none of the home markets are out of it just yet -- not even Oakland -- in regards to the hope of retaining their team. The October meetings will be crucial in determining what ultimately plays out in these three markets fighting to retain their respective franchises.

Optimizing for October

Speaking of October, the St. Louis Task Force has all eyes focused on the vital upcoming league meeting in New York. Simply put, this could be make it or break time for the Riverfront Stadium backers.

Between now and then, Task Force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz will be working to have all their ducks in a row -- financing, stadium design, land acquisition and more assurances on corporate support -- to optimally position themselves to persuade ownership and the NFL's power brokers to keep the Rams in the STL.

Process Must Play Out

As Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan suggested, the Chicago meetings equated to more of an unofficial beginning to this process than a sign of everything nearing a conclusion.

In short, there yet remains a long way to go, much to decide and various potential end games in play for all teams and cities involved. There will likely be many twists and turns and ups before all said and done and long-term resolutions are reached.

Final Thoughts

-This could get all get very intense and potentially ugly before all is said and done, as the aforementioned Farmer alluded to in his above linked-feature.

-Either L.A. proposal has the ability to bring an extraordinary stadium to L.A. and the return of pro football to the nation's No. 2 market.

-Nothing has been decided in terms of either 2016 or the Rams' long-term future in St. Louis, nor has anything yet to be determined in San Diego, Oakland or even L.A., for that matter.

-If you think things have been crazy in regard to the relocation ruckus to this point, just wait: it's about to get a whole lot crazier before this drama comes to a close.

I've wondered for awhile now why some seem to forget about Spanos, or assume the NFL doesn't view him favorably. He's played ball (or at least the league's version of playing ball) for a long long time. I know fans don't see him playing ball, I'm talking about from the league's perspective

I think all things being equal, meaning everyone has their financing in order, there are three things that will play heavily.

1. I do think they care about solving LA with California teams. It's the only way they don't lose markets.

2. Spanos's length of time trying for a new stadium. Again, from the league's perspective.

3. The overall conditions at the SD and Oakland stadiums. Technically, for all the top tier talk, the ED remains a perfectly fine place to play.

These are the things I think will matter if every horse is still in the race at the stretch.
I think the rest of the arguments about corporate support, ticket sales, etc will only be seen if a justification is needed. Meaning, that's what they'll bullshit the losing markets with.

As for which horses are still running, that's where Stan has the advantage.

 

[RamzFanz]

So, at this point with the presentation, it's now clear that Kronke has LA as his option A. Once he actually discussed the Rams and the situation in STL, it's out in the open.

I still doubt he will get approval unless another NFL team steps in and agrees to partially fund the new stadium, but we'll see.

 

[The Ripper]

I've wondered for awhile now why some seem to forget about Spanos, or assume the NFL doesn't view him favorably. He's played ball (or at least the league's version of playing ball) for a long long time. I know fans don't see him playing ball, I'm talking about from the league's perspective

I think all things being equal, meaning everyone has their financing in order, there are three things that will play heavily.

1. I do think they care about solving LA with California teams. It's the only way they don't lose markets.

2. Spanos's length of time trying for a new stadium. Again, from the league's perspective.

3. The overall conditions at the SD and Oakland stadiums. Technically, for all the top tier talk, the ED remains a perfectly fine place to play.

These are the things I think will matter if every horse is still in the race at the stretch.
I think the rest of the arguments about corporate support, ticket sales, etc will only be seen if a justification is needed. Meaning, that's what they'll bullcrap the losing markets with.

As for which horses are still running, that's where Stan has the advantage.

The league perspective for the Chargers is 11 years and St Louis for 10. Those both correlate to the leases. The Chargers lease was changed in 2004 and gave them the right to relocate on January 1, 2008 if a stadium wasn't built.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Same guy who nailed the foles/Bradford trade :-/

I have no idea who he is still, but if he knew the Foles Bradford trade... Still, I'm not sure the owners are even convinced still. I have heard that with Kraft being upset with the league, Jerry he stepped in as the most influential owner, and we all know how he leans. Its going to be a very interesting few months.

 

[blue4]

The league perspective for the Chargers is 11 years and St Louis for 10. Those both correlate to the leases. The Chargers lease was changed in 2004 and gave them the right to relocate on January 1, 2008 if a stadium wasn't built.

