"St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Making that money!
Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

"St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:50 am

NFL approves the St. Louis Rams' move to Los Angeles. San Diego Chargers given option to join them.

So going to be called "the St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:52 am

whatta think of this "MOVE ??

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:00 am

"So the Rams get Inglewood.
The Chargers have a 1 year option to work with Rams to allow them to stay in the stadium.
LA Coliseum will probably host them until the $1.6B stadium is built.

Craziest rumor is San Antonio being in the running for the Raiders??"


smoaky.com

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:48 pm


1946-Cleveland.
1979-Los Angeles.
1980-Anaheim.
1995-St. Louis.

I know that LALA land has been vacant by the NFL for more than 20 years,sooooooooooo whatta think of this "MOVE" ? 8-} ?

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:05 am

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/6-q ... ar-BBoavVa


6 questions remaining on NFL relocation to L.A.
by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports.

HOUSTON—"The San Diego Chargers are stuck in a tough spot all over again.
In a span of just 12 hours Tuesday, the NFL franchise went from being bullish about its prospects in Southern California to downright uncertain.

So what happened, and now what? After NFL team owners approved the relocation of the St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles, here’s a look at some of the fallout:

What next for the Chargers?
They return to San Diego with similar choices as before:
► They could pursue an uncertain path to a new stadium in San Diego, where they’d face a ballot measure at risk of failing.
► Or they can pursue a certain one-year option to join the Rams at their lucrative new stadium palace in Inglewood, near the L.A. airport.

Joining the Rams in Inglewood has its drawbacks. The Chargers might seem like a supporting actor to Rams' starring role and might not have as much control or revenue-sharing in the project as they’d like with Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

But even if a stadium vote in San Diego succeeds and the Chargers stay, the franchise faces another prospect it doesn’t want – the Rams and possibly the Oakland Raiders partying it up in La-La Land two hours up the road. For the past 21 years, the Chargers have been the only NFL team in Southern California, playing in a stadium that opened in 1967.


What will the Chargers decide?
A person close to the team told USA TODAY Sports Tuesday night the Chargers expect to reach a deal with the Rams fairly soon. The person requested anonymity because they had not been authorized to speak publicly.

The team has until March 23 to decide if it wants to play the 2016 season in the Los Angeles area, according to the league. Tickets need to be sold and schedules need to made, among other things. If the Chargers move, the team also would want to be in on the project as early as possible to exert maximum influence and reap maximum benefit.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said he expects Chargers chairman Dean Spanos to “make a relatively quick decision knowing that he’s got to make some decisions coming up for the 2016 season.”

Spanos was pointedly non-committal Tuesday night about his plans.


Why should Kroenke give the Chargers a good deal in Inglewood?
To help his Inglewood project gain owner support, he needed to be open to working with a second team.

The NFL is helping negotiate fair terms for a second team in the stadium, which is part of part of a larger development including entertainment and retail space covering nearly 300 acres.

The league’s final resolution on relocation Tuesday also has stipulations about this.

The Inglewood stadium is “to be constructed on a basis that permits two NFL teams to operate on an equal basis with respect to scheduling, access to facilities, and agreed-upon and approved financial terms generally consistent with the options presented to the member clubs on January 12,” the resolution states.

It also says the Rams will not engage in the sale of personal seat licenses, premium seats, luxury suites or naming rights before Feb. 15, 2017, unless an agreement has been reached with a second team. In other words: Kroenke should want to attract a second team soon, or miss valuable sales time.


What will the Raiders do?
They’ll go back to Oakland and keep shopping around for a new stadium, whether that’s in San Antonio or elsewhere. The team has been playing in Oakland on year-to-year leases. To relocate, it would need the same approval from NFL owners. If the Chargers don’t take up the Inglewood option within a year, the Raiders will have that option instead.

The Raiders and Chargers both lost out when their joint stadium project in the L.A. suburb of Carson was rejected Tuesday by league owners in favor in Inglewood.

“We’ll be working really hard to find us a home and that’s what we’re looking forward to,” Raiders owner Mark Davis said Tuesday. “For our fans, don’t feel bad. We’ll get it right.”


What happened to the Chargers’ and Raiders’ plan in Carson?
It blew up on the first ballot here at the NFL owners meeting. Initially, the $1.7 billion Carson project was recommended by the league’s committee on Los Angeles opportunities. But then the league went with a secret vote on the first ballot, allowing team owners who previously might have assured the Chargers of their support to switch positions in anonymity.

