PDA

View Full Version : Football Sources: Rams and Chargers relocation agreement could be reached Tuesday


Pages : [1] 2

Eleazar
01-11-2016, 07:00 PM
NFL consensus builds for a Rams-Chargers stadium project in Inglewood



On the brink of a vote that could return the NFL to Los Angeles, a consensus is building within the league for the St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers to share a stadium in Inglewood.

Multiple league officials and owners not involved with the Inglewood project, or the competing proposal in Carson, say there is momentum to pair the two franchises in what one owner describes as a "transformational" project backed by the Rams.

The Chargers and Oakland Raiders want to build a stadium in Carson, and to this point, Chargers owner Dean Spanos has stood by his partnership with Raiders owner Mark Davis.

The league insiders, who spoke on the condition they not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, say Spanos doesn't want to be seen as turning his back on a partner. This makes the path to what is emerging as the preferred pairing more difficult. But the insiders believe the matter can be resolved during the special meeting that starts Tuesday in Houston, where owners hope to find an answer to the two-decade L.A. vacancy.

One influential owner whose preference has not been apparent in public or private, touted Inglewood over Carson, saying "the deals aren't even close."

In the past week, there has been a flurry of behind-the-scenes activity among owners and NFL staff in an attempt to clear the way for a decision to be made at these meetings.

It is extremely rare for the NFL to devote a full day to a single topic, much less two days in the middle of the playoffs. It underscores how determined the NFL owners and Commissioner Roger Goodell are to reach an accord that would bring professional football back to the country's second-largest market.

It is widely thought that the L.A decision will help define the legacy of Goodell, and shape the financial future for a league that generates $10 billion in annual revenue.

All three teams want to relocate to L.A. for the 2016 season, meaning time is of the essence to move their franchises and begin selling tickets.

Although the general meetings start Tuesday, the Los Angeles committee is convening Monday.

There's a sense that most owners want the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood, but aren't sure of the best way to make it happen. The idea of the Raiders returning to L.A. is not popular among many owners.

One owner said that the NFL has to realize that "we just can't solve all three stadium problems in one fell swoop."

It would mean striking a bargain that keeps the Raiders out of L.A. but doesn't leave them empty handed. Such a maneuver could mean that the Raiders return to Oakland in the short term, but can explore relocating to other cities, among them San Diego, St. Louis or joining the San Francisco 49ers in their new stadium in Santa Clara.

There is some sentiment among owners that the L.A. matter should be determined by secret ballot to avoid the awkwardness of league partners voting against partners. A secret vote -- now used only for the selection of a commissioner or awarding a Super Bowl to a city -- would need the approval of 17 of the league's 32 owners, a simple majority.

The idea of putting the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood has been floated for months and was formally proposed last week by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones in a one-page letter to Goodell.

There's a belief among some owners and league executives that Spanos would be willing to make a deal with Rams owner Stan Kroenke to share Inglewood if it were a 50-50 partnership that wouldn't put the Chargers at an economic disadvantage.

When news of Jones' letter became public late Saturday, Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' point man on stadium issues, reached out to The Times and asked that a December letter Spanos sent the L.A. committee be referenced. The two-paragraph letter rejected Kroenke's offer to partner with a second team in his planned Inglewood stadium.

"Nothing in Stan's letter gives me any reason to reconsider my partnership with Mark Davis and our chosen stadium site," Spanos wrote.

The one thing everyone can agree upon is that this is a very fluid process and plans can shift very quickly.

Three-quarters of owners must approve any franchise relocation. It's believed both projects have the nine votes to block the other, although that could be shifting in favor of the Rams after last week's meetings of the finance, stadium and L.A. committees at league headquarters in New York.

It's unclear if the six-owner L.A. committee will recommend a stadium plan or whether such an endorsement would be unanimous. Two members of that committee, Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson and Houston Texans owner Bob McNair, have made it clear in public that they favor the Carson plan.

Though the cost of the Inglewood stadium proposed by Kroenke has been publicly estimated at $1.86 billion, the league insiders say the cost likely would significantly exceed $2 billion. That would make it the most expensive venue in U.S. sports history. At 3 million square feet -- including identical locker rooms, office space and owner's suites for two teams -- it would also be the NFL's largest stadium.

The project would be the centerpiece of a 298-acre entertainment, retail and housing development, something one owner called an "NFL Disney World."

According to the relocation application the Rams submitted to the league last week, the stadium would be ready for the 2019 season.

Disney Chairman and CEO Robert Iger, who would oversee the Carson proposal if it is approved and have the opportunity for a minority ownership stake in the Chargers or Raiders, is expected to make a presentation to owners in Houston.

On Saturday, Goodell sent a 48-page report to all franchises saying that the three home markets -- Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis -- failed to produce viable stadium plans.

In the report, which did not make any recommendations, Goodell said market research supports the conclusion that L.A. is capable of being a two-team market.

Though the L.A. Memorial Coliseum has expressed a willingness to temporarily host one NFL team starting next season, it's unclear where a second team would play. USC's lease to operate the Coliseum would need to be amended to allow two NFL teams.

Last summer, the Rose Bowl Bowl Operating Co. declined to respond to the NFL's request for a proposal to temporarily host a team.

League officials, who have also looked at Angel Stadium, Dodger Stadium and the 27,000-seat StubHub Center, say they aren't concerned about finding temporary homes for two L.A. teams.

Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts Jr. reiterated his city's support for the privately-financed stadium Monday.

"As we have believed all along, the Inglewood project is the best option for the NFL, from an economic and geographic perspective," Butts wrote in an email. "The companion development will make the stadium viable for year round uses. The HKS designed project will be the largest, most beautiful stadium in the world. We are hopeful that the NFL owners will agree."

Carson Mayor Albert Robles didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html

SAUTO
01-11-2016, 07:05 PM
And people actually thought the rams were going to get left out ROFL

Buzz
01-11-2016, 07:07 PM
How many teams does LA need? Share the stadium? Dumb...

TEX
01-11-2016, 07:33 PM
How many teams does LA need? Share the stadium? Dumb...

Exactly. When they have proven that every time they have a team (or two), they choose not to support it (them). :shrug:

ping2000
01-11-2016, 07:43 PM
Raiders in St. Louis? Fits in with Ferguson. Holy shit.

Direckshun
01-11-2016, 07:43 PM
So the AFC West will remain in tact.

BigMeatballDave
01-11-2016, 07:44 PM
How many teams does LA need? Share the stadium? Dumb...
The Jets and Giants do, and have for decades.


I guess the Raiders are stuck in their septic tank.(literally) :)

eDave
01-11-2016, 07:45 PM
Exactly. When they have proven that every time they have a team (or two), they choose not to support it (them). :shrug:

Guys on PTI justified it saying the NFL is entertainment. LA is the entertainment capital of the world. Not sure they believed what they were saying.

ChiefsCountry
01-11-2016, 07:45 PM
Feel sorry for St. Louis and the state of Missouri. It's nice having lots of pro teams around.

Deberg_1990
01-11-2016, 07:47 PM
I guess the Raiders are stuck in their septic tank.(literally) :)

I still think the most likely scenario is the Chargers and Rams moving to Los Angeles, with one of the most golden of parachutes being set up for the Raiders to return to Oakland with the makings of a sweet stadium deal for them in the East Bay. “Whoever is not going to Los Angeles,” said one official familiar with the league’s thinking, “will be generously taken care of. The league will create a safety net for that team.”


http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/10/blair-walsh-minnesota-vikings-nfl-playoffs-wild-card

Deberg_1990
01-11-2016, 07:49 PM
Feel sorry for St. Louis and the state of Missouri. It's nice having lots of pro teams around.

Yea, agreed. what a punch in the gut for football fans there.

Kronke is a piece of shit

OnTheWarpath15
01-11-2016, 07:49 PM
Feel sorry for St. Louis and the state of Missouri. It's nice having lots of pro teams around.

I live here and I say good fucking riddance.

Shitty fucking organization in a shitty fucking building that wants to spend my tax dollars without a vote to build a new stadium to be shitty in.

Fuck that. More corporate and individual support for the Cards and Blues.

Rams have always been in 3rd place, even when they were winning.

InChiefsHeaven
01-11-2016, 07:50 PM
It would mean striking a bargain that keeps the Raiders out of L.A. but doesn't leave them empty handed. Such a maneuver could mean that the Raiders return to Oakland in the short term, but can explore relocating to other cities, among them San Diego, St. Louis or joining the San Francisco 49ers in their new stadium in Santa Clara.

San Diego Raiders? ST. LOUIS Raiders?? That just sounds like shit...

HonestChieffan
01-11-2016, 07:50 PM
Feel sorry for St. Louis and the state of Missouri. It's nice having lots of pro teams around.

Never feel sorry for St Louis. Gutter of 'merica. And home of the eat shit cards.

KChiefs1
01-11-2016, 07:51 PM
Raiders get left out & they have the shittiest stadium.

KChiefs1
01-11-2016, 07:52 PM
San Diego Raiders? ST. LOUIS Raiders?? That just sounds like shit...


Doesn't the Raider name stay with Oakland?

ChiefsCountry
01-11-2016, 07:52 PM
Never feel sorry for St Louis. Gutter of 'merica. And home of the eat shit cards.

30% of my business comes from St. Louis. A strong St. Louis is very good for me.

HonestChieffan
01-11-2016, 08:01 PM
30% of my business comes from St. Louis. A strong St. Louis is very good for me.

Focus on the 70%

Eleazar
01-11-2016, 08:04 PM
Plenty of room on the Chiefs bandwagon, Lambs fans

InChiefsHeaven
01-11-2016, 08:07 PM
Doesn't the Raider name stay with Oakland?

Don't see why. Cardinals moved from St. Louis, kept their name. Rams moved TO St. Louis, kept their name. I'd imagine the Raiders would keep the team name.

I don't know what determines that though. you had the Browns become the Ravens, the Oilers became the Titans...so I don't know...

ping2000
01-11-2016, 08:47 PM
Doesn't the Raider name stay with Oakland?
If they move to St. Louis, they become the Hands Up Don't Shoots.

suzzer99
01-11-2016, 08:50 PM
I live about 11 miles from the new stadium. I guess I'll try to become a tepid Rams fan as my second team. Will be a blast to go see KC every year. I used to do the drive to SD. But that drive back isn't much fun.

RedandGold
01-11-2016, 09:17 PM
Doesn't the Raider name stay with Oakland?