I don't think the league sees it that way at all.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I've wondered for awhile now why some seem to forget about Spanos, or assume the NFL doesn't view him favorably. He's played ball (or at least the league's version of playing ball) for a long long time. I know fans don't see him playing ball, I'm talking about from the league's perspective

I think all things being equal, meaning everyone has their financing in order, there are three things that will play heavily.

1. I do think they care about solving LA with California teams. It's the only way they don't lose markets.

2. Spanos's length of time trying for a new stadium. Again, from the league's perspective.

3. The overall conditions at the SD and Oakland stadiums. Technically, for all the top tier talk, the ED remains a perfectly fine place to play.

These are the things I think will matter if every horse is still in the race at the stretch.
I think the rest of the arguments about corporate support, ticket sales, etc will only be seen if a justification is needed. Meaning, that's what they'll bullcrap the losing markets with.

As for which horses are still running, that's where Stan has the advantage.

I don't think it's that they don't view Spanos favorabley, I think it's more that he doesn't have the type of money that Kroenke has. Sure Goldman Sachs is going to help fund the stadium, but it takes a lot more than that to make a market work. You're going to stick two cash poor teams into the second largest market and hope it works? That's a big risk. They can do it, but its a risk.

In terms of point 1, they lose markets regardless, moving to LA loses the San Diego market. I know Carson and the Chargers all pretend like their fans will stick with them, but the NFL likely knows better. Some may stay, most won't. Its bad enough they're moving to a rival city, but they're doing it by jumping in bed with their biggest rival as a team? Talk about adding insult to injury.

Point 2, The NFL has said things are essentially equal between everyone. If they believe that or not is a different story.

Point 3, agreed, but the NFL likes new stadiums that'll bring them lots of attention.

 

[ChrisW]

So, at this point with the presentation, it's now clear that Kronke has LA as his option A. Once he actually discussed the Rams and the situation in STL, it's out in the open.

I still doubt he will get approval unless another NFL team steps in and agrees to partially fund the new stadium, but we'll see.

One thing I never thought of in the voting process is Davis pressuring Mcnair and Jones with a move to San Antonio if Carson doesn't work out. We all know that Jones is the greediest of the greedy, and won't take kindly to people moving into the state of Texas. Until then though, Jones is still Stan's biggest supporter.


If only Al Davis was still alive, that man would sue and sue until he got what he wanted from this situation.

 

[blue4]

I have no idea who he is still, but if he knew the Foles Bradford trade... Still, I'm not sure the owners are even convinced still. I have heard that with Kraft being upset with the league, Jerry he stepped in as the most influential owner, and we all know how he leans. Its going to be a very interesting few months.

I've never seen a single report that considers Jerry Jones as having the most influence. And Kraft hasn't exactly been anti St Louis. Neither has any of the other owners, so why would Kerry's word win the day?

 

[iced]

http://www.ibtimes.com/nfl-los-ange...ate-city-balks-public-funding-stadium-2051141

NFL Los Angeles Team: Oakland Raiders Could Relocate As City Balks At Public Funding For Stadium
By Thomas Barrabi @TBarrabi t.barrabi@ibtimes.com on August 13 2015 9:20 AM EDT

The National Football League’s bid to return to Los Angeles has turned into an all-out blitz, and officials in Oakland, California, are feeling the pressure. As the Raiders, San Diego Chargers and St. Louis Rams jockey for the right to relocate to the City of Angels, an NFL executive’s dire appraisal Tuesday made it clear Oakland is in real danger of losing its pro football team.

Unlike city officials in San Diego and St. Louis, NFL executive vice president Eric Grubman said Oakland hasn't come close to what the league considers a “viable” proposal for a publicly funded stadium. Raiders owner Mark Davis has vowed to pursue a popular privately funded stadium project in Carson, California, if Oakland officials fail to cough up $400 million in public funding toward a new stadium. NFL franchises have used the specter of relocation to extract taxpayer money for years, but Grubman’s comments at the owners’ meeting in Chicago suggest the threat is closer than ever to becoming a reality.

“It probably has a little more teeth than usual, and it’s clear that Oakland is the one without a deal on the table,” said Victor Matheson, a sports economist and professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. “Whether the deals in St. Louis and San Diego are rich enough to keep those teams at home rather than moving to LA, that’s still to be determined, but Oakland is the only one of the three potential moving teams that hasn’t countered with a serious offer of public funds to stay at home.”

The NFL’s 32 owners gathered in Illinois this week to hear updates on a potential Los Angeles relocation, as well as formal pitches for proposed stadium projects in the area. St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, known as a man of few words, delivered a charismatic proposal for a $1.86 billion, 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood, California. Separately, Chargers and Raiders executives presented their plan for a $1.7 billion two-team stadium in Carson. Both presentations were reportedly well received by both NFL owners and league executives, including Commissioner Roger Goodell.