That first ballot was 20-12 in favor of the Rams’ $2 billion stadium project in Inglewood, nearly a complete reversal of what the Carson stadium proponents had expected going into the meeting. To relocate, a team needs approval from 24 of 32 owners, leaving the Inglewood project just short of approval but with enough momentum to carry the day eventually. The final vote was 30-2 for Inglewood and the Rams, with the Chargers having a one-year option to join them.

“When we had our first vote, we did not have the necessary number of votes to approve the proposal, so it was a matter of trying to determine what our owners wanted and what kind of compromise we could come up with that would satisfy enough of them,” Houston Texans owner Bob McNair said. “We did, and it was a very cooperative spirit on the part of everyone, and I think that we came up with a very good solution.”


Where will the Chargers play this year if they elect to move to L.A.?
The Inglewood stadium won’t be ready until 2019, so any relocating teams will need a temporary home for three seasons starting this year. The league indicated it could arrange terms for two teams to play at the L.A. Coliseum temporarily."

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:27 am

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rip--st--l ... 23251.html


RIP, St. Louis Rams: A tough lesson in the business of pro sports.
By Dan Wetzel..Yahoo Sports.

If, as Calvin Coolidge long ago declared, the business of America is business, then there are few businesses more American than the National Football League.

And as with any American business, it can be cold and cruel.

Tuesday was a day for the business of business, the league's 32 owners, a collection of the nation's wealthiest and most powerful entities, approved the plan of Stan Kroenke to move his St. Louis Rams to a palatial stadium he will build on an old horse track in Inglewood, Calif.

It sends the Rams back to Los Angeles, the city they ditched 21 years ago on another day that was bitter or sweet depending on your zip code.

The NFL also gave the San Diego Chargers a year to work out a deal to join the Rams, get a new stadium built back home or go to Plan C, whatever that might entail. If the Chargers don't move to L.A., then the Oakland Raiders will have a shot. The NFL will give each franchise $100 million if they choose to build a stadium in their current towns. The Chargers/Raiders proposed stadium in Carson, Calif., is dead.

Time will tell for those franchises and those communities and those fans bases. For Chargers fans, this tense nightmare continues, a desperation chance to keep the team, yet with the depressing reality that they are working with an owner, Dean Spanos, who would've left them dead and buried if he hadn't lost a knife fight of high-stakes politics.

Spanos can join the Rams in Inglewood, but he'll forfeit the NFL's $100 million pledge and pay out a $550 million relocation fee. Besides, the building is being built by Kroenke, and with each day that goes by the Rams will strengthen their position as the area's top team by wrapping up the best sponsors and partners and most devoted fans. That cements the reality that they'll be the NFL version of the favored Lakers and the Chargers/Raiders will be the second-class Clippers.

Tuesday really was a victory out of Kroenke's wildest dreams.


Meanwhile, it's over for the folks in St. Louis, who are left feeling the worst loss imaginable for a sports fan: abandonment and betrayal, a realization they are just powerless pawns, if even that much.

There is no tomorrow, no next game, no next season when the moving vans come. There is just anger and pointed fingers and shaken fists and faded sweatshirts they feel like fools for wearing in the first place.

Kroenke had the right to make the move. Don't get confused on that. The business of business has been good for this country.

And for two decades Los Angeles sat available for anyone to make the NFL happen. A collection of business titans and powerful politicians tried and failed. With multi-billions of dollars behind him and experience as both a real estate developer and a global sports owner, Kroenke cracked the code.

He acquired nearly 300 acres near LAX, has the money to put $1.86 billion – at least – into a stadium, retail and housing development that will be help transform the area. The centerpiece will be a glass-roofed stadium that can seat capacities of 100,000, capable of hosting not just two NFL tenants, but Final Fours, mega concerts, political conventions, Super Bowls, Olympics, World Cups and everything else.

As a businessman, Kroenke makes things happen. The new place will likely usurp Jerry Jones' AT&T Stadium as the nation's premiere stadium-sized venue. It's long overdue for Southern California. From the broad view, it all makes sense. It all seems smart.

This does nothing for those left behind in Missouri, the ones who loudly and loyally supported the Rams, who embraced the franchise, who made it part of their lives and now are told no one cares. The ones who didn't do anything other than what the team asked them to do back in the 1990s – prove that St. Louis was a viable NFL market.