It didn't stay when they moved to LA, so I don't know why it would stay now.

notorious
01-11-2016, 09:21 PM
I can't imagine the rivalry if the Raiders move to St. Louis.


Epic would be an understatement.

ChiefsCountry
01-11-2016, 09:22 PM
I can't imagine the rivalry if the Raiders move to St. Louis.


Epic would be an understatement.

Entire state of Missouri would hate the Donks as well.

Eleazar
01-11-2016, 09:38 PM
The Raiders are going to continue to languish in Oakland as they always have.

The idea of the Raiders moving to Santa Clara and having to squat in another stadium would be especially funny though.

scho63
01-11-2016, 10:07 PM
Raiders get left out & they have the shittiest stadium.

My best guess is that the NFL will do something for Oakland like help get them a new stadium in Oakland.

ChiefsCountry
01-11-2016, 10:12 PM
My best guess is that the NFL will do something for Oakland like help get them a new stadium in Oakland.

The one city that didn't have a viable stadium plan gets the new stadium.

GloucesterChief
01-11-2016, 10:16 PM
The one city that didn't have a viable stadium plan gets the new stadium.

I think it will be San Diego. San Diego wants to build a new stadium it was the Spanos family that balked. Oakland does not want to build a new stadium.

DaneMcCloud
01-11-2016, 10:16 PM
My best guess is that the NFL will do something for Oakland like help get them a new stadium in Oakland.

The city of Oakland is a disaster.

California voters won't support a tax payer funded solution.

wazu
01-11-2016, 10:18 PM
I really hate seeing the Chargers leave San Diego. Makes no sense. They actually have a solid fan base and market. Been there 57 years! A shame.

DaneMcCloud
01-11-2016, 10:20 PM
I really hate seeing the Chargers leave San Diego. Makes no sense. They actually have a solid fan base and market. Been there 57 years! A shame.

The blame lies with the Spanos morons, not the city.

wazu
01-11-2016, 10:22 PM
The blame lies with the Spanos morons, not the city.

Oh, I agree completely. Of the three fan bases getting screwed by this, the one I by far sympathize with the most is San Diego. The Chargers have a good thing going in San Diego, but they are somehow continually too stupid to see it.

big nasty kcnut
01-11-2016, 10:23 PM
Well my friend Andrea became a chiefs fan because the rams are leaving!

GloucesterChief
01-11-2016, 10:25 PM
San Diego getting new stadium makes the most sense as it gives the NFL another SoCal location to host Super Bowls in. Oakland tends to be a little more chilly in Feb.

Pasta Little Brioni
01-11-2016, 10:27 PM
I live here and I say good fucking riddance.

Shitty fucking organization in a shitty fucking building that wants to spend my tax dollars without a vote to build a new stadium to be shitty in.

Fuck that. More corporate and individual support for the Cards and Blues.

Rams have always been in 3rd place, even when they were winning.

This.

Toby Waller
01-11-2016, 10:44 PM
The Rams as matter of fact are a historically successful organization. Thus just currently the longest dry spell ad far as over all winning is concerned

Skyy God
01-11-2016, 11:17 PM
The Rams as matter of fact are a historically successful organization. Thus just currently the longest dry spell ad far as over all winning is concerned

The Rams in St. Louis have been shitty for 15 out of 20 years.

Toby Waller
01-11-2016, 11:19 PM
The Rams in St. Louis have been shitty for 15 out of 20 years.

Yes,in the great scheme of things,time,football history for that team,it's a drop in the bucket

Mr. Flopnuts
01-11-2016, 11:25 PM
I live here and I say good fucking riddance.

Shitty fucking organization in a shitty fucking building that wants to spend my tax dollars without a vote to build a new stadium to be shitty in.

Fuck that. More corporate and individual support for the Cards and Blues.

Rams have always been in 3rd place, even when they were winning.

As a Missourian, yet an outsider, I say, THIS! Go back to where you are truly wanted...

Hoover
01-11-2016, 11:32 PM
LA with two teams? Fine. And if Spanos wants to be one of them thats fine, but it should be the LA Rams and LA Raiders, the Chargers name should stay in SD. Buy Mark Davis out, let him own a minority share of the LA Raiders.

KChiefs1
01-11-2016, 11:35 PM
Anyone have an aerial shot of the Inglewood stadium proposal vs the Carson proposal?

KChiefs1
01-11-2016, 11:36 PM
LA with two teams? Fine. And if Spanos wants to be one of them thats fine, but it should be the LA Rams and LA Raiders, the Chargers name should stay in SD. Buy Mark Davis out, let him own a minority share of the LA Raiders.


I believe there was a rule instituted after the Browns left Cleveland that the name stayed with the city.

Might be wrong though.

GloucesterChief
01-11-2016, 11:46 PM
I believe there was a rule instituted after the Browns left Cleveland that the name stayed with the city.

Might be wrong though.

Not a rule but the NFL said it for Cleveland due to the fact that if they didn't the Browns fans would probably burn down the Hall of Fame.

suzzer99
01-12-2016, 12:10 AM
LA nor the NFL wants the Raiders back. Too much criminal thuggery when the Raiders were in LA, normal fans were scared to go to the games.

DenverChief
01-12-2016, 12:15 AM
The only place the raiders are going is San Antonio LMAO

BlackHelicopters
01-12-2016, 07:04 AM
No1curr

Deberg_1990
01-12-2016, 07:09 AM
The only place the raiders are going is San Antonio LMAO

Apparently, Davis has bought some land between Austin and Sam Antonio in case Oakland falls thru.



In an online video, Bleacher Report staffer Jason Cole said three sources have told him that Davis has bought a parcel of land between San Antonio and Austin where he can build a stadium if the Raiders don't move to LA or if Oakland doesn't give him what he wants, which is a new stadium.

http://m.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archives/2016/01/11/heres-the-latest-on-whether-the-oakland-raiders-will-move-to-san-antonio

TEX
01-12-2016, 07:42 AM
LA with two teams? Fine. And if Spanos wants to be one of them thats fine, but it should be the LA Rams and LA Raiders, the Chargers name should stay in SD. Buy Mark Davis out, let him own a minority share of the LA Raiders.

Well the Chargers were originally from LA. The name "Chargers" went with them when they moved to San Diego. So not really with the crowd advocating for San Diego getting to keep the name "Chargers." Just my opinion. :shrug:

tooge
01-12-2016, 09:04 AM
I'm not sure what the tax revenue for Missouri is from the Rams being in the state. It's got to be pretty nice, when you consider some fans travel there to see their team on the road (Chicago, Tenn, Dallas, KC, Indy) if they are somewhat close.

Yeah, I think St. Louis fans suck as NFL fans, but I do hate to lose revenue that the state was getting from the Rams. Other than that though, the STL can suck it.

Brock
01-12-2016, 09:09 AM
LA with two teams? Fine. And if Spanos wants to be one of them thats fine, but it should be the LA Rams and LA Raiders, the Chargers name should stay in SD. Buy Mark Davis out, let him own a minority share of the LA Raiders.

Why should the raiders be rewarded for terrible business decisions and awful performance?

Lex Luthor
01-12-2016, 09:10 AM
Well the Chargers were originally from LA. The name "Chargers" went with them when they moved to San Diego. So not really with the crowd advocating for San Diego getting to keep the name "Chargers." Just my opinion. :shrug:
I agree with you on that. The NFL recognized that they really should not have allowed the original Browns to move from Cleveland to Baltimore, so they threw a bone to the city of Cleveland. They didn't set a precedent.

I hate franchise free agency. If it were up me the Rams would be back in Los Angeles, the Cardinals would be back in St. Louis, the Ravens would be back in Cleveland and playing as the Cleveland Browns, and the Colts would be back in Baltimore. Cities like Indianapolis and Phoenix should have been given expansion teams. I think it sucks whenever a franchise moves, because it's usually a greedy ****ing owner who is behind it. There should be a special place in hell for Charlie Finley, Bill Bidwill, Robert Irsay, and Stan Kroenke. Especially Stan Kroenke, since he used deceit and trickery to become the majority owner in the first place, pledged to keep the team in St. Louis, and then did his very best to ensure that St Louis never gets another team after the Rams leave.

Lex Luthor
01-12-2016, 09:12 AM
I'm not sure what the tax revenue for Missouri is from the Rams being in the state. It's got to be pretty nice, when you consider some fans travel there to see their team on the road (Chicago, Tenn, Dallas, KC, Indy) if they are somewhat close.

Yeah, I think St. Louis fans suck as NFL fans, but I do hate to lose revenue that the state was getting from the Rams. Other than that though, the STL can suck it.
There are two truisms out there that are simply not true:

1. Cardinals fans are the best fans in baseball.
2. St Louis fans suck as NFL fans.

Fans support winning teams. Fans don't support perennial losers. It's true in every city.

The Cardinals have been wildly successful for several decades. The Rams have sucked for 15 years. Fans respond appropriately.

Rausch
01-12-2016, 09:16 AM
Why should the raiders be rewarded for terrible business decisions and awful performance?

How would going to St. Louis be a reward?

:D

mlyonsd
01-12-2016, 09:18 AM
How would going to St. Louis be a reward?

:D

They might actually fit right in.

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 09:18 AM
Well, assuming the Rams move, I think I'm done following and watching the NFL on a regular basis.

It's absolute horse shit how Kroenke's treated St. Louis and because of that I don't really think I'll be interested in supporting the Rams or giving a shit about anyone of the other 31 teams in the NFL.

mikeyis4dcats.
01-12-2016, 09:27 AM
I guess I just don't see the need for 2 teams in LA and one in Oakland and one is San Fran. But whatever...

seclark
01-12-2016, 09:29 AM
Well, assuming the Rams move, I think I'm done following and watching the NFL on a regular basis.

It's absolute horse shit how Kroenke's treated St. Louis and because of that I don't really think I'll be interested in supporting the Rams or giving a shit about anyone of the other 31 teams in the NFL.

take a deep breath, charlie brown. i was pissed when bidwell moved the cardinals to az. became a chiefs fan and it's been a way better experience, win or lose.
sec

chinaski
01-12-2016, 09:34 AM
Anyone have an aerial shot of the Inglewood stadium proposal vs the Carson proposal?

I'll take some today.

I'll post it up later.

mikeyis4dcats.
01-12-2016, 09:38 AM
Anyone have an aerial shot of the Inglewood stadium proposal vs the Carson proposal?

