New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,838
Name
Stu
The whole top tier thing if I'm not mistaken was just a term of the lease. Which expired. Insisting on a renewal of that term for a 20 year old stadium is kind of a logical non starter anyway.
The lease was not expired. Otherwise there would be no reason to go to arbitration. It may seem that top tier status is not logical for 20 year old stadium but that is what the CVC agreed to and the arbitrators ruled in their decision. Don't sign a contract to something you can't perform on and then expect the other party to just say ok and pay millions of dollars that they weren't supposed to have to spend until the actual expiration of the lease. If you offer them these conditions along with the option to opt out, how do you complain when they exercise their option and then don't want to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars because you didn't live up to your end of the deal? I just don't follow this logic.

As for the new stadium not being top tier, why would a brand new stadium not be top tier? There's a difference between building a quality stadium and building a palatial wonderland. If he wants that, I would think we'd need to hear some figures from him. Just saying that it has to host a SB is an oversimplification, as weather, hotels, parking, city infrastructure all play a part.
Not sure and maybe it will be. If you read the arbitrator's ruling, there are some indications of what they deemed to be top tier. I think there are some pretty well known parameters. But I don't think hosting a Superbowl is one of the criteria, it just seems to be expected of new stadiums these days. I doubt that would be viewed as a deal breaker but I don't know.

I do think that the lease and how Stan's revenue stream is affected will be very big aspects. I have no idea what those details are or if they are even going to be different. I'm just putting that out there as a potential area that the two sides might also be at odds on. Again - I don't know. IT appears there's a lot I don't know. :D
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
The lease was not expired. Otherwise there would be no reason to go to arbitration. It may seem that top tier status is not logical for 20 year old stadium but that is what the CVC agreed to and the arbitrators ruled in their decision. Don't sign a contract to something you can't perform on and then expect the other party to just say ok and pay millions of dollars that they weren't supposed to have to spend until the actual expiration of the lease. If you offer them these conditions along with the option to opt out, how do you complain when they exercise their option and then don't want to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars because you didn't live up to your end of the deal? I just don't follow this logic.


Not sure and maybe it will be. If you read the arbitrator's ruling, there are some indications of what they deemed to be top tier. I think there are some pretty well known parameters. But I don't think hosting a Superbowl is one of the criteria, it just seems to be expected of new stadiums these days. I doubt that would be viewed as a deal breaker but I don't know.

I do think that the lease and how Stan's revenue stream is affected will be very big aspects. I have no idea what those details are or if they are even going to be different. I'm just putting that out there as a potential area that the two sides might also be at odds on. Again - I don't know. IT appears there's a lot I don't know. :D

Are you really sure that the lease was to go on eternally? Then why does every newspaper refer to it as expired? The Rams had the option to opt out, they did, therefore negating the old lease. From my perspective, how does Stan get to opt out of a lease but still hold the other side to the lease? As far as I know the only thing still binding the CVC is that they can't refuse the Rams on a year to year basis. But a stadium lease expiring is hardly rare, and isn't cause to move a team if your negotiations were designed to fail. At least that's how I see the process. I'm sure a fan from LA probably sees it differently.
 

RAMbler

UDFA
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
75
The NFL has had a rough year; I find it hard to believe that they would permit a shift of three teams (two to LA, a third to St. Louis), all at the same time. Seems to me more likely that Stan Kroenke - if he found a willing trade partner - would be permitted to trade the Rams for the Raiders, and move the Raiders and Chargers to LA. He might have to pay a "sweetener" to the Raiders' owners to make the deal; but then he'd probably keep the merchandise rights, etc. Seems to me I read that the Raiders - even after many years of mediocrity at best - sell the third most merchandise; Cowboys are #1, and Jerry Jones already keeps all their merchandise money.

I think the owners want teams in LA, but are afraid of at the same time "dissing" a mid-market team like St. Louis; especially when the former CEO of Anheuser-Busch is leading St. Louis's stadium effort.