Kroenke grew up in tiny Mora, Mo., attended the University of Missouri and, along with wife, Ann Walton, Kroenke raised their children in Columbia despite outrageous fortune. He was, ironically, brought into the deal as a local minority owner to the L.A.-based Georgia Frontiere, who inherited the team from the fifth of her six husbands.

Frontiere died in 2008. Kroenke took full ownership, and now it's the local guy who is sending them back to L.A., just one more kick in the shins for the fans who understandably feel betrayed by everyone from Kroenke to local politicians, to the system, to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

The argument that a multibillionaire has the right to take what felt like a community institution, even if it never really was, so he can make even more money goes only so far when you're explaining to your kid why it's done and gone.

The Rams will play the next three seasons at the L.A. Coliseum as their stadium is built. Within moments of the vote, NFL.com changed the team name to Los Angeles Rams.

That's how pro sports work, and that's what fans should remember the next time they are marketed to as being part of a "[insert team name] Nation," or told they are the greatest in the world. Everything is negotiable. Loyalty has a price. If an owner can make an extra buck somewhere else, there isn't much anyone can do to stop it.

In 1995, St. Louis spent $280 million in public money on a new stadium, guaranteed $20 million in profits for season tickets and held a raucous downtown rally where thousands chanted "Georgia! Georgia!"

Only Tuesday they could only call into talk radio and rant.

Of all the relocation candidates, St. Louis did the most to keep its team, pledging $400 million in public funds and clearing all sorts of hurdles for a new dome stadium. It didn't matter. Oakland did the least – essentially nothing – yet the Raiders are likely staying put … at least for now.

None of it is "fair." None of it ever was supposed to be, though.

The NFL has detailed and arcane bylaws and processes and committees and so forth. Those are mostly worthless. A panel of owners who analyzed dueling stadium bids voted 5-1 in favor the Chargers/Raiders plan in Carson, Calif. That was ignored.

There is no rhyme to it, no flow, no process to follow. Spanos felt confident he had the necessary nine franchises to block the Rams' plan, only enough of them bailed during a secret ballot. In the end, Kroenke had the most money and the most know-how and all along it was fairly easy to predict that the rest of the league wasn't going to turn its back on that.

Money talks. The Rams walk.

"St. Louis is just out of luck?" Giants co-owner Steve Tisch was asked by reporters after the vote.

"Apparently," Tisch said.

Where once Missourians cheered for the Californian who brought the Rams to them, now Californians will cheer the Missourian who brought them back.

St. Louis will be left trying to lure the Raiders, or maybe even the Chargers, or who knows who is next. The hunted will be back to being the hunter.

Round and round it goes, too many cities desperate for a team, too many fans willing to beg, and the NFL barons cheerily playing musical chairs to sweeten pots.

The regular guy doesn't matter, and never has. It's a bad, brutal day, but no one who matters cares.

This is business, and this is America."

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:26 am

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2016/01/r ... eeting.php



The Rams and Chargers Put Out a Super Weird Joint Statement.
by Adrian Glick Kudler.

"Last week, the NFL voted to send the St. Louis Rams back to Los Angeles to play in a brand new stadium complex in Inglewood that will be the biggest in the league when it opens in 2019. (Ticket presales for the Los Angeles Rams' 2016 season, which will probably be played at the LA Memorial Coliseum, began yesterday.) The NFL also gave the San Diego Chargers one year to decide if they want to move in with the Rams in Inglewood.


At last week's team owner meeting, Rams owner/stadium developer Stan Kroenke said the Chargers have the choice of "either a partnership in the stadium as an owner, or we've offered the lease arrangement." Chargers owner Dean Spanos hasn't seemed enthusiastic about sharing the Inglewood stadium in the past, but offered up this illuminating peak into his mind: "I'm going to look at all our options … I'm going to take a little bit of time here. We do have some options. It's very difficult to say right now, 'I'm going to do this' or 'I'm going to do that.'"

Like that's not juicy enough, last evening the Rams and Chargers released a joint statement saying absolutely nothing at all.

Screen-shot-2016-01-19-at-9.13.12-AM.jpg
Screen-shot-2016-01-19-at-9.13.34-AM.jpg

Was this the "first meeting" about sharing the Inglewood stadium? Maybe! Was it the "first meeting" about a surprise party they're planning for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's birthday? Could be!"