Inglewood
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/55104112f92ea160cf00c48c/la-sp-sn-new-stadium-20150320-007.jpg

Carson
http://www.trbimg.com/img-55397947/turbine/la-sp-nfl-stadium-renderings-carson-20150424

philfree
01-12-2016, 09:39 AM
I'm not sure what the tax revenue for Missouri is from the Rams being in the state. It's got to be pretty nice, when you consider some fans travel there to see their team on the road (Chicago, Tenn, Dallas, KC, Indy) if they are somewhat close.

Yeah, I think St. Louis fans suck as NFL fans, but I do hate to lose revenue that the state was getting from the Rams. Other than that though, the STL can suck it.

Probably a plus revenue situation for the state of MO. So much revenue generated and so much tax revenue from sales tax, income tax and that 10% entertainer tax levied on each player. Missouri loses when they lose a team.

philfree
01-12-2016, 09:42 AM
Once the new stadium is built I expect it to become the Home of the SB.

chinaski
01-12-2016, 09:43 AM
That's proposed, I'll get pics of the actual properties. I'm currently on the way right now.

Since I am a noob though, I don't think I am allowed to post links or pics. Somebody wanna post them up when I get them?

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 09:43 AM
I live here and I say good fucking riddance.

Shitty fucking organization in a shitty fucking building that wants to spend my tax dollars without a vote to build a new stadium to be shitty in.

Fuck that. More corporate and individual support for the Cards and Blues.

Rams have always been in 3rd place, even when they were winning.

This.

There are a few Rams fans I know that are genuinely disheartened, but by and large the city of St. Louis didn't give a shit until Kroenke launched a shot across their bow.

The Rams weren't generating any legitimate revenue for the city of St. Louis at this point; the stadium is a dump and nobody was inclined to do anything to fix it (on that point, Kroenke has legit beef).

St. Louis will be better off without the Rams.

Rausch
01-12-2016, 09:44 AM
Inglewood
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/55104112f92ea160cf00c48c/la-sp-sn-new-stadium-20150320-007.jpg

That looks like a museum or Epcot attraction.

Carson
http://www.trbimg.com/img-55397947/turbine/la-sp-nfl-stadium-renderings-carson-20150424

That looks like monument to football. Really cool...

Lex Luthor
01-12-2016, 09:49 AM
Well, assuming the Rams move, I think I'm done following and watching the NFL on a regular basis.

It's absolute horse shit how Kroenke's treated St. Louis and because of that I don't really think I'll be interested in supporting the Rams or giving a shit about anyone of the other 31 teams in the NFL.
The solution is simple. Become a Chiefs fan. This team isn't going anywhere, and you're already a member of Chiefsplanet.

This is Chiefsplanet. We enthusiastically welcome all new Chiefs fans.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 09:55 AM
Well, assuming the Rams move, I think I'm done following and watching the NFL on a regular basis.

It's absolute horse shit how Kroenke's treated St. Louis and because of that I don't really think I'll be interested in supporting the Rams or giving a shit about anyone of the other 31 teams in the NFL.

There's just a little bit of karmic justice at work here.

Let's not forget that for as badly as St. Louis hated Bidwell, he really really wanted to stay in St. Louis and spent years trying to make it work. He just couldn't get any traction on getting a new stadium built and as a guy who's football team wasn't profitable all that often, there really wasn't any way for him to build one himself nor was it tenable for him to just stay where he was for another 15 years. It was genuinely difficult for a team with a lousy stadium situation back then to make it work, especially if the team owner derived his income from the team, rather than many other owners who own their teams almost as a hobby.

Bidwell genuinely needed a new stadium and some help from the city of St. Louis - they told him to fuck off. They called his bluff and it burned them.

It was a serious 'grass is always greener' thing. Had St. Louis not dicked around with Bidwell, the gridbirds would've been STL lifers. Instead they essentially ran him out, chased a carpetbagger and then acted surprised when new roots never took hold.

St. Louis is reaping a little of what they sowed here. It's still a shitty think for Kroenke to have done, but Kroenke never should've owned a team in St. Louis to begin with.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
01-12-2016, 10:21 AM
I still think the expansion offer that went to the Jaguars should have been given to St. Louis.

a) Jacksonville does not support their team and probably never will.
b) The Rams never would have moved to St. Louis in the first place, so all this current drama would have been avoided.

I honestly think St. Louis would have supported a home-grown team better than it did the Rams.

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 10:26 AM
There's just a little bit of karmic justice at work here.

Let's not forget that for as badly as St. Louis hated Bidwell, he really really wanted to stay in St. Louis and spent years trying to make it work. He just couldn't get any traction on getting a new stadium built and as a guy who's football team wasn't profitable all that often, there really wasn't any way for him to build one himself nor was it tenable for him to just stay where he was for another 15 years. It was genuinely difficult for a team with a lousy stadium situation back then to make it work, especially if the team owner derived his income from the team, rather than many other owners who own their teams almost as a hobby.

Bidwell genuinely needed a new stadium and some help from the city of St. Louis - they told him to **** off. They called his bluff and it burned them.

It was a serious 'grass is always greener' thing. Had St. Louis not dicked around with Bidwell, the gridbirds would've been STL lifers. Instead they essentially ran him out, chased a carpetbagger and then acted surprised when new roots never took hold.

St. Louis is reaping a little of what they sowed here. It's still a shitty think for Kroenke to have done, but Kroenke never should've owned a team in St. Louis to begin with.

Basically everything I read up on that situation from the newspaper archives is was it a bitch fest between the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County. City didn't want to lose the stadium to the county. County wanted the stadium out of the city (where Riverport Amphitheater is). Basically a city vs suburbs battle that screwed both.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 10:36 AM
Basically everything I read up on that situation from the newspaper archives is was it a bitch fest between the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County. City didn't want to lose the stadium to the county. County wanted the stadium out of the city (where Riverport Amphitheater is). Basically a city vs suburbs battle that screwed both.

Yup. A whole lot of egos fucked that whole thing up.

I read a pretty comprehensive piece about it several years ago and it did a pretty nice job of being evenhanded. I just think the lack of publicly available information when this was all going on turned this whole thing into "Greedy Bidwell vs. St. Louis" when the reality was that his situation in St. Louis was really bad and the NFL was not the cash cow it is today.

People view his decision then through the lens of today's huge television revenues and that just isn't fair. The guy needed the team to be profitable; he had no other massive revenue streams to sustain it. He had no other business interests to speak of and television revenue was squat. He needed gate/stadium revenues to remain competitive. Players were getting more expensive and his revenues weren't keeping up. Fans were killing him for being cheap but his hands really were tied.

In hindsight, there's absolutely no question that St. Louis blew it when they ran the Cardinals out of town and the fact that they immediately got to work on a joint stadium proposal (I'm thinking within 3-5 years) shows that they knew it.

Had the egos that sabotaged the stadium deal in the late 80s never gotten in the way, the Rams aren't losing a football team right now.

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 10:50 AM
Yup. A whole lot of egos ****ed that whole thing up.

I read a pretty comprehensive piece about it several years ago and it did a pretty nice job of being evenhanded. I just think the lack of publicly available information when this was all going on turned this whole thing into "Greedy Bidwell vs. St. Louis" when the reality was that his situation in St. Louis was really bad and the NFL was not the cash cow it is today.

People view his decision then through the lens of today's huge television revenues and that just isn't fair. The guy needed the team to be profitable; he had no other massive revenue streams to sustain it. He had no other business interests to speak of and television revenue was squat. He needed gate/stadium revenues to remain competitive. Players were getting more expensive and his revenues weren't keeping up. Fans were killing him for being cheap but his hands really were tied.

In hindsight, there's absolutely no question that St. Louis blew it when they ran the Cardinals out of town and the fact that they immediately got to work on a joint stadium proposal (I'm thinking within 3-5 years) shows that they knew it.

Had the egos that sabotaged the stadium deal in the late 80s never gotten in the way, the Rams aren't losing a football team right now.

Another thing was the NFL wasn't that happy he chose Phoenix. They wanted that to be the expansion team for a big pay day.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
01-12-2016, 10:54 AM
FWIW:


mike hiserman @MikeHiserman

BREAKING NEWS: It's looks like #Rams and #Chargers for #NFL-LA. Great reporting by @LATimesfarmer and @nathanfenno : http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html …


Retweeted by 506 Sports

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 10:55 AM
There's just a little bit of karmic justice at work here.

Let's not forget that for as badly as St. Louis hated Bidwell, he really really wanted to stay in St. Louis and spent years trying to make it work. He just couldn't get any traction on getting a new stadium built and as a guy who's football team wasn't profitable all that often, there really wasn't any way for him to build one himself nor was it tenable for him to just stay where he was for another 15 years. It was genuinely difficult for a team with a lousy stadium situation back then to make it work, especially if the team owner derived his income from the team, rather than many other owners who own their teams almost as a hobby.

Bidwell genuinely needed a new stadium and some help from the city of St. Louis - they told him to **** off. They called his bluff and it burned them.

It was a serious 'grass is always greener' thing. Had St. Louis not dicked around with Bidwell, the gridbirds would've been STL lifers. Instead they essentially ran him out, chased a carpetbagger and then acted surprised when new roots never took hold.

St. Louis is reaping a little of what they sowed here. It's still a shitty think for Kroenke to have done, but Kroenke never should've owned a team in St. Louis to begin with.

I'm aware of why Bidwill left. Even if he's still hated here, he had a reason to leave.

Kroenke hasn't done shit with regards to solving the stadium situation in St. Louis and when the city bends over backwards for him and he still refuses to do anything on St. Louis, it's hard not to be pissed at him.

Basically everything I read up on that situation from the newspaper archives is was it a bitch fest between the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County. City didn't want to lose the stadium to the county. County wanted the stadium out of the city (where Riverport Amphitheater is). Basically a city vs suburbs battle that screwed both.

St. Louis City doesn't reside within St. Louis County. Until the 2 are united, the city won't be able to prosper, IMO. But that will never happen as the majority of people who reside in St. Louis county would be opposed to said measure.