I don't think there will ever be a Ram/Raider franchise trade. For one, I don't think Mark Davis would ever make the trade. He grew up bleeding Black & Silver (to bad for Oakland fans), and will hold on to his controlling shares for dear life. And I get the feeling that if Kroenke wants a different NFL franchise it would be the Broncos. If Stan got a hold of the Broncos, and stayed in Denver..., with his other franchises there..., he becomes The King of Colorado. But I've read that the owner & family don't want to let the Broncos go.
As far as the Raiders being #3 in merchandise. I can believe that pretty easily. Every city, big & small throughout the country has a 'thug' element. Yup... they just want to wear silver & black, and be known as a 'pirate' of sorts. We've all seen it. It's a gang mentality, and it's sad..., but it's real. This is why the Raiders merchandise sells so well.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Kevin Demoff @kdemoff
“@kingbrian_: No more Fan Fest? Disappointing” -We are looking to return to Friday Night Lights scrimmage concept instead of EJD scrimmage

Kevin Demoff @kdemoff
@kingbrian_ We are also looking at having FanFest onfield events & locker room tours prior to preseason game to give fans more on field time

Kevin Demoff @kdemoff
@stewartfzn @kingbrian_ Our goal is to find a way to replicate the successful parts of FanFest around a game & hold scrimmage different day
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Are you really sure that the lease was to go on eternally? Then why does every newspaper refer to it as expired? The Rams had the option to opt out, they did, therefore negating the old lease. From my perspective, how does Stan get to opt out of a lease but still hold the other side to the lease? As far as I know the only thing still binding the CVC is that they can't refuse the Rams on a year to year basis. But a stadium lease expiring is hardly rare, and isn't cause to move a team if your negotiations were designed to fail. At least that's how I see the process. I'm sure a fan from LA probably sees it differently.

I believe it expired in 2030 or something around that. The top 25 clause allowed the Rams to opt out early. I think they could have opted out even earlier, but they allowed some renovations or something, that extended it. Maybe that was something else though. Technically the lease doesn't end until 2030, but the Rams were free to opt out if it wasn't top 25. After 2030 (or whenever the date is) a new lease would need to be signed. I believe the opting out essentially let's the Rams leave penalty free, even if the CVC came out tomorrow and approved Stan's proposal. I'm not sure on that though.
 

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
I didn't say it was binding or anything, but it'd worth noting, because as far as I know they haven't said that about other markets. Its a good note if people wonder if the NFK really wants to go to LA, I'd say they do. They've needed the right person to get it done, it seems that Stan is that person.



I posted an article where the comissioner at the time said it was about avoiding a lawsuit, not the money.



I'm sure Kroenke will pay a relocation fee, as for the amount I'm not sure. 1 billion seems to high, but its not impossible. However if Kroenke spends nearly 2 billion on a stadium, and is denied a move, I would say a lawsuit is very much worth the risk. You don't spend that money and get told no. I don't think he spends a dime in St Louis unless he wants to, he can't be forced to pay.


Not sure how to break up quotes so doing this line by line ...sorry

1. At the end of the day I agree they want someone in LA...but it wasn't so important to them that that the Texans ended up coming into being...and that was all but handed to LA.

2. I saw your post...it had no link to an article so I can't read the entire thing...I doubt any commissioner would say that...it seemed more like the writers opinion or reading of the phrase you quoted on "peace". Mainly I say that because no commissioner with a brain will publicly say why it was resolved - instead they go with the ambiguous "peace" thing. They do not look weak (gave in) or buyable that way...

3. whomever moves there will pay a fee...I agree 1 billion is way to high (unless the league doesn't want THAT group there) but at one point that was the number people floated (do to it being equal to an expansion fee that the other owners would lose out on)...it is too high though and that much takes it to court.

He won't have spent a billion before he is told "no" though. They may "break ground" and a lot of plans will have been made....but that stadium will not be far along before that vote happens. As far as how much the league can push an owner...well look at MN....they lost one owner trying to get the stadium deal done up there....and came close to losing second.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
1. At the end of the day I agree they want someone in LA...but it wasn't so important to them that that the Texans ended up coming into being...and that was all but handed to LA.

They actually did award the expansion to Los Angeles, by a vote of 29-2. The problem was that LA didn't want to use tax dollars for a new stadium, and thus the deal fell through, as the expansion was contingent on getting an ownership group and stadium deal passed. Due to different groups competing to be the lead, and again the fact that LA didn't want tax dollars used, they couldn't get it done. Houston was their backup plan though, even then the NFL gave LA an extra 7ish months to come to an agreement, but neither Ed Roski, or Michael Ovitz could come to an agreement, and in fact a third party tried to get in on it as well. In the end after all the extensions, Houston owner (McNair?) offered 700M for the expansion and was awarded it. This was after LA essentially dropped the ball.