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:29 am

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2016/01/n ... s_rams.php

Take a Good Look Around Los Angeles's Future NFL Stadium.
by Adrian Glick Kudler.

"With the votes of 30 very rich people, the Rams have been given permission to return to Los Angeles after two decades, along with the monopolistic, abuser-shielding concussion-lovers at the NFL. Yay. And it's much more than a few dozen players and a handful of Super Bowls they're bringing with them: Rams owner Stan Kroenke, known for his ruthlessness, has already broken ground on a huge stadium complex on the former site of the Hollywood Park racetrack, adjacent to an enormous mixed-use development that will include housing, office space, retail, a hotel, and a lake (altogether it covers about 300 acres), which Kroenke is co-developing with Stockbridge Capital Group. Work has already begun on the project, the stadium site is a dirt pit, and in December the LA Times reported that "If developers get the green light from the league, they say, stadium construction can begin within a couple of weeks." This will be the building football fans across the US think of when they think of Los Angeles, so let's take a tour, shall we?



The stadium project was completely approved only about a month after Kroenke announced it. Normally in California, large development projects have to go through a lengthy environmental review process, but clever Kroenke came up with a workaround: he got it on the ballot in Inglewood, funding a signature campaign to put the matter to a vote, which didn't even have to take place—the ballot qualification alone opened the door for the city council to give a simple approval without all those pesky environmental docs or voters getting in the way.

The stadium that Inglewood approved was designed by HKS and will be the NFL's biggest, at nearly three million square feet. It features "a sail-shaped roof that's twice as big as the stadium and shelters the football field, an adjacent 6,000-seat performing arts venue and the 'Champions Plaza' in between," according to the LAT. That cover—which will be open on the sides—will be transparent, but also programmable as "the world's biggest billboard," and it sits right under LAX's flight path, so that's a new dystopian touch to the landscape.

Inside, the stadium can equally accommodate two teams, so if the Chargers decide to take the NFL up on its offer to move in with the Rams, neither owner will have to suffer with a smaller suite than the other. The seating area will hold 70,240 seats, plus room for 30,000 more in standing-room only conditions, plus 274 suites and 16,300 premium suites—that means tons and tons of money for the teams and the NFL.

Fine, but what about the parking?? While the stadium will be within about a mile of a future Crenshaw Line rail stop, it also sits on "the most parking-rich location in the Los Angeles basin," according to the development manager for the Hollywood Park Land Co. That means 9,000 on-site parking spaces, including 1,000 reserved underneath the stadium for VIPs, plus 3,000 spaces at the neighboring Forum, and, supposedly, 41,000 more parking spaces within a mile and a half. The developers think they'll need about 21,000 spaces for their largest events, which could include Super Bowls, conventions, and even Final Fours.

Meanwhile, wrangling is still going on with the FAA over the height and shininess of the stadium, since it sits so close to LAX. Still, according to the Rams relocation application, the stadium should be ready in 2019.
'

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:35 am

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/19/los- ... ip-meeting

The Six Hours That Will Shape the NFL’s Second Century.
The owners’ decision to approve the Rams’ move to Los Angeles changed the current course of NFL history.
Here’s the inside story of how and why the vote swung in favor of Stan Kroenke.

"It’s been a week since the NFL’s biggest postseason upset happened inside a Houston hotel: NFL owners voted to approve the move of the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles immediately, while giving the Chargers a one-year option to join the Rams or get a stadium deal done in San Diego.

But the strangest aspect of that vote is still being debated in some league circles: Six hours after an influential league committee handling the Los Angeles negotiations voted 5-1 to recommend to ownership that the league allow the Chargers and Raiders to move to a site in suburban Carson, the owners rebuked their own committee and voted 30-2 to let the Rams and owner Stan Kroenke to move to Inglewood, scuttling the Carson site forever and ruining the hopes of two teams looking to Carson for long-term franchise salvation.

Those are the six hours that changed the current course of NFL history. What happened, exactly? How did so many owners who professed their love for San Diego chairman Dean Spanos turn on him—and the committee of heretofore trusted veteran owners—in the matter of one Texas afternoon?

Three answers:
1. A secret ballot, so owners who favored the Inglewood project could turn their backs on Spanos without him being sure who they were.
2. Kroenke’s jillions.
3. History repeating itself, with a rebuke of a powerful owner conjuring memories of another powerful owner slapped down a quarter-century ago by a new guard with different ideals.