While Goodell is unwilling to place a timeline on the NFL’s possible return to Los Angeles, league executives have already discussed bedrock issues, including a franchise relocation fee, refundable seat deposits and the use of temporary facilities to house a team until their new stadium is complete. And the NFL will consider moving up the window in which teams can apply for relocation, which currently runs from Jan. 1 to Feb. 15.

Earlier this week, the owners met with officials from the city of San Diego, who updated the league on the latest developments in their bid to build a new stadium for the Chargers in their current market. The city and county of St. Louis teamed with Missouri state officials to present their plan for a publicly funded riverfront stadium in May. Both cities have made “progress” in their efforts to keep their franchises, Grubman said.

The same cannot be said of Oakland, whose discussions with the Raiders and the league office have not progressed to actual negotiations for a new stadium. The two sides are so far apart that Oakland city officials weren’t invited to the owners’ meeting in Chicago, and they are unlikely to be invited to the NFL’s next Los Angeles meeting in October, the Los Angeles Times reported.

“The Oakland Raiders have great fans in Oakland city and the county of Oakland and a lot broader territory, but the facts on the ground are that there’s been no viable proposal that’s been made to the Raiders. … There is no proposal for the Raiders to consider,” Grubman said.

Davis, the Raiders owner, has said publicly that his preference is for the franchise to remain in Oakland. At the same time, franchise officials no longer want the Raiders to play in the Oakland Coliseum, and they have expressed skepticism about the city of Oakland’s ability to present a solution. “I don’t know. I don’t know,” Davis said Tuesday when asked if the Raiders would stay in Oakland, according to USA Today.

The city of Oakland’s unwillingness to contribute hundreds of millions in public money is the chief roadblock. Mayor Libby Schaaf wants the Raiders to stay in Oakland, but she vowed last May not to use taxpayer money to build a new stadium, the Los Angeles Times reported. The city is still paying off debt related to the Oakland Coliseum, and studies have shown publicly funded stadiums rarely provide a discernible economic benefit to their local communities. “We don’t have $400 million lying around,” Schaaf said at the time.

In a bid to find middle ground, Schaaf tapped Assistant City Administrator Claudia Cappio to serve as point person for ongoing discussions with team and league officials. The city also tasked Floyd Kephart and New City Development LLC, his real estate firm, with putting together plans for a revitalized “Coliseum City” residential and commercial complex, with a new Raiders stadium as its centerpiece.

City officials were ridiculed last June when Kephart’s confidential plan to finance a new Raiders stadium without public funding leaked to the public. Critics decried the plan -- which called on Raiders’ ownership to sell a 20 percent stake in the franchise to help pay for the stadium -- as a nonstarter. Marc Ganis, a noted stadium finance expert, told the Bay Area News Group that the plan was “the worst stadium proposal I’ve seen.”

For months, Oakland’s detractors have pointed to the document as proof of the city’s unwillingness to present a viable plan. But Kephart says it was a response to the city’s request for a plan that would not use public money, and that it was never considered a practical solution.

“We have never believed that a proposal without public money would fly,” Kephart told International Business Times. “We’ve given the city a detailed recommendation of a proposal that I hope they will submit, at least to open negotiations and to show the NFL that they’re moving forward. Because, truthfully, they are moving forward.”

Oakland’s bid to keep the Raiders may have made progress behind the scenes, but the city’s “discussions” with the franchise haven’t evolved into full-fledged negotiations. Cappio told the San Francisco Business Times that she expected to unveil a proposal by September.

“We are continuing our discussions with the Raiders,” Cappio said in a statement to IBTimes. “On July 29th, I met with officials from the NFL and the Raiders, and representatives from Alameda County, which is co-owner of the land and the existing sports facilities. Since that time, the City of Oakland has been gathering the additional information and analysis that was requested by the team and the NFL. This is part of our ongoing effort to keep the Raiders in Oakland. ”

One aspect of the Carson stadium proposal works in Oakland’s favor. The Chargers and Raiders’ plan calls for joint pursuit of construction and the resulting costs, so a withdrawal by either franchise would cause the deal to fall apart. San Diego city officials have promised public money toward a new stadium if the Chargers agree to stay put.

But the NFL’s threats to relocate will only become more urgent -- and more genuine -- in the days ahead.