. I saw your post...it had no link to an article so I can't read the entire thing...I doubt any commissioner would say that...it seemed more like the writers opinion or reading of the phrase you quoted on "peace". Mainly I say that because no commissioner with a brain will publicly say why it was resolved - instead they go with the ambiguous "peace" thing. They do not look weak (gave in) or buyable that way...

Here is the link, the direct quote from the commissioner is:

"The decision to have peace and not to have war was a big factor

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Rams-Move-Is-OK-d-By-NFL-Georgia-Frontiere-I-3038220.php

3. whomever moves there will pay a fee...I agree 1 billion is way to high (unless the league doesn't want THAT group there) but at one point that was the number people floated (do to it being equal to an expansion fee that the other owners would lose out on)...it is too high though and that much takes it to court.

He won't have spent a billion before he is told "no" though. They may "break ground" and a lot of plans will have been made....but that stadium will not be far along before that vote happens. As far as how much the league can push an owner...well look at MN....they lost one owner trying to get the stadium deal done up there....and came close to losing second.

They can likely break ground later this year, assuming there's no hold ups, and he's already put fourth some work on surrounding areas. Therefore it'll probably be at least a few months under construction when a vote does come, unless he holds off. While he wouldn't have spent all the money by the time a vote come through, he'll have spent some, and he'll still likely argue if they were to say no. Again though, I get the feeling they wont even say no, the league definitely likes to avoid court. and Kroenke can easily take them there if he wants.
 

TSFH Fan

Epic Music Guy
Joined
Dec 5, 2014
Messages
1,475
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150220-story.html#page=1

Chargers, Raiders propose shared NFL stadium in Carson

By SAM FARMER
FEBRUARY 19, 2015, 6:30 PM
la-sp-nfl-stadium-renderings-pg-011.jpg


The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, rivals on the field, are moving forward together on a plan to build a $1.7-billion NFL stadium in Carson that they will share.

The Chargers and Raiders will continue to seek public subsidies for new stadiums in their home markets, but they are developing a detailed proposal for a privately financed Los Angeles venue in the event they can't get deals done in San Diego and Oakland by the end of this year, according to the teams.

In a statement given to The Times on Thursday, the Chargers and Raiders said: “We are pursuing this stadium option in Carson for one straightforward reason: If we cannot find a permanent solution in our home markets, we have no alternative but to preserve other options to guarantee the future economic viability of our franchises.”

The teams are working with “Carson2gether,” a group of business and labor leaders. The coalition will announce the project Friday at a news conference near the 168-acre site, a parcel at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of the 405 Freeway and Del Amo Boulevard.

They plan to immediately launch a petition drive for a ballot initiative to get voter approval to build the stadium.

This latest high-stakes move was precipitated by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, who announced in December his plan to build an 80,000-seat stadium on the land that used to be Hollywood Park.

That put pressure on the Chargers, who say 25% of their fan base is in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The Raiders, among the most financially strapped NFL teams, joined forces with the Chargers because they don't have the money build a stadium on their own.

The Jets and the Giants, who both play in East Rutherford, N.J., are the only NFL teams playing in the same stadium.

L.A., which has been without the NFL for two decades, now finds itself with three teams that could relocate here and four stadium proposals, including the Farmers Field concept downtown and developer Ed Roski's plan in the City of Industry.

Even skeptics have to concede the city has never been in a better position to have the country's No. 1 sport return, though none of the three teams has yet to commit to moving here.

Like the Rams, the Chargers and Raiders are on year-to-year leases in older stadiums. Prospects for new venues in San Diego and Oakland are bleak and, as is in L.A., there is no appetite to commit public money to build a stadium. The Carson proposal calls for the teams to be equal, as opposed to one's acting as landlord to the other.

The long-vacant Carson Marketplace site is part of an old municipal landfill and has been the subject of significant cleanup efforts in recent years. The NFL has looked into buying the site at least three times.