This is not quite a tale fit for the Coen Brothers and the big screen, but if you like stories detailing the reasons why rich people make the decisions they make, it’s a fun ride. * * *

At 1:30 p.m. on Jan. 12, in the Azalea Ballroom at the Westin Houston-Memorial City, the 32 owners (or owners’ proxies) returned from lunch to hear from the six-man Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities. One of the key members, Carolina owner Jerry Richardson, had already come out strong for Spanos and the Carson project, so it was no real surprise when the full body heard the results: five votes for the Chargers and Raiders to move to Carson, one vote for the Rams, and the Rams only, to move to Inglewood, closer to downtown L.A.

There were murmurs in the room, but the committee vote shocked no one. Art Rooney II of the Steelers gave his reasons for the majority—solving the Charger/Raider stadium problems, fixing the California stadium conundrum, helping two tradition-rich California franchises—and Kansas City’s Clark Hunt spoke for the minority. He was the minority.

“I dissented,” Hunt told The MMQB, “because I felt the NFL would be best served by having less realignment. Moving one team would be less disruptive to our fan base. And, also, having just one team in Los Angeles would give the league the best chance to be successful.”

“Clark was artful,” said one person who was in the room. “But it was clear what he wanted and what he thought was best.”

Right. Hunt wanted just one team in Los Angeles. And that seems most logical. Though it’s become fashionable to say two teams is the best idea and will eventually both build strong fan bases, the NFL would be asking two teams to become instantly loved in a region that hasn’t had pro football for 21 years. It might happen. But it’s no lock. Hunt realized that. Privately, several owners applauded his bold stance, because they felt Richardson was trying to ramrod the Carson project through.

One point to make before moving on: During the morning meeting, when the final details of both projects were laid on the table for the owners, two owners not known for their loquacious leadership stood up to give ideas. Seattle’s Paul Allen, an E.F. Hutton type who rarely attends such meetings and more rarely speaks at them, said the owners needed to consider the project—that is, the proposal for the stadium and its additional amenities and opportunities—more than anything else. And Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie spoke stridently for Kroenke. Those two men influenced the room, and quite possibly portended what was to happen in the afternoon.

“Carson never had the ‘wow’ factor,” one top club official said. “The Rams’ project did. Sentiment for that project became a tsunami.”

Once the membership heard the 5-1 vote, the next step was voting on the project, with a three-quarters majority (24 votes) being required for one side to win. Commissioner Roger Goodell, who proponents of both projects told The MMQB played each proposal down the middle, nonetheless was about to do something that he knew could tangibly affect the outcome. He’d been asked by “six to eight” owners, a source said, over the previous month about the feasibility of this vote being by secret ballot. “Roger knew we had a serious split in the membership,” the source said. “He knew neither side had the votes to win. But he also felt owners needed to vote their consciences, so proposing the secret ballot was something he felt he had to propose, and it was a no-brainer after several owners asked him to do it.”

Goodell proposed the secret ballot, and asked for a show of hands on the idea. A majority would rule. Asked how many favored a secret ballot, more than 17 raised their hands. (The Los Angeles Times reported the vote was 19-13.)

Why was the secret ballot so significant? The Chargers/Raiders faction felt it had between 18 and 20 votes solid entering the meeting—something the Kroenke side believed was fiction. But there was something about the Rams/Inglewood project that, while inconvenient for those who wanted the Chargers and Raiders stadium issues fixed in one fell swoop, many owners knew was better for the NFL long-term: Instantly, the 298-acre Inglewood site would be the best NFL property in the league … with $2.7 billion worth of buildings and development, including a 70,240-seat stadium with translucent cover that would join the regular Super Bowl rotation; a campus for a so-called “NFL West,” including a new building for NFL Network and new home for NFL Media; and a 6,000-seat theater that one day one owner said “we hope will host the Oscars.” Carson was a nice project, but it couldn’t compete with all those bells and whistles.

Ballots were printed and distributed to the 32 owners/proxies in the room. A vote was taken. It has been widely reported that the first vote was 20-12 in favor of the Kroenke/Inglewood project, then 21-11 on the next one. But one source in the room said the vote was actually 21-11 the first time, then 20-12 the second time—inexplicably. Whatever the vote was, one owner said Dean Spanos “was utterly shocked—white as a sheet” at the first vote. And he realized that it would be nearly impossible to overturn the will of the silent but overwhelming majority.
Chargers owner Dean Spanos was ‘shocked’ when the vote swung away from the Carson project.