“I do think that time frame is running out,” Kephart said. “I just don’t think this can extend past the October NFL meeting.”

 

[bluecoconuts]

I've never seen a single report that considers Jerry Jones as having the most influence. And Kraft hasn't exactly been anti St Louis. Neither has any of the other owners, so why would Kerry's word win the day?

I'll dig up the article, it suggests that Kraft and Goodell's falling out over deflategate has opened things up for Jerry.

Jerry is already influential though.

 

[The Ripper]

One thing I never thought of in the voting process is Davis pressuring Mcnair and Jones with a move to San Antonio if Carson doesn't work out. We all know that Jones is the greediest of the greedy, and won't take kindly to people moving into the state of Texas. Until then though, Jones is still Stan's biggest supporter.


If only Al Davis was still alive, that man would sue and sue until he got what he wanted from this situation.

The Texans have no support out of the Houston area so it would have no impact on McNair.

 

[The Ripper]

The league perspective for the Chargers is 11 years and St Louis for 10. Those both correlate to the leases. The Chargers lease was changed in 2004 and gave them the right to relocate on January 1, 2008 if a stadium wasn't built.

I don't think the league sees it that way at all.

That's the time frame that Goodell and Grubman used last week.

 

[LetsGoRams]

What are your guys' thoughts on Demoff attending this and being part of the presentation? I don't know why it bothers me, but it does. I always kind of thought of him as being on 'our' side... meaning the STL Rams fans... but obviously he's part of the Rams executive committee and going to do what Stan wants him to do. I've just been at several functions where he was talking about stadium plans and what kind (dome / open air) and where (city / county) - and now it seems like that wasn't even part of the plan at all. I think Kevin's a good guy and is put in a bad situation because Stan won't talk. Just bothers me and I don't know why.

 

[MrMotes]

I've wondered for awhile now why some seem to forget about Spanos, or assume the NFL doesn't view him favorably. He's played ball (or at least the league's version of playing ball) for a long long time. I know fans don't see him playing ball, I'm talking about from the league's perspective

The fact that he's gone so rogue lately, or at least appeared to, and has in a lot of ways really embarrassed the NFL with his (through his surrogates) open hostility towards the city of SD really makes me think it's a bluff.

Or maybe he's just nuts?

 

[blue4]

I don't think it's that they don't view Spanos favorabley, I think it's more that he doesn't have the type of money that Kroenke has. Sure Goldman Sachs is going to help fund the stadium, but it takes a lot more than that to make a market work. You're going to stick two cash poor teams into the second largest market and hope it works? That's a big risk. They can do it, but its a risk.

In terms of point 1, they lose markets regardless, moving to LA loses the San Diego market. I know Carson and the Chargers all pretend like their fans will stick with them, but the NFL likely knows better. Some may stay, most won't. Its bad enough they're moving to a rival city, but they're doing it by jumping in bed with their biggest rival as a team? Talk about adding insult to injury.

Point 2, The NFL has said things are essentially equal between everyone. If they believe that or not is a different story.

Point 3, agreed, but the NFL likes new stadiums that'll bring them lots of attention.

I think they view Spanos more favorably. After all he didn't cause this mess. I don't think it'll be a risk at all for Carson to win out. There's really little way you can lose money in the NFL.

We still disagree on how much the Chargers will lose if they move. I don't think traffic jams will be taken into account. I don't think the NFL "knows better" at all. I think they'll look at actual distance moved and conclude that it'll be far more traumatic for the St Louis market's team to move halfway across the country vs SD's moving around 200 miles. We won't ever agree on that.

 

[ChrisW]

The fact that he's gone so rogue lately, or at least appeared to, and has in a lot of ways really embarrassed the NFL with his (through his surrogates) open hostility towards the city of SD really makes me think it's a bluff.

Or maybe he's just nuts?

Or he's doing what's necessary to protect 1/5 of his season ticket sales.

 

[blue4]

What are your guys' thoughts on Demoff attending this and being part of the presentation? I don't know why it bothers me, but it does. I always kind of thought of him as being on 'our' side... meaning the STL Rams fans... but obviously he's part of the Rams executive committee and going to do what Stan wants him to do. I've just been at several functions where he was talking about stadium plans and what kind (dome / open air) and where (city / county) - and now it seems like that wasn't even part of the plan at all. I think Kevin's a good guy and is put in a bad situation because Stan won't talk. Just bothers me and I don't know why.

I think he's a good actor and a good employee of Stan.