Rausch
01-12-2016, 10:55 AM
FWIW:


mike hiserman @MikeHiserman

BREAKING NEWS: It's looks like #Rams and #Chargers for #NFL-LA. Great reporting by @LATimesfarmer and @nathanfenno : http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html …


Retweeted by 506 Sports

https://media.giphy.com/media/68Ms7xo0ktbZS/giphy.gif

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 11:00 AM
FWIW:


mike hiserman @MikeHiserman

BREAKING NEWS: It's looks like #Rams and #Chargers for #NFL-LA. Great reporting by @LATimesfarmer and @nathanfenno : http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html …


Retweeted by 506 Sports

That's old news from yesterday.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
01-12-2016, 11:03 AM
That's old news from yesterday.

Agreed: Note the FWIW.

I was more interested in Farmer's article. Seems like he's done some pretty good research on this.

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 11:09 AM
Agreed: Note the FWIW.

I was more interested in Farmer's article. Seems like he's done some pretty good research on this.

Its the same article that is in the OP by the way.

ping2000
01-12-2016, 11:18 AM
The only place the raiders are going is San Antonio LMAO
MS 13 is strong there. The Faid needs the gangs.

The Franchise
01-12-2016, 11:23 AM
So if the Chargers and Rams move to LA......does that mean the Raiders are fucked? Do they aim for San Antonio?

wazu
01-12-2016, 11:28 AM
So if the Chargers and Rams move to LA......does that mean the Raiders are fucked? Do they aim for San Antonio?

They move to St. Louis, then expansion teams in San Diego and Oakland. Rinse, repeat.

oldman
01-12-2016, 11:33 AM
I guess I still don't see why it's so important to have 2 teams in LA. Times may have changed, but they didn't support 2 teams when the Raiders and the Rams were there. Of the 3 teams, I'd say the Chargers should be there only because of the ties to So. Cal. Screw both the Raiders and St. Louis.

mikeyis4dcats.
01-12-2016, 11:34 AM
St. Louis City doesn't reside within St. Louis County.


Thats bizarre

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 11:40 AM
Thats bizarre

I know. St. Louis is an independent city and resides in no county. The city limits itself are fairly small and, due to the city being separate from the county, it's pretty much impossible for the city to annex land, thus making it difficult for the city to expand in both land size and population.

Hoover
01-12-2016, 11:40 AM
Inglewood
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/55104112f92ea160cf00c48c/la-sp-sn-new-stadium-20150320-007.jpg

Carson
http://www.trbimg.com/img-55397947/turbine/la-sp-nfl-stadium-renderings-carson-20150424
Looks like parking for a couple thousand cars...

saphojunkie
01-12-2016, 11:51 AM
Carson is fucking stupid. It's down east of Torrance, which is already the fucking boondocks. There's something like 5 square miles of the entire project layout that's environmentally sound land. It's a fucking landfill.

At least Inglewood is close to LAX, is accessible via public transportation as well as cars, doesn't require freeways to get there, and would actually be integrated into the city of LA.

Having said all that, I am fucking elated that I get the best of both worlds:

Chargers come to LA, so I get two more Chiefs games on local TV.

Rams come to LA, and I can have an NFC team to follow.

Raiders stay the fuck away, along with their trash fan base.

Yay!

brucey_72
01-12-2016, 12:01 PM
The solution is simple. Become a Chiefs fan. This team isn't going anywhere, and you're already a member of Chiefsplanet.

This is Chiefsplanet. We enthusiastically welcome all new Chiefs fans.

Besides 49er fans

PutQuinnIn
01-12-2016, 01:06 PM
Carson is not happening, site is a toxic landfill.

PutQuinnIn
01-12-2016, 01:18 PM
The scene in Houston.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYigWWtUsAACrqL.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYigcNQUwAAglfW.jpg

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 02:06 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NFL?src=hash">#NFL</a> LA comm recommends Carson site 5-1. Lone exception: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chiefs?src=hash">#Chiefs</a> owner Clark Hunt, who said should 1 team or none <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rams?src=hash">#Rams</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Raiders?src=hash">#Raiders</a></p>&mdash; Jason Cole (@JasonColeBR) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonColeBR/status/686997732913885184">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Go Clark!

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 02:13 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NFL?src=hash">#NFL</a> LA comm recommends Carson site 5-1. Lone exception: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chiefs?src=hash">#Chiefs</a> owner Clark Hunt, who said should 1 team or none <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rams?src=hash">#Rams</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Raiders?src=hash">#Raiders</a></p>&mdash; Jason Cole (@JasonColeBR) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonColeBR/status/686997732913885184">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Go Clark!

Chiefs don't want the AFC West to realign IMO.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 02:21 PM
That's a stunner to me.

The Inglewood site/plan is just better in so many ways.

The good ol' boys network is rallying around Spanos, who perhaps justifiably wants no part of a business relationship with Stan Kroenke.

After reading this article, who could blame him?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-11-18/nfl-owner-stan-kroenke-wants-to-take-over-l-a-

Stan Kroenke is a monumental prick.

kcpasco
01-12-2016, 02:24 PM
I don't want the AFC West to realign either.

Mr. Laz
01-12-2016, 02:39 PM
Carson site means Raiders or Chargers leave the AFC West.

can't have 2 teams sharing a stadium from the same division, scheduling is impossible.


i wonder if they flip the Chargers and Seattle

AFC West:

Chiefs
Seattle
Oakland
Denver

kcpasco
01-12-2016, 02:40 PM
Hope this doesn't lead to some phantom penalties this weekend.

wazu
01-12-2016, 02:41 PM
I really hope, above all, that moving to L.A. becomes a monumental disaster for whatever teams do it.

KCChiefsFan88
01-12-2016, 02:42 PM
If you are Stan Kroenke what do you do now?

You absolutely trashed St. Louis and their new stadium proposal in your relocation request.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 02:44 PM
Keep in mind that the committee recommendation is just that: A recommendation.

It still requires 24 votes by the other owners.

That said, I'm sure that Bob Iger's presence was the determining factor and I'm happy to see that Clark didn't fall for it.

Carson is a disaster. Nothing good will come from a stadium built on a toxic landfill, which still hasn't been approved by the state.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 02:44 PM
Carson site means Raiders or Chargers leave the AFC West.

can't have 2 teams sharing a stadium from the same division, scheduling is impossible.


i wonder if they flip the Chargers and Seattle

AFC West:

Chiefs
Seattle
Oakland
Denver

Could flip the Chargers and Rams as well.

Putting the Chargers in the division w/ AZ and SF makes for two very nice natural rivalries for them. Moving the Rams into the division with Denver and KC also makes a couple of nice rivalries.

It leaves the Raiders hung out a little, but the Raiders have strong historical rivalries with the Chiefs and Broncos already and never really developed much with the Chargers.

It would seem to be the best natural fit for all involved.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 02:45 PM
If you are Stan Kroenke what do you do now?

You absolutely trashed St. Louis and their new stadium proposal in your relocation request.

It's not a done deal. The owners still need to vote.

But if they vote against him, he should tell them to fuck off, build the stadium and move his team

Let the NFL fight him in court (ha ha ha ha).

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 02:46 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NFL?src=hash">#NFL</a> LA comm recommends Carson site 5-1. Lone exception: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chiefs?src=hash">#Chiefs</a> owner Clark Hunt, who said should 1 team or none <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rams?src=hash">#Rams</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Raiders?src=hash">#Raiders</a></p>&mdash; Jason Cole (@JasonColeBR) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonColeBR/status/686997732913885184">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Go Clark!

This.

He seems to be the only one thinking clearly.

KCChiefsFan88
01-12-2016, 02:48 PM
I am impressed that Clark would do that. I didn't think he had it in him to be the lone hold out.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 02:48 PM
If you are Stan Kroenke what do you do now?

You absolutely trashed St. Louis and their new stadium proposal in your relocation request.

Nothing. Carson still won't get approved, IMO.

It's just an inferior proposal in every way.

That said, if by some miracle Spanos convinces all the other owners that he's absolutely unwilling to work with Kroenke and they force the Carson plan through, Stan will have no choice but to sell.

And oh poor pitiful Stan, he'll just have to occupy his time with his OTHER 3 major sports franchise and his never-ending need to torment former business partners.

He really is one of those guys that gives capitalism a bad name. He's essentially Monty Burns.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
01-12-2016, 02:48 PM
Why does everyone assume it'll be Seattle that get's realigned?

Hell, for all we know, they might shove the Rams into the AFCW, or even contemplate a major overhaul of divisions in general.

The mind boggles at the possibilities :eek::PPL::popcorn:

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 02:52 PM
Why does everyone assume it'll be Seattle that get's realigned?

Hell, for all we know, they might shove the Rams into the AFCW, or even contemplate a major overhaul of divisions in general.

The mind boggles at the possibilities :eek::PPL::popcorn:

This is why the Rams to Los Angeles is the only move that makes any sense.

The Chargers should just shut the fuck up and take the new stadium proposed by the city, leaving the Raiders to stay in Oakland or move to St. Louis.

But it's a political landmine with these douchey owners, the only one of which, Clark Hunt, is using any common sense.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 02:52 PM
That said, if by some miracle Spanos convinces all the other owners that he's absolutely unwilling to work with Kroenke and they force the Carson plan through, Stan will have no choice but to sell.
.

If Dean Spanos convinces the league that he can't work with Kronke, then they simply won't put two teams in L.A in 2016, or they can put the Raiders there.

The Carson project is dookie. It's going to be built on a landfill, FFS.

kcpasco
01-12-2016, 02:54 PM
Rams or Cardinals would be my bet to flip while the Chargers get put into the NFC.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 02:56 PM
If Dean Spanos convinces the league that he can't work with Kronke, then they simply won't put two teams in L.A in 2016, or they can put the Raiders there.

The Carson project is dookie. It's going to be built on a landfill, FFS.

The only other location that makes more sense than Kroenke's is the DTLA plan put forth by AEG.

But since neither Mark Davis nor the Spanos family wanted to sell 49% of their franchise, it was scrapped.

It's a shame, too, because it's centralized, the subway drops off right in front on LA Live, they lined up Farmer's Insurance for $20 million per year in naming rights and so on.

Carson is a dump. Literally.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 02:56 PM
If they're ok with putting the Raiders in Carson, then they have to be ok with putting them in Inglewood as well. If they decide that it'll be both the Chargers and Rams in LA, then look for the Raiders to move to San Diego. Mark Davis has already expressed interest in San Diego, even using the word "eager", and San Diego politicians have pretty much said, w/o directly saying, that they'll be working to lure in the Raiders in the event that the Chargers leave.

And honestly, if not LA, then SD is the next best spot for the Raiders. They already have a huge fan base here.