In talking to three owners in the wake of the vote, it became apparent that they were convinced Kroenke’s project, the most ambitious stadium/development concept in American sports history (likely to end up costing more than $3 billion by the time it’s fully operational in 2019), was the best thing for the NFL’s second century. (The league’s 100th anniversary is in 2020.) To succeed in Los Angeles requires what one league source said was an “L.A. Live on steroids,” referring to the Staples Center complex where the Lakers and Kings play. In other words, NFL-big. Kroenke, with his fortune in the billions (net worth $7.4 billion, according to Forbes), had agreed to put $1 billion into the project—money the Chargers and Raiders owners just didn’t have.

But the vote wasn’t at 24, and there was some discussion about a potential compromise. Owners could vote for Carson. Owners could vote for Inglewood. Or owners could vote for Inglewood plus one other team, as Dallas owner Jerry Jones had suggested. Now Baltimore owner Steve Bisciotti said why not just combine B and C, Inglewood and the extra team. And because it was obvious the ownership felt Spanos and the Chargers deserved first shot, why not make “B” the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood? Bisciotti’s idea was embraced by the league.

So Goodell, trying to form a proposal that could get 24 votes, adjourned with the six-man L.A. committee. They were gone about an hour. During that meeting, each of the three owners looking to move rotated through to be apprised of the compromises the leagues and committee were considering. They threw around several ideas and settled on this one: Because it was clear that San Diego was the franchise favored over Oakland for relocation, the committee would propose giving the Chargers a one-year option to join the Rams in the Inglewood project; construction would start immediately regardless of whether a second team joined. Then, if the Chargers didn’t exercise their option to join within one year, the option would belong to the Raiders. In addition, the league would throw in $100 million if the Chargers or Raiders reached agreement in their existing markets to build a new stadium.

Goodell and the committee returned to the room and explained the compromise. The membership knew Inglewood was going to pass muster; it was just a matter of time. And this proposal—which would potentially motivate the politicos in San Diego to take another shot at a stadium, with $100 million more from the league as a spur—seemed the fairest to both Spanos and the Rams. The Rams were willing to take a partner in Inglewood, but Kroenke would prefer to go it alone. But if it meant the league would give the project its blessing, it was a deal Kroenke was fine with.

The previous Friday, in New York, Kroenke had agreed to a revenue split if it turned out he eventually would take on a partner. All along, Spanos did not want to be Kroenke’s tenant—or anyone’s tenant, for that matter. But if Kroenke did a deal to take all the risk for potential cost overruns and other financial liability, and motivated a second team with a profitable stick-and-carrot, might that tempt the Chargers? In the end, on Friday, Kroenke agreed to let a second team keep all game-day revenue in and around the stadium on days it played. And he told the league he would agree to a formula that gave the second team 18.75 percent of other lucrative deals associated with the new stadium—such as signage and stadium naming rights. When the deal was relayed to owners on Tuesday, one owner exclaimed, “Sign me up! We’ll be the Los Angeles Wolverines!” (Writer's note: The team name is changed, because the owner told the story with the agreement that he not be identified.)

The vote was anticlimactic: 30-2. There was light applause. No owner wanted to show up Spanos. They were clapping, one said, for Kroenke, and for this long ordeal being over.
Kroenke rose. “Thank you for your trust,” he said. “I won’t disappoint you.” * * *

The Rams have a 49-year head start on recruiting NFL fans in Los Angeles.

A few things to know:
• St. Louis is the jilted party here, obviously, losing its team. But the lease signed by St. Louis officials to get the Rams to come in 1995 was such a team-favored arrangement that the only way it wasn’t going to end ugly for St. Louis was if the Rams’ owner—Georgia Frontiere first, then Kroenke after she died in 2008—agreed to rewrite the terms of the lease. Kroenke wouldn’t do that. Those terms said the locals had to keep the Edward Jones Dome a top-tier stadium, which in NFL parlance is taken to mean “top quartile,” or top eight. That would have meant St. Louis would have had to inject $700 million into the Edward Jones Dome by 2015 to keep up with the Joneses (Jerry, and other owners) throughout the league. St. Louis was never going to do that, and pledged about a quarter of that amount. Kroenke said no. Now, you can nail Kroenke for disingenuous negotiating, for never stridently pleading his case publicly and disappearing and never engaging with the fans or politicians to try to get a deal done. All fair criticisms. Nail him too for being a local guy who never seemed earnestly interested in the Rams staying in St. Louis. But to Kroenke, a deal’s a deal. He wasn’t going to let the locals break a binding lease.