In the late 1990s, entertainment executive Michael Ovitz wanted to build on that site and bring in an expansion franchise. In 1999, Houston oilman Bob McNair outbid two competing L.A. groups, paying $750 million for the team that would become the Texans.

The Chargers and Raiders bought the land from Starwood Capital Group. Barry Sternlicht, its chairman, said of the project: “This is a great opportunity to return professional football to Los Angeles, and we are going to do everything we can to make it happen.”

Whereas Kroenke and his partners have expansive plans for retail space, housing and a 6,000-seat theater — along with the 80,000-seat stadium — on the 298-acre Hollywood Park site, the Carson concept calls only for a football stadium, with room for more than 18,000 parking spaces as well as tailgating.

“We're thinking about the project as a 21st century, next-generation stadium,” said architect David Manica, noting that the venue and renderings are still in the early conceptual stages. “We want it to be the ultimate outdoor event experience, which includes both sports and entertainment. And we want it to be uniquely L.A.”

The projected capacity for the stadium is about 68,000, expandable to more than 72,000.

Manica, president of Manica Architecture, was formerly at HOK Sport, where he led the design of the Texans' stadium, the renovation of the Miami Dolphins' stadium, and the seating bowl of Wembley Stadium in London.

One early concept for Carson is clear seats that reflect the color of the lights shining on them — the seats could be silver and black for Raiders games, and powder blue for Chargers games.

la-sp-nfl-stadium-renderings-pg-012.jpg


More pressing are the steps developers would need to take, including working with the coalition to support a ballot measure that would allow the venue to be built. If the clubs can gather the required signatures to place the stadium initiative on the ballot, approval can be attained either through a public election or by a vote of the Carson City Council.

Kroenke is further along in that regard, having already collected the signatures for a ballot initiative. Inglewood's mayor has said that rather than holding a public election, the council would vote on the initiative, perhaps as early as Tuesday.

The NFL long has contended that it will control the process of any return to L.A., including which team or teams will be allowed to relocate, and which stadium proposal will get the green light. How much control the league actually has is up for debate, as it does not have a strong track record of stopping teams that are determined to move. League rules stipulate that any such decision requires a three-quarters majority vote of the 32 teams.

The Chargers and Raiders said they have kept the league's new Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities, and the commissioner, fully informed about their joint effort, and that they intend to strictly adhere to the relocation procedures.

The Chargers have been seeking a stadium solution in the San Diego area for nearly 14 years, a period spanning seven mayors and nine proposals. The relationship between the club and the city has grown especially strained in recent days, as the Chargers have pushed the city to contribute to a new stadium.

The Raiders have been working on a stadium solution with Oakland and Alameda County for about six years but have not made much progress. The club, which has said that remaining in the Oakland market is a priority, has venue concepts but no taxpayer money has been committed. The Inglewood and Carson proposals do not involve any public money.

The reason the franchises would be able to privately finance a stadium in Carson, as opposed to their own cities, is that the L.A. market could better support the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of preferred seat licenses, one-time payments for the right to buy a season ticket. The teams would also get revenues from naming rights; sponsorship and advertising would be far more lucrative than in smaller markets.

It's widely speculated in NFL circles that a franchise that moves from a smaller market to L.A. could end up being worth 150% of its current value. Franchises would probably have to pay a hefty relocation fee, although the league has never specified an amount.

The three teams all previously played in L.A., with the Raiders and Rams leaving Southern California after the 1994 season, and the Chargers, then in the old American Football League, calling the Coliseum home in 1960, their inaugural season.

All signs point to the Chargers and Raiders — like the Rams — targeting the 2016 season for relocation, should those teams not get acceptable deals to remain in their current cities. The NFL has long held that L.A. is a two-team market, and it's almost inconceivable that the league would allow three teams in such close proximity.

The NFL has ruled out any teams' relocating this season, and is strongly opposed to a franchise's enduring more than one lame-duck season in a market about to be vacated. A team or teams moving to L.A. would play for at least two seasons in a temporary home — most likely the Coliseum, Rose Bowl or possibly Dodger Stadium — while a new stadium was under construction.
Twitter: @LATimesfarmer
 
Last edited:

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150220-story.html#page=1

Chargers, Raiders propose shared NFL stadium in Carson

By SAM FARMER
FEBRUARY 19, 2015, 6:30 PM
View attachment 5441

The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, rivals on the field, are moving forward together on a plan to build a $1.7-billion NFL stadium in Carson that they will share.