IMO, it should be the Rams and the Rams only in LA. That gives the NFL two SoCal teams, and two NorCal teams.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 02:57 PM
This is why the Rams to Los Angeles is the only move that makes any sense.

The Chargers should just shut the fuck up and take the new stadium proposed by the city, leaving the Raiders to stay in Oakland or move to St. Louis.

But it's a political landmine with these douchey owners, the only one of which, Clark Hunt, is using any common sense.

It is going to be pretty funny when this thing gets approval for an anonymous vote, the Carson gets broomed and Clark Hunt becomes public enemy #1 in St. Louis.

They'll absolutely blame him for the Rams leaving if the full vote is secret and he'll essentially be the only known voter in favor of the Inglewood project.

But yeah, like I said, this is a really shocking turn of events. The Carson project is just so much worse even as proposed. Then when you look at how half-assed the Raiders have been about the whole thing (making it pretty obvious to me that this is just a shakedown job from Mark Davis) and you just have to wonder how the hell the rest of that committee got buffaloed like this.

kcpasco
01-12-2016, 02:57 PM
Chargers are on their way towards mediocrity for a few years while the Cardinals are on their way up. This sucks if true.

Sassy Squatch
01-12-2016, 02:58 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/HBalzer721/status/687013798373240832

LMAO

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 03:00 PM
It is going to be pretty funny when this thing gets approval for an anonymous vote, the Carson gets broomed and Clark Hunt becomes public enemy #1 in St. Louis.

They'll absolutely blame him for the Rams leaving if the full vote is secret and he'll essentially be the only known voter in favor of the Inglewood project.

But yeah, like I said, this is a really shocking turn of events. The Carson project is just so much worse even as proposed. Then when you look at how half-assed the Raiders have been about the whole thing (making it pretty obvious to me that this is just a shakedown job from Mark Davis) and you just have to wonder how the hell the rest of that committee got buffaloed like this.

Oh man, i didn't even think about how much that affects Clark. Allowing the Chiefs to be the sole owner of the "Show Me" state? I bet he'd love it if the Rams moved....

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 03:02 PM
If you are Stan Kroenke what do you do now?

You absolutely trashed St. Louis and their new stadium proposal in your relocation request.

Other owners trashed that proposal too.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 03:02 PM
Oh man, i didn't even think about how much that affects Clark. Allowing the Chiefs to be the sole owner of the "Show Me" state? I bet he'd love it if the Rams moved....

That's how the folks in STL will see it - self-interested Clark wanted the Rams out of here so the Chiefs could be the only show in town.

The only problem is that Clark's presently the only guy showing a lick of common sense. I don't know if it's self-interested, but Clark's at least showing the stones to back the more sensible play instead of cozying up with the old boys network.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 03:04 PM
Other owners trashed that proposal too.

Apart from the stadium being about 1/2 as nice as he could get elsewhere AND being dependent on as-yet unsecured funds to even get that much done, what's the problem with it?

Yeah, the STL plan was laughable. "Oh, that extra $200 million? Oh don't go worrying about that extra $200 million...."

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 03:05 PM
you just have to wonder how the hell the rest of that committee got buffaloed like this.

Bob Iger.

Even these pompous, wealthy douchebags want to be associated with the most powerful man in Hollywood.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 03:06 PM
Apart from the stadium being about 1/2 as nice as he could get elsewhere AND being dependent on as-yet unsecured funds to even get that much done, what's the problem with it?

Yeah, the STL plan was laughable. "Oh, that extra $200 million? Oh don't go worrying about that extra $200 million...."

I feel bad for folks in LA. They want the Rams. They're getting this shit show instead, possibly.

wazu
01-12-2016, 03:14 PM
If this does happen, it would be more fun if they didn't re-align.

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 03:22 PM
Other owners trashed that proposal too.

Who?

McNair spoke positively about it. I can't think of any owners who issued their opinion in public about it,positively or negatively.

wazu
01-12-2016, 03:25 PM
Who?

McNair spoke positively about it. I can't think of any owners who issued their opinion in public about it,positively or negatively.

Congrats, BTW. They're staying!

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 03:25 PM
On phone. Can't link to tweet. Owners are voting on Chargers/Rams vs Chargers/Rams. No Rams alone to Inglewood option.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 03:26 PM
Who?

McNair spoke positively about it. I can't think of any owners who issued their opinion in public about it,positively or negatively.

I believe it was Goodell speaking on behalf of the owners, was it not? Didn't he come right out and say that the plan was wildly overreaching on the amount of money the NFL would be willing to contribute to the proposed stadium?

If Roger's lips are moving, some owner usually has a hand up his shirt.

wazu
01-12-2016, 03:28 PM
On phone. Can't link to tweet. Owners are voting on Chargers/Rams vs Chargers/Rams. No Rams alone to Inglewood option.

Wut.

eDave
01-12-2016, 03:30 PM
Rams proposal off the table

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 03:31 PM
I believe it was Goodell speaking on behalf of the owners, was it not? Didn't he come right out and say that the plan was wildly overreaching on the amount of money the NFL would be willing to contribute to the proposed stadium?

If Roger's lips are moving, some owner usually has a hand up his shirt.

Goodell condemned the financing plan for the extra $100 mil which was to be given by the NFL. Peacock, the head guy for STL's proposal, sent in the final proposal for funding at the 11th hour with that change in financing just before the Board of Alderman were to vote on the financing.

And before that, the day before the aldermen voted to get the proposal out of committee, Eric Grubman went on STL radio and bashed stadium proposal before the change in financing.

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 03:32 PM
Wut.

Chargers/Rams in Inglewood vs Raiders/Chargers in Carson.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 03:36 PM
I believe it was Goodell speaking on behalf of the owners, was it not? Didn't he come right out and say that the plan was wildly overreaching on the amount of money the NFL would be willing to contribute to the proposed stadium?

If Roger's lips are moving, some owner usually has a hand up his shirt.

That was my line of thinking. Although, I will have to find it, I read an article this morning where an owner flat out said it out loud. McNair never endorsed it, he said it's getting close to appealing. From what I've read, not one NFL team would accept that proposal.

eDave
01-12-2016, 03:37 PM
Chargers/Rams in Inglewood vs Raiders/Chargers in Carson.

I'm calling the latter.

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 03:37 PM
Here is a live twitter feed of action if anyone is interested
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/STLSports/STLRams/tabid/137/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/20032/Live-Follow-the-Houston-NFL-Owners-Meetings-on-LA-Relocation.aspx

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 03:40 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I understand NFL owners now debating merits of two proposals: Chargers and Raiders to Carson vs. the Rams PLUS unnamed team to Inglewood.</p>&mdash; David Hunn (@davidhunn) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidhunn/status/687023761720147969">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

brucey_72
01-12-2016, 03:41 PM
I hope Rams

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 03:41 PM
Inglewood just got shot down.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
01-12-2016, 03:42 PM
I thought they kicked everyone out of the meeting and limited it to owners only.

Where is this "insider information" coming from?

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 03:50 PM
Just my opinion from seeing tweets from people covering relocation, I'd say the only thing I am 99% confident about is that the Chargers will be in LA next season.

That's just my take.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 03:51 PM
Well, I was wrong. The inglewood plan that didn't pass was Rams only. The Rams/Chargers has yet to be voted on apparently.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-12-2016, 03:52 PM
Two teams will move no matter what. The owners want that $1.1 billion in relocation fees to carve up amongst them.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 03:53 PM
Well, I was wrong. The inglewood plan that didn't pass was Rams only. The Rams/Chargers has yet to be voted on apparently.

From my understanding, the Chargers are holding up the Rams deal because Spanos doesn't want to be a "tenant" at Kroenke's stadium, yet the Spanos family doesn't have any money to build their own stadium or to chip into the Inglewood project.

They're bitches.

O.city
01-12-2016, 03:54 PM
From my understanding, the Chargers are holding up the Rams deal because Spanos doesn't want to be a "tenant" at Kroenke's stadium, yet the Spanos family doesn't have any money to build their own stadium.

They're bitches.

Seriously.

I'd tell the Spanos to go **** themselves. Them and the davis family are the poor of the owners, iirc.

**** them

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 03:54 PM
From my understanding, the Chargers are holding up the Rams deal because Spanos doesn't want to be a "tenant" at Kroenke's stadium, yet the Spanos family doesn't have any money to build their own stadium or to chip into the Inglewood project.

They're bitches.

LMAO Fucking A right, they are! Wow! I'd say good. Stay in San Diego then.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 03:55 PM
Two teams will move no matter what. The owners want that $1.1 billion in relocation fees to carve up amongst them.

Yeah, but it's not as enticing as it sounds, since the payments will be split up over 10 years.

It only comes out to about $3.67 million per year, per team and that's only if Kroenke decides to chip in.

big nasty kcnut
01-12-2016, 03:59 PM
Bravo Clark for being the adult in the room!

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-12-2016, 04:01 PM
Yeah, but it's not as enticing as it sounds, since the payments will be split up over 10 years.

It only comes out to about $3.4 million per year, per team and that's only if Kroenke decides to chip in.

That's still a shitload of money for a lot of the owners who derive almost all of their net worth from the franchise itself.

PutQuinnIn
01-12-2016, 04:02 PM
From my understanding, the Chargers are holding up the Rams deal because Spanos doesn't want to be a "tenant" at Kroenke's stadium, yet the Spanos family doesn't have any money to build their own stadium or to chip into the Inglewood project.

They're bitches.

Inglewood project is costing close to 2 billion. Spanos more likely to become a tenant than a business partner with Kroenke.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 04:02 PM
Imagine if Kronke took his money and his team and built a Stadium in Downtown San Diego?

How's that for a plot twist? LMAO

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-12-2016, 04:02 PM
Bravo Clark for being the adult in the room!

I imagine Clark vetoed that in part because getting the Rams to move creates more opportunities for the Chiefs to make inroads in the eastern part of the state.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 04:03 PM
Inglewood project is costing close to 2 billion. Spanos more likely to become a tenant than a business partner with Kroenke.

The word now is that it's closer to $2.5 billion.

But whatever, the Spanos family won't contribute to a San Diego stadium OR the Carson stadium.

They're Welfare bitches.

dirk digler
01-12-2016, 04:03 PM
If I was Kroenke I would just move the team and let the league try to stop you.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 04:04 PM
That's still a shitload of money for a lot of the owners who derive almost all of their net worth from the franchise itself.