Regarding the unexpected swing in votes, one longtime team and league official said, “I sense a shift in the geological plate of the NFL.”

• Jones, according to one top club official who got a call from him urging this team to vote for the Rams’ project, was a major salesman for Kroenke. “Jerry thought Jerry Richardson went overboard trying to push Carson,” the official said. In the end, Jones spent hours lobbying for Kroenke’s deal, and as another club official said, it had nothing to do with the relationship between Jones and Kroenke. They’re not particularly close. Jones just felt this deal had to be about the owner who had the deepest pockets and the most invested in making Los Angeles work.

• Said one top club official I trust: “Carson never had the ‘wow’ factor. The Rams’ project did. Sentiment for that project became a tsunami.”

• Maybe it won’t matter in the end, but I get no great sentiment favoring the Chargers to move to Los Angeles. If they win, that’ll change. But the Rams were in Los Angeles and Anaheim for 49 years, so there’s a natural sentiment to be loyal to them when they return. Spanos is likely loathe to remain in San Diego because of years failing to make a deal there, and it makes sense to move to a place that is going to take away every financial woe. But San Diego is such a loyal and vibrant market, and it’s the only place in southern California that loves the Chargers. Could the $100 million spur by the league be the impetus to get a deal done with the city on a new stadium? So many in the league hope so.


• Now for the allegory 25 years in the making …
Once upon a time in the NFL, the establishment told the new kids what was best for everyone, and the kids rebelled. This was in the early ’90s, when the league, in the midst of a multibillion-dollar network TV deal (four years, $3.6 billion), proposed to rebate its TV partners because they were taking a financial bath. Some new-guard owners, including Jerry Jones, nixed it. The new guard worked to get nine votes so they could block the give-back. And they found nine owners, and there was no give-back. Old-guard leader Art Modell, the Browns owner, chairman of the Broadcast Committee and the biggest advocate of relief for the networks, subsequently resigned his prestigious TV post.

In 2016, Richardson pushed hard for Carson, and thought he had a majority of owners supporting the Chargers/Raiders project. But when the secret ballot came, it was clear the majority was for the project, not for Spanos. “Classic case of Jerry [Richardson] misreading the field, of overplaying his hand,” one owner said. Richardson, essentially, became the Modell of 2016. He’s still a well-respected owner, but he’s not the power broker some thought when the Los Angeles process started.

A few days after the Rams got their deal, one longtime team and league official mulled the meaning of what just happened. He said: “I sense a shift in the geological plate of the NFL.” A few people were reaching for that conclusion in the wake of a Richie Rich owner getting his way, and the new breed celebrating the shiny new football palace set to open in America’s second-largest city in 2019.

I get it, but I’m not so sure. A shift toward the new breed is exactly what people said in the early ’90s, when the owners pushed out Modell and ushered in the new TV model (in favor of FOX using the NFL to build a prime-time network, which has worked).

The NFL isn’t changing so much. It already has changed."

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:28 am

Ranking The NFL's 11 Worst Owners.
By: Ryan Phillips.|

"As the NFL season winds down it is time to reexamine the health of the league and its teams. That means it’s also time to take a look at the league’s moribund franchises and list the worst owners to get their grubby hands on teams.

This list combines every aspect of being an owner, it is not just about results on the field. Treatment of the fanbase has a big impact, as does the general embarrassment an owner might cause for his franchise and city.

We tried to go with 10. We couldn’t justify leaving any of the owners listed below off, though. How lovable are this group of owners? Mike Brown, the notoriously cheap Bengals owner who was the face of horrible ownership for two decades, doesn’t even crack this list anymore.

4. Dean Spanos, San Diego Chargers
In case you’re new to the game, I’m not exactly a big fan of Dean Spanos. He’s a lying, manipulative billionaire who wants a cash-strapped city to fully fund a new stadium for a franchise he has mismanaged to a depressing degree.