The Chargers and Raiders will continue to seek public subsidies for new stadiums in their home markets, but they are developing a detailed proposal for a privately financed Los Angeles venue in the event they can't get deals done in San Diego and Oakland by the end of this year, according to the teams.

In a statement given to The Times on Thursday, the Chargers and Raiders said: “We are pursuing this stadium option in Carson for one straightforward reason: If we cannot find a permanent solution in our home markets, we have no alternative but to preserve other options to guarantee the future economic viability of our franchises.”

The teams are working with “Carson2gether,” a group of business and labor leaders. The coalition will announce the project Friday at a news conference near the 168-acre site, a parcel at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of the 405 Freeway and Del Amo Boulevard.

They plan to immediately launch a petition drive for a ballot initiative to get voter approval to build the stadium.

This latest high-stakes move was precipitated by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, who announced in December his plan to build an 80,000-seat stadium on the land that used to be Hollywood Park.

That put pressure on the Chargers, who say 25% of their fan base is in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The Raiders, among the most financially strapped NFL teams, joined forces with the Chargers because they don't have the money build a stadium on their own.

The Jets and the Giants, who both play in East Rutherford, N.J., are the only NFL teams playing in the same stadium.

L.A., which has been without the NFL for two decades, now finds itself with three teams that could relocate here and four stadium proposals, including the Farmers Field concept downtown and developer Ed Roski's plan in the City of Industry.

Even skeptics have to concede the city has never been in a better position to have the country's No. 1 sport return, though none of the three teams has yet to commit to moving here.

Like the Rams, the Chargers and Raiders are on year-to-year leases in older stadiums. Prospects for new venues in San Diego and Oakland are bleak and, as is in L.A., there is no appetite to commit public money to build a stadium. The Carson proposal calls for the teams to be equal, as opposed to one's acting as landlord to the other.

The long-vacant Carson Marketplace site is part of an old municipal landfill and has been the subject of significant cleanup efforts in recent years. The NFL has looked into buying the site at least three times.

In the late 1990s, entertainment executive Michael Ovitz wanted to build on that site and bring in an expansion franchise. In 1999, Houston oilman Bob McNair outbid two competing L.A. groups, paying $750 million for the team that would become the Texans.

The Chargers and Raiders bought the land from Starwood Capital Group. Barry Sternlicht, its chairman, said of the project: “This is a great opportunity to return professional football to Los Angeles, and we are going to do everything we can to make it happen.”

Whereas Kroenke and his partners have expansive plans for retail space, housing and a 6,000-seat theater — along with the 80,000-seat stadium — on the 298-acre Hollywood Park site, the Carson concept calls only for a football stadium, with room for more than 18,000 parking spaces as well as tailgating.

“We're thinking about the project as a 21st century, next-generation stadium,” said architect David Manica, noting that the venue and renderings are still in the early conceptual stages. “We want it to be the ultimate outdoor event experience, which includes both sports and entertainment. And we want it to be uniquely L.A.”

The projected capacity for the stadium is about 68,000, expandable to more than 72,000.

Manica, president of Manica Architecture, was formerly at HOK Sport, where he led the design of the Texans' stadium, the renovation of the Miami Dolphins' stadium, and the seating bowl of Wembley Stadium in London.

One early concept for Carson is clear seats that reflect the color of the lights shining on them — the seats could be silver and black for Raiders games, and powder blue for Chargers games.

More pressing are the steps developers would need to take, including working with the coalition to support a ballot measure that would allow the venue to be built. If the clubs can gather the required signatures to place the stadium initiative on the ballot, approval can be attained either through a public election or by a vote of the Carson City Council.

Kroenke is further along in that regard, having already collected the signatures for a ballot initiative. Inglewood's mayor has said that rather than holding a public election, the council would vote on the initiative, perhaps as early as Tuesday.

The NFL long has contended that it will control the process of any return to L.A., including which team or teams will be allowed to relocate, and which stadium proposal will get the green light. How much control the league actually has is up for debate, as it does not have a strong track record of stopping teams that are determined to move. League rules stipulate that any such decision requires a three-quarters majority vote of the 32 teams.

The Chargers and Raiders said they have kept the league's new Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities, and the commissioner, fully informed about their joint effort, and that they intend to strictly adhere to the relocation procedures.

The Chargers have been seeking a stadium solution in the San Diego area for nearly 14 years, a period spanning seven mayors and nine proposals. The relationship between the club and the city has grown especially strained in recent days, as the Chargers have pushed the city to contribute to a new stadium.

The Raiders have been working on a stadium solution with Oakland and Alameda County for about six years but have not made much progress. The club, which has said that remaining in the Oakland market is a priority, has venue concepts but no taxpayer money has been committed. The Inglewood and Carson proposals do not involve any public money.

The reason the franchises would be able to privately finance a stadium in Carson, as opposed to their own cities, is that the L.A. market could better support the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of preferred seat licenses, one-time payments for the right to buy a season ticket. The teams would also get revenues from naming rights; sponsorship and advertising would be far more lucrative than in smaller markets.

It's widely speculated in NFL circles that a franchise that moves from a smaller market to L.A. could end up being worth 150% of its current value. Franchises would probably have to pay a hefty relocation fee, although the league has never specified an amount.

The three teams all previously played in L.A., with the Raiders and Rams leaving Southern California after the 1994 season, and the Chargers, then in the old American Football League, calling the Coliseum home in 1960, their inaugural season.

All signs point to the Chargers and Raiders — like the Rams — targeting the 2016 season for relocation, should those teams not get acceptable deals to remain in their current cities. The NFL has long held that L.A. is a two-team market, and it's almost inconceivable that the league would allow three teams in such close proximity.

The NFL has ruled out any teams' relocating this season, and is strongly opposed to a franchise's enduring more than one lame-duck season in a market about to be vacated. A team or teams moving to L.A. would play for at least two seasons in a temporary home — most likely the Coliseum, Rose Bowl or possibly Dodger Stadium — while a new stadium was under construction.
Twitter: @LATimesfarmer
WOAH. Wtf just happend?? Where did that come from? Freak man hurry the F up with the Inglewood stadium.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,146
Name
Wil Fay
Chargers - Raiders bombshell!!

More than just potentially keep the Rams in STL it will also move the Raiders to the NFC and probably move the Rams out of the NFC West.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Nobody wanted to come to this shit city for the last 20 years and as soon as Stan wants to come the whole world wants to come. Wtf is that man
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Now that is an interesting twist. Rivals too? Wonder how Kroenke responds, gotta think they vote to approve on Tuesday to get started if they want to keep ahead.
 

8to12

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,293
Chargers - Raiders bombshell!!

More than just potentially keep the Rams in STL it will also move the Raiders to the NFC and probably move the Rams out of the NFC West.

This is entertaining. Spanos whined that he may lose 25% of his fan base if the Rams move to LA, yet he is willing to lose a good portion of his existing 75% (San Diego) base by moving to LA.
Charger fans can't stand and will have nothing to do with the Raiders. There is a good chance many of the fans from the San Diego area will not support the Chargers on a move like this.

They say that the stadium would be privately financed but don't say by who or how other than the sale of PSL's. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? ...."see here Mr. Johnson, this is where your seats will be on our stadium model, now go ahead and write me that check of $10,000 for the right to purchase your tickets 4 years from now"....... (y)
 

Big Unit

UDFA
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
96
I just got the joint statement from the Chargers and Raiders in my email; posted at 6:55 PST, or about one hour ago. In my mind, this has been a horrible year for the NFL, from domestic violence to Adrian Peterson to Deflategate - on and on. Clearly LA is a major problem/opportunity for the League; but the Raiders and the Chargers have been long-term problems; St. Louis, not (at least in the context of Buffalo, Charlotte, Nashville, Jacksonville...etc., etc.). IF the Chargers and the Rams went to LA, the League would still have the Raider problem. It could be improved by moving the Raiders to a new stadium in St. Louis, I guess; but that would uproot 3 teams, not 2. Why? And, as the Chargers point out, some 30% of their fan base is already from LA or Orange County; if they didn't move, the new LA franchise would have to pay them major reparations. Plus, without that 30% of the fan base, the Chargers would inevitably be a damaged franchise.

It's getting interesting....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.