The irony is that the Raiders and Chargers are two of those ownership groups that won't be receiving those funds if they're allowed to move.

LMAO

Brock
01-12-2016, 04:05 PM
Spanos is mad because he won't be able to wet his beak in the public coffers

PutQuinnIn
01-12-2016, 04:05 PM
If I was Kroenke I would just move the team and let the league try to stop you.

Worked for Al Davis moving from Oak to LA.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 04:05 PM
If I was Kroenke I would just move the team and let the league try to stop you.

After the Raiders did that, the NFL created rules that new owners would have to sign to prevent litigation. People keep saying Stan can sue, but im not sure that he can.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 04:05 PM
Inglewood project is costing close to 2 billion. Spanos more likely to become a tenant than a business partner with Kroenke.

And Spanos is pretty reasonable in his concerns there.

Voluntarily putting yourself in a position to get fucked by Kroenke is a good way to absolutely ensure that you'll get fucked by Kroenke.

I'm not going to lie, it would be nice if being an asshole all the time FINALLY caught up to Kroenke.

NJChiefsFan
01-12-2016, 04:07 PM
Two teams will move no matter what. The owners want that $1.1 billion in relocation fees to carve up amongst them.

I heard there is a possible compromise where they use $500 million of that to fund the new Oakland stadium, or Oakland moving to a new SD stadium.

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 04:07 PM
After the Raiders did that, the NFL created rules that new owners would have to sign to prevent litigation. People keep saying Stan can sue, but im not sure that he can.

All teams applying for relocation to LA had to sign an agreement not to sue if they were to be considered for relocation.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 04:08 PM
All teams applying for relocation to LA had to sign an agreement not to sue if they were to be considered for relocation.

That too.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-12-2016, 04:09 PM
And Spanos is pretty reasonable in his concerns there.

Voluntarily putting yourself in a position to get fucked by Kroenke is a good way to absolutely ensure that you'll get fucked by Kroenke.

I'm not going to lie, it would be nice if being an asshole all the time FINALLY caught up to Kroenke.

His existence does make me wish I was religious, because the thought of him getting ass-raped by demons in the pits of blackest Hell is a lovely one.

RealSNR
01-12-2016, 04:13 PM
So... what's going on?

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 04:14 PM
So... what's going on?

Nothing. Nothing has been settled, things are still be negotiated behind closed doors and the owners have yet to vote.

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 04:18 PM
So... what's going on?

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-Blogs/On-The-Ground/2016/01/0112-NFL-LA.aspx

CaliforniaChief
01-12-2016, 04:23 PM
I heard there is a possible compromise where they use $500 million of that to fund the new Oakland stadium, or Oakland moving to a new SD stadium.

As if San Diego hasn't been shat upon enough in this process. LMAO

That's just cruel.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 04:24 PM
1st round of votes complete. No one at 24 yet, but they're still negotiating. Rams/TBD Inglewood gets more votes than Carson, but not enough.

O.city
01-12-2016, 04:29 PM
Spanos either gets on board with Kroenke or it all burns

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 04:30 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">First round of votes completed. Rams/TBD in Inglewood gets more votes than Raiders/Chargers in Carson. Nobody at required 24 yet.</p>&mdash; Sam Farmer (@LATimesfarmer) <a href="https://twitter.com/LATimesfarmer/status/687036947986952192">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

O.city
01-12-2016, 04:33 PM
Kroenke has enough fuck you miney, the best land and doesn't need help.

Spanos better get on board

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 04:34 PM
The NFL Network is saying that the only thing that will pass is a compromise between the Rams & Chargers in Inglewood.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 04:36 PM
Kroenke has enough fuck you miney, the best land and doesn't need help.

Spanos better get on board

I kind of hope that the Chargers and Raiders are fucked.

San Diego builds the Chargers a new stadium and the Raiders to St. Louis.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 04:38 PM
I kind of hope that the Chargers and Raiders are fucked.

San Diego builds the Chargers a new stadium and the Raiders to St. Louis.

I read something that said Mark Davis is going to go for San Antonio if this fails. It also said Jerry Jones is going to have a hard time stopping him after brokering the deal between the Rams and Chargers.

eDave
01-12-2016, 04:39 PM
I kind of hope that the Chargers and Raiders are fucked.

San Diego builds the Chargers a new stadium and the Raiders to St. Louis.

Wouldn't that be something. Raider fan just across the state. Gov. Cup gets nasty.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 04:42 PM
I read something that said Mark Davis is going to go for San Antonio if this fails. It also said Jerry Jones is going to have a hard time stopping him after brokering the deal between the Rams and Chargers.

Interesting, especially considering how much influence and help that Al Davis provided Jones over the years.

Rams Fan
01-12-2016, 04:42 PM
Welp.

scho63
01-12-2016, 04:45 PM
I read something that said Mark Davis is going to go for San Antonio if this fails. It also said Jerry Jones is going to have a hard time stopping him after brokering the deal between the Rams and Chargers.

There is NO WAY that will happen. :shake:

I see Oakland getting something out of this deal, would be hard for them to come away with absolutely nothing.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 04:45 PM
I read something that said Mark Davis is going to go for San Antonio if this fails. It also said Jerry Jones is going to have a hard time stopping him after brokering the deal between the Rams and Chargers.

But why?

Does he really think there's enough support for the Raiders in South Texas that he'd be better of heading to friggen San Antonio?

I still say it's a shakedown and he's angling to get a deal on a stadium in Oakland or to get first dibs on the SD stadium deal. Moving to Texas doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 04:50 PM
But why?

Does he really think there's enough support for the Raiders in South Texas that he'd be better of heading to friggen San Antonio?

I still say it's a shakedown and he's angling to get a deal on a stadium in Oakland or to get first dibs on the SD stadium deal. Moving to Texas doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

No, it doesn't. There's no way the Raiders move to San Antonio. San Diego makes far more sense. They can sit in Qualcomm while their new stadium is being built. The Majority of their base is in California and they have a strong base right here in San Diego/SoCal. San Diego's proposal required some money from the Spanos family, which they balked at...the same money that Mark Davis has already said he'd spend in Oakland...had Oakland already had a plan.

ping2000
01-12-2016, 04:52 PM
Move the Raiders to Ferguson. Better fit.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 04:52 PM
No, it doesn't. There's no way the Raiders move to San Antonio. San Diego makes far more sense. They can sit in Qualcomm while their new stadium is being built. The Majority of their base is in California and they have a strong base right here in San Diego/SoCal. San Diego's proposal required some money from the Spanos family, which they balked at...the same money that Mark Davis has already said he'd spend in Oakland...had Oakland already had a plan.

It's funny to watch Oakland play this exactly the same way St. Louis played this in the Bidwell days.

Oakland will almost certainly alienate a football family that would like to stay in Oakland if they will pony up anything to make it work. And somehow in 15 years Oakland will be on the short list of teams to send a team to when the franchise carousel starts up again.

Because somehow billionaires and elected officials invariably prove to be the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.

oldandslow
01-12-2016, 04:53 PM
Welp.

I feel for you...the NFL sometimes sucks.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 04:56 PM
Welp.

I feel for you...the NFL sometimes sucks.

I'd be completely fucking ruined to the sport. I know, because it happened to me with basketball. Sorry bruh.

the Talking Can
01-12-2016, 04:56 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NFL?src=hash">#NFL</a> owners began voting process with each proposal voted on. Inglewood <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rams?src=hash">#Rams</a> vote was 21-8-3. 21 for. 8 against. 3 abstained. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/fox2?src=hash">#fox2</a></p>&mdash; Martin Kilcoyne (@martinkilcoyne2) <a href="https://twitter.com/martinkilcoyne2/status/687043805061632000">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

ChiefsCountry
01-12-2016, 04:56 PM
It's funny to watch Oakland play this exactly the same way St. Louis played this in the Bidwell days.

Oakland will almost certainly alienate a football family that would like to stay in Oakland if they will pony up anything to make it work. And somehow in 15 years Oakland will be on the short list of teams to send a team to when the franchise carousel starts up again.

Because somehow billionaires and elected officials invariably prove to be the dumbest mother****ers on the planet.

I would say Oakland loses the Raiders it will be done as a NFL market. 49ers will claim it as theirs and it will be over for Oaktown.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 04:58 PM
But why?

Does he really think there's enough support for the Raiders in South Texas that he'd be better of heading to friggen San Antonio?

I still say it's a shakedown and he's angling to get a deal on a stadium in Oakland or to get first dibs on the SD stadium deal. Moving to Texas doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

No, it doesn't. There's no way the Raiders move to San Antonio. San Diego makes far more sense. They can sit in Qualcomm while their new stadium is being built. The Majority of their base is in California and they have a strong base right here in San Diego/SoCal. San Diego's proposal required some money from the Spanos family, which they balked at...the same money that Mark Davis has already said he'd spend in Oakland...had Oakland already had a plan.

I totally agree, and I'm sure it's just posturing, but why not just claim San Diego right away instead of San Antonio? Guy claimed to have 3 unnamed sources, and mused it was probably "leaked" on purpose.

chinaski
01-12-2016, 04:58 PM
I took some aerial shots of the proposed locations today, if anybody is interested in seeing them. I don't think I can post images though since I am a noob here.

eDave
01-12-2016, 04:58 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NFL?src=hash">#NFL</a> owners began voting process with each proposal voted on. Inglewood <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rams?src=hash">#Rams</a> vote was 21-8-3. 21 for. 8 against. 3 abstained. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/fox2?src=hash">#fox2</a></p>&mdash; Martin Kilcoyne (@martinkilcoyne2) <a href="https://twitter.com/martinkilcoyne2/status/687043805061632000">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

That's the deal that gets done.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:00 PM
I took some aerial shots of the proposed locations today, if anybody is interested in seeing them. I don't think I can post images though since I am a noob here.

Would love to see them.

Deberg_1990
01-12-2016, 05:00 PM
I totally agree, and I'm sure it's just posturing, but why not just claim San Diego right away instead of San Antonio? Guy claimed to have 3 unnamed sources, and mused it was probably "leaked" on purpose.

Posted this earlier....Davis has bought land between Austin and San Antonio.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=12020767&postcount=48

eDave
01-12-2016, 05:03 PM
I took some aerial shots of the proposed locations today, if anybody is interested in seeing them. I don't think I can post images though since I am a noob here.

You can Dropbox them to me - david.barry2@hpe.com - and I'll post.

Ignore the porn

saphojunkie
01-12-2016, 05:04 PM
I totally agree, and I'm sure it's just posturing, but why not just claim San Diego right away instead of San Antonio? Guy claimed to have 3 unnamed sources, and mused it was probably "leaked" on purpose.

They already own a bunch of silver and black shit down there, duh.

chinaski
01-12-2016, 05:09 PM
You can Dropbox them to me - - and I'll post.

Ignore the porn


I don't do the dropbox thing, can I PM you the photobucket links?

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:11 PM
I don't do the dropbox thing, can I PM you the photobucket links?

you can post the photobucket links. Just remove the "." in the .com, now it's not a link anymore.

eDave
01-12-2016, 05:11 PM
I don't do the dropbox thing, can I PM you the photobucket links?

Sure thing. I'll post right from there.

KChiefs1
01-12-2016, 05:13 PM
1st round of votes complete. No one at 24 yet, but they're still negotiating. Rams/TBD Inglewood gets more votes than Carson, but not enough.


That's a positive to keep the AFC West together.

chinaski
01-12-2016, 05:14 PM
Sure thing. I'll post right from there.

Jeez, won't even let me PM anybody. Oh well.

Tell you guys what, I'm gonna start a thread over at a forum called The Vette Barn in the Off Topic Section, you can check them out there if you want...

Scott

KChiefs1
01-12-2016, 05:14 PM
Posted this earlier....Davis has bought land between Austin and San Antonio.





http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=12020767&postcount=48


Texas Raiders?

eDave
01-12-2016, 05:15 PM
Jeez, won't even let me PM anybody. Oh well.

Tell you guys what, I'm gonna start a thread over at a forum called The Vette Barn in the Off Topic Section, you can check them out there if you want...

Scott

Can you rep?

KChiefs1
01-12-2016, 05:15 PM
Jeez, won't even let me PM anybody. Oh well.



Tell you guys what, I'm gonna start a thread over at a forum called The Vette Barn in the Off Topic Section, you can check them out there if you want...



Scott


Ok. I've been wanting to see the aerial view of both stadium projects.

Thanks!

KChiefs1
01-12-2016, 05:16 PM
So the AFC West will remain in tact.


Hopefully.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:18 PM
Jeez, won't even let me PM anybody. Oh well.

Tell you guys what, I'm gonna start a thread over at a forum called The Vette Barn in the Off Topic Section, you can check them out there if you want...

Scott

Or you could just do what i said, post the links and remove the "." from .com. We can fill in the ".".

chinaski
01-12-2016, 05:22 PM
Or you could just do what i said, post the links and remove the "." from .com. We can fill in the ".".

got it

chinaski
01-12-2016, 05:24 PM
i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/Air1070/IMG_2546_zpse5cowa1d


dot jpg fyi


i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/Air1070/IMG_2545_zpsluwubp1m


First one is Inglewood, Second is Carson

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:27 PM
i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/Air1070/IMG_2546_zpse5cowa1d


dot jpg fyi


i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/Air1070/IMG_2545_zpsluwubp1m


First one is Inglewood, Second is Carson

<a href="http://s35.photobucket.com/user/Air1070/media/IMG_2546_zpse5cowa1d.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/Air1070/IMG_2546_zpse5cowa1d.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo IMG_2546_zpse5cowa1d.jpg"/></a>

<a href="http://s35.photobucket.com/user/Air1070/media/IMG_2545_zpsluwubp1m.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/Air1070/IMG_2545_zpsluwubp1m.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo IMG_2545_zpsluwubp1m.jpg"/></a>

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:28 PM
Looking at the Inglewood project: How the fuck do you get in and out of there?

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:28 PM
And thank you, Chinaski

brucey_72
01-12-2016, 05:29 PM
Carson one is much nicer

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:30 PM
Carson one is much nicer

too bad it's a landfill.

eDave
01-12-2016, 05:30 PM
Looking at the Inglewood project: How the fuck do you get in and out of there?

Gotta assume there is a freeway real close. It is LA. need to find it on a map.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 05:31 PM
Jeez, won't even let me PM anybody. Oh well.

Tell you guys what, I'm gonna start a thread over at a forum called The Vette Barn in the Off Topic Section, you can check them out there if you want...

Scott

I got you fixed up. You should be able to post them now.

DaneMcCloud
01-12-2016, 05:31 PM
Looking at the Inglewood project: How the fuck do you get in and out of there?

The Forum can be seen in the picture, so La Brea, Crenshaw, etc.

It's 12.1 miles from my house and Google is telling me it would take 1 hour, 47 to get there.

chinaski
01-12-2016, 05:32 PM
Looking at the Inglewood project: How the **** do you get in and out of there?

It's a few miles east of the 405 freeway and a few north of the 105. Despite the image, there is Freeway access, but it's gonna be a Clusterf**k for sure. I had to shoot that pic from several miles south due to airspace restrictions. That location is directly on the LAX flight path. Which certainly could present problems regarding aerial game coverage. It's a topic that has been brought up locally for awhile.

Carson on the other hand, is right off the 405 freeway.

Inglewood, traditionally, is kind of a trashy neighborhood, but I think there is some gentrification going on.

OnTheWarpath15
01-12-2016, 05:32 PM
Doesn't matter now, it's all but over.

That LA Opportunity Committee is meeting with the Raiders and Chargers, likely to come up with an agreement to break up their contract.

Rams/Chargers in LA, Oakland gets a soft landing in the form of a shit ton of money to build in Oakland.

OnTheWarpath15
01-12-2016, 05:32 PM
The Forum can be seen in the picture, so La Brea, Crenshaw, etc.

It's 12.1 miles from my house and Google is telling me it would take 1 hour, 47 to get there.

I LOVE LA!

(WE LOVE IT!)

chinaski
01-12-2016, 05:33 PM
I got you fixed up. You should be able to post them now.

Thanks! :clap:

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 05:33 PM
Looking at the Inglewood project: How the fuck do you get in and out of there?

Yeah. And where are you parking once there?

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 05:35 PM
Thanks! :clap:

You bet. We don't normally break from those restrictions early, but you had something valuable to offer, and you're apparently not a Hootie, or rudy lost the toss so we good!

Discuss Thrower
01-12-2016, 05:35 PM
It's 12.1 miles from my house and Google is telling me it would take 1 hour, 47 to get there.




Fuck.















That.





















Shit.

chinaski
01-12-2016, 05:37 PM
You bet. We don't normally break from those restrictions early, but you had something valuable to offer, and you're apparently not a Hootie, or rudy lost the toss so we good!

I won't cause any problems here. My football knowledge is certainly not as in depth as most here, but as a native Kansas Citian and longtime Chiefs fan, figured I would join up here. I've lurked on this forum for a long time. :)

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 05:38 PM
Wow. I'm reading San Diego is standing firm that they're not going to go along with this. We'll see how long it lasts, but could you imagine after all that good grace they burn it down? The Spanos family would almost have to sell the team in that case.

OnTheWarpath15
01-12-2016, 05:38 PM
Damn, when I read that the Inglewood project was in the LAX flight path, I didn't realize the site is literally just across the 405 from the airport.

Should be interesting.

eDave
01-12-2016, 05:39 PM
You bet. We don't normally break from those restrictions early, but you had something valuable to offer, and you're apparently not a Hootie, or rudy lost the toss so we good!

Loves me some Flop.

OnTheWarpath15
01-12-2016, 05:39 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Roger Goodell is discussing a new proposal with the owners. Vote coming very soon.</p>&mdash; Sam Farmer (@LATimesfarmer) <a href="https://twitter.com/LATimesfarmer/status/687053586665050115">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:41 PM
Wow. I'm reading San Diego is standing firm that they're not going to go along with this. We'll see how long it lasts, but could you imagine after all that good grace they burn it down? The Spanos family would almost have to sell the team in that case.

Well, unlike Oakland and St. Louis, the Chargers didn't chastise their fan base during this process. The Spanos family tried to play the good guy here and blamed the city's politicians, which means they'd likely be welcomed back.

Sassy Squatch
01-12-2016, 05:41 PM
Why are the Chargers getting a free ride through all of this? Fuck those ass spelunkers, let the dude with all the money do his thing in Inglewood.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 05:44 PM
I won't cause any problems here. My football knowledge is certainly not as in depth as most here, but as a native Kansas Citian and longtime Chiefs fan, figured I would join up here. I've lurked on this forum for a long time. :)

Right on, man! Welcome aboard, and thanks for the shots!

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:44 PM
Why are the Chargers getting a free ride through all of this? **** those ass spelunkers, let the dude with all the money do his thing in Inglewood.

Because they're the only franchise that actually falls under the relocation rules. 14 years and 9 stadium proposals later, the Spanos family can truthfully say they tried in San Diego and it didn't work.

Sadly, our politicians are about as crooked as they come, and they didn't start giving a shit about the Chargers until it was too late.

The Spanos family has been asking for a new stadium for a long, long time.

Cmd'r&Chief
01-12-2016, 05:45 PM
Mark Davis looks like a down syndrome Chucky doll. Should anybody be taking what this guy has to say seriously?

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 05:46 PM
Why are the Chargers getting a free ride through all of this? Fuck those ass spelunkers, let the dude with all the money do his thing in Inglewood.

Yup.

The thing that made the most sense was ALWAYS to tell the rich guy that owned a team, owned the land and had both the capital and political backing to get a stadium built in LA that he can do exactly that.

How the !@#$ it came about that the Raiders and Chargers got involved in this is beyond me.

The NFL absolutely fucked this up beyond words and all so that the owners could get an extra re-location fee and that the other two franchise could try to hold another city or two hostage.

It really is a bad look.

OnTheWarpath15
01-12-2016, 05:46 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Word is that option for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> to receive conditional approval to move &amp; give San Diego another try is on table. Chargers have ...</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687056188672847872">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">... been resistant to that solution. They don&#39;t believe they&#39;ll get public money in SD and would then trail Rams in LA.</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687056541132800000">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> began preparing months ago for contingency they&#39;d have to give SD another try. If that happens, plan to do own citizens initiative</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687057545249173504">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Mr. Flopnuts
01-12-2016, 05:48 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Word is that option for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> to receive conditional approval to move &amp; give San Diego another try is on table. Chargers have ...</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687056188672847872">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">... been resistant to that solution. They don&#39;t believe they&#39;ll get public money in SD and would then trail Rams in LA.</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687056541132800000">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> began preparing months ago for contingency they&#39;d have to give SD another try. If that happens, plan to do own citizens initiative</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687057545249173504">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What. A. Bunch. Of. Bitches.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 05:49 PM
Because they're the only franchise that actually falls under the relocation rules. 14 years and 9 stadium proposals later, the Spanos family can truthfully say they tried in San Diego and it didn't work.

Sadly, our politicians are about as crooked as they come, and they didn't start giving a shit about the Chargers until it was too late.

The Spanos family has been asking for a new stadium for a long, long time.

How the hell do you figure?

I mean sure, that's the line that Spanos will sell, but it's not too late now. Spanos turned down a stadium deal that would've given him a nice new home and would've been largely publicly financed because he didn't want to chip in anything.

Oh yeah, and because he knew the NFL would back his play to hold San Diego hostage.

Spanos shouldn't get a free ride here either, his nonsense has been as unsavory as anybodies. Davis has been a lazy free-rider, Kroenke has been a cutthroat opportunist and Spanos has been a duplicitous 'victim' who insists that it's everyone else's fault that he had to do this when he most assuredly did not.

OnTheWarpath15
01-12-2016, 05:49 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The expectation is for the Inglewood site with 2nd team option. First going to Chargers, then Raiders. Lots of moving parts.</p>&mdash; Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/687058726788833280">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

chinaski
01-12-2016, 05:50 PM
As a person that lives here, I just don't see a large portion of the population getting behind any of these teams frankly. I certainly don't want the Raiders here, I know that sentiment is reciprocated by a lot of people...and then there is a certain element that will always be Raiders fans here.

The Chargers, in my opinion, should stay in San Diego. They have a loyal fan base and it boggles my mind that some kind of agreement can't be reached regarding a stadium in that town. It's weird.

I suppose if I would want to see any team return it would be the Rams, being they have a history here. So do the Chargers, but that is so far removed at this point that it doesn't even matter.

Then consider the fact that just about everybody in this town is a fan of one NFL team or the other. It's a melting pot. I live here and call this place 'home' but I'm not going to instantly become a Rams fan because they move back. I might follow them a little more than I normally would, but I'm still indifferent?

oaklandhater
01-12-2016, 05:51 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Probably a good time for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NFL?src=hash">#NFL</a> to pull that commercial &quot;football is family&quot; featuring Todd Gurley playing with kids with Arch in background</p>&mdash; Martin Kilcoyne (@martinkilcoyne2) <a href="https://twitter.com/martinkilcoyne2/status/687057940000280576">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

:)

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 05:52 PM
What. A. Bunch. Of. Bitches.

No no no - Dean Spanos is just a victim of corrupt politicians who didn't care until it was too late....

MMXcalibur
01-12-2016, 05:52 PM
Ranking the amount of awkwardness in having to return to their current city for 2016:

1. St. Louis
2. San Diego
3. Oakland

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:52 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Word is that option for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> to receive conditional approval to move &amp; give San Diego another try is on table. Chargers have ...</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687056188672847872">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">... been resistant to that solution. They don&#39;t believe they&#39;ll get public money in SD and would then trail Rams in LA.</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687056541132800000">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> began preparing months ago for contingency they&#39;d have to give SD another try. If that happens, plan to do own citizens initiative</p>&mdash; UTKevinAcee (@UTKevinAcee) <a href="https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687057545249173504">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Here's the deal:

Our bum-fuck-save-his-own-ass Mayor SHOULD'VE gone the citizens initiative route in the first place, which would've moved things along quite a bit, as they can gather the signatures for that pretty easily. Instead, he decided to go the "public vote" route.

The problem with that is, the vote would be limited to the city of San Diego, NOT San Diego county, AND a public vote has to be done on a specific time table. The citizens of the City of San Diego are about as frugal as they come. They can't get out of their own way. They rarely approve shit, and polling suggests that they would NOT support public funding for a new stadium.

oaklandhater
01-12-2016, 05:53 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The vote on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/rams?src=hash">#rams</a> to Inglewood that nearly passed. Was rams only. Other options still in play. Including Rams/chargers. The &quot;Jerry Plan&quot;</p>&mdash; Martin Kilcoyne (@martinkilcoyne2) <a href="https://twitter.com/martinkilcoyne2/status/687028237449351168">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Kroenke is such a pos

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 05:54 PM
Ranking the amount of awkwardness in having to return to their current city for 2016:

1. St. Louis
2. San Diego
3. Oakland

Hell, Oakland's used to this by now, aren't they?

oaklandhater
01-12-2016, 05:55 PM
Hell, Oakland's used to this by now, aren't they?

many people in oakland understand why the raiders want to leave the stadium is trash and the city lied to the raiders

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 05:56 PM
Jason Cole says the Rams have approval to Inglewood, Chargers will get the option to do so as well.

oaklandhater
01-12-2016, 05:56 PM
Jason Cole says the Rams have approval to Inglewood, Chargers will get the option to do so as well.

thought the vote failed an hour ago ?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Voting update. First domino. Kroenke <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rams?src=hash">#Rams</a> Inlewood project falls short. Nearly got the 24. Some abstained. Jerry option still in play.</p>&mdash; Martin Kilcoyne (@martinkilcoyne2) <a href="https://twitter.com/martinkilcoyne2/status/687026545701957632">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:56 PM
How the hell do you figure?

I mean sure, that's the line that Spanos will sell, but it's not too late now. Spanos turned down a stadium deal that would've given him a nice new home and would've been largely publicly financed because he didn't want to chip in anything.

Oh yeah, and because he knew the NFL would back his play to hold San Diego hostage.

Spanos shouldn't get a free ride here either, his nonsense has been as unsavory as anybodies. Davis has been a lazy free-rider, Kroenke has been a cutthroat opportunist and Spanos has been a duplicitous 'victim' who insists that it's everyone else's fault that he had to do this when he most assuredly did not.

Here's the deal:

Our bum-****-save-his-own-ass Mayor SHOULD'VE gone the citizens initiative route in the first place, which would've moved things along quite a bit, as they can gather the signatures for that pretty easily. Instead, he decided to go the "public vote" route.

The problem with that is, the vote would be limited to the city of San Diego, NOT San Diego county, AND a public vote has to be done on a specific time table. The citizens of the City of San Diego are about as frugal as they come. They can't get out of their own way. They rarely approve shit, and polling suggests that they would NOT support public funding for a new stadium.

No one is saying Dean is a victim, but he's certainly been the most friendly to his city. Essentially, our Mayor stalled, knowing that this relocation issue was coming. San Diego's plan would've required VOTER Approval from a vote that couldn't legally have been had until December 2015.

December 2015...think about the timeline that both the Raiders and Rams are working on. Asking the Chargers to wait until December 2015 to MAYBE get approval for public funding while the Rams and Raiders are already filing paperwork for relocation?

That would leave them with NO leverage.

Sassy Squatch
01-12-2016, 05:57 PM
I cannot fathom how having only the Rams move to LA isn't the best option for the NFL. Greed is one thing but JFC.

oaklandhater
01-12-2016, 05:59 PM
I cannot fathom how having only the Rams move to LA isn't the best option for the NFL. Greed is one thing but JFC.

Because Spanos doesn't want to run back to SD after the way he treated the city

Earthling
01-12-2016, 05:59 PM
Guys on PTI justified it saying the NFL is entertainment. LA is the entertainment capital of the world. Not sure they believed what they were saying.

Any port in a storm.

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 05:59 PM
No one is saying Dean is a victim, but he's certainly been the most friendly to his city. Essentially, our Mayor stalled, knowing that this relocation issue was coming. San Diego's plan would've required VOTER Approval from a vote that couldn't legally have been had until December 2015.

December 2015...think about the timeline that both the Raiders and Rams are working on. Asking the Chargers to wait until December 2015 to MAYBE get approval for public funding while the Rams and Raiders are already filing paperwork for relocation?

That would leave them with NO leverage.

Also keep in mind that every poll up to this point showed that San Diego voters would NOT approve the use of public funding to fund a new stadium, and the vote would be only for those in the City of San Diego, not a county vote.

However, our Mayor could've gotten around that by going the route of a citizens initiative. But elected not to do that, allowing the Chargers to argue that he's simply stalling so he can come out of this looking like the good guy.

DJ's left nut
01-12-2016, 05:59 PM
Well Dean is saying Dean is the victim. And if I'm Spanos, I absolutely sell that.

But Spanos balked at even getting the vote. Nothing stopped him from pursuing both routes.

He didn't want to foot any of the bill so he flat out gave SD the bird. If he were actually interested in making it work, he'd have followed both courses. The relocation paperwork could've still been filed had the December vote not gone as planned. Just exactly what the hell else do Dean and his lawyers have to do in that time period?

Spanos has an easy scapegoat, but it doesn't take much critical thinking to see that he's trying to pass the buck because he simply didn't like the deal he was offered.

oaklandhater
01-12-2016, 06:00 PM
The radio here is saying rams and chargers to inglewood confirmed.

OnTheWarpath15
01-12-2016, 06:00 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Saints?src=hash">#Saints</a> Tom Benson just exited. Buckle up.</p>&mdash; Charles Robinson (@CharlesRobinson) <a href="https://twitter.com/CharlesRobinson/status/687061283489755138">January 12, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

ModSocks
01-12-2016, 06:00 PM
Because Spanos doesn't want to run back to SD after the way he treated the city

Compared to the way Kronke treated St. Louis, or the remarks Davis made about Oakland? Spanos looks like the good guy.

OnTheWarpath15
01-12-2016, 06:01 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Eagles?src=hash">#Eagles</a> Jeff Lurie and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Redskins?src=hash">#Redskins</a> Dan Snyder out. No comment.</p>&mdash; Charles Robinson (@CharlesRobinson) <a href="https://twitter.com/CharlesRobinson/status/687061795886907392">January 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

oaklandhater
01-12-2016, 06:02 PM
Compared to the way Kronke treated St. Louis, or the remarks Davis made about Oakland? Spanos looks like the good guy.

Kronke has even a harder time but Oakland screwed the Davis family over very few fan's in oakland take the cities side the Warriors are leaving the A's want out and so do the raiders there is a reason for that.

CaliforniaChief
01-12-2016, 06:02 PM
If the Raiders go back to Oakland and nobody notices, did it really happen?