Aside from completely abandoning a fanbase that supported his team for 55 years, Spanos is the same guy who has been behind the firing of Marty Schottenheimer following a 14-2 season, the hiring of one of the worst head coaches in NFL history in Norv Turner, and continuing to pay the incompetent head coach/general manager combo of Mike McCoy and Tom Telesco.

Spanos and the Chargers have wasted Philip Rivers’ brilliant career by surrounding him with subpar coaches and a complete lack of talent on offense. The offensive line has been nothing more than a punchline for several seasons and Spanos continues to employ people who refuse to fix it.

When you consider that he wants to move the Chargers to Los Angeles – where absolutely no one wants them – it’s truly a wonder Spanos hasn’t blown all of his money on beachfront property in Nevada. I’m amazed the guy can tie even his shoes in the morning.



3. Stan Kroenke, St. Louis Los Angeles Rams
Stan Kroenke was born in Missouri, has three degrees from the University of Missouri and loved the state so much that he helped former owner Georgia Frontiere move a football team to St. Louis from Los Angeles. Oh, and he just moved that same football franchise out of Missouri without so much as a head-nod to the people of his home state. That’s cold, man.

Kroenke made his fortune the old-fashioned way: he married into it. His wife is Ann Walton Kroenke, the daughter of Walmart co-founder James “Bud” Walton. So Kroenke is sitting on an enormous pile of cash but is moving the Rams to Los Angeles because he wants even more. While Angelenos are thrilled to have the NFL back in town, they shouldn’t be so psyched to have him as the new owner in town. Why? Because he’s awful.

Since Kroenke took over as the owner of the Rams in 2010, the team has gone 36-59 and been hamstrung by poor coaching and mismanagement. The guy just isn’t a good owner and now he has punched St. Louis in the face and walked away.

When you combine his recent actions with that horrendous mustache/toupée combo he’s got going on, he races up this list. Kroenke is just the kind of guy to be so out of touch that he probably doesn’t realize we all know he’s wearing a rug. That just makes him even worse.

Oh, and he might have a serious bladder issue."



http://thebiglead.com/2016/01/20/worst- ... an-kroenke

Bearcat77
Posts: 2515
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:55 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Bearcat77 » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:44 am

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... er=ya5nbcs

San Diego joins San Antonio as NFL leverage against Oakland.
Posted by Mike Florio.

"As the Chargers negotiate an arrangement that would move the franchise to Kroenkeworld (even though it possibly makes sense to stay put), the NFL has a problem. With both spots in L.A. taken, the league has no leverage to squeeze public money or other favorable terms out of Oakland in connection with the construction of a stadium for the Raiders there.

Immediately after the Rams received the first golden ticket to Los Angeles, San Antonio re-emerged as a potential destination for the Raiders. And now that the Chargers may be clearing out of San Diego, someone is floating the notion that the Raiders could fill the vacancy south of L.A.

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports, citing an unnamed source, that a San Diego backfill by the Raiders becomes “very viable” if the Chargers leave.

While it’s not the first time the idea has emerged (PFT spitballed the possibility more than a month ago), the stakes are raised now that the Raiders definitely won’t be moving to L.A. With Oakland already doing nothing of real consequence to assist with the construction of a new stadium for the team, Oakland needs a shot across the bow.

The prospect of a San Antonio is met with a shrug, especially since anyone who understands anything about the league realizes that the Cowboys and Texans would never stand for that. But San Diego could scare Oakland; a departure of the Chargers could make the powers-that-be in San Diego more determined than ever to build a stadium, and the possibility of luring Oakland’s arch rivals to town introduces a revenge mindset that could help sway voters, if a stadium initiative ever heads to the ballot box.

Look for the Raiders to keep treading water (hopefully not from overflowed toilets in a dilapidated stadium) in Oakland until the Chargers decide what to do. If they join the Rams in L.A., look for the Raiders and the league to rattle the cage as hard as possible about a departure from Oakland until Oakland does something to help pay for a new stadium there."

User avatar
Windthorstfan
Moderator
Posts: 11986
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:25 pm
Location:
Status: Offline

Re: "St. Louis Rams of Los Angeles" and "the San Diego Chargers of Los Angeles?"

Postby Windthorstfan » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:55 pm

And thus why I am not a fan of professional sports - SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!


Return to “Pro Football”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron