Page 1 of 1

Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:02 pm
by welch
I spent last week in St Louis with the kids and grand-kids. The big football news: the Rams want to leave for Los Angeles. Ownership claims that the in-door stadium is not classy enough. The city has proposed a new stadium, but the NFL says the plan is shaky. What is also shaky? Demanding that the public build a stadium for a team...and then leaving. Raiders and Chargers also want to move to Los Angeles.

Here is an account from the St Louis Post Dispatch:

ST. LOUIS

The proposed riverfront stadium plan here is inadequate, and will not require the National Football League to block the St. Louis Rams from moving to Los Angeles, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Saturday in a report to team owners.

Goodell concludes that city leaders in all three of the communities hoping to keep their teams — Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis — have missed their opportunity, said a person who has read the report and spoke to the Post-Dispatch on condition of anonymity.

The report, sent Saturday morning to all 32 team owners, does not approve a Rams move to Los Angeles, the source said; NFL owners still have to vote on team relocation.

But it suggests that all three teams have satisfied the NFL’s relocation guidelines, opening a clear path for the owners to choose the Rams — the only team that could have been barred this year by a hometown effort. Oakland has not submitted a formal proposal, and San Diego’s plan is contingent on a public vote this summer.

The report is also a signal that NFL executives expect owners to vote on relocation at a league meeting Tuesday and Wednesday in Houston.

Saturday evening, an NFL spokesman confirmed that Goodell had sent the report, and that the action is prescribed in the league’s relocation guidelines, but said the NFL had no further comment.

Dave Peacock, co-chairman of the state task force planning the $1.1 billion riverfront stadium in St. Louis, said that he had heard the news, but hadn’t seen the report, and wouldn’t comment. “I’d be responding to a rumor,” he said.

A statement sent by the task force later Saturday evening said that members do not expect to see the report, “as that would be a matter between the league office and team owners.”

“We do hope the NFL will communicate with all home markets as to their status prior to any decisions next week,” the task force statement continued, “particularly here in St. Louis, where so many people have dedicated themselves over the past 14 months to producing a strong and certain stadium proposal for the NFL and our hometown Rams.”

The task force said it remained confident that its proposal would “speak extremely well on behalf of St. Louis as the NFL deliberates next week.”

Goodell’s report, according to the person who had read it, is 48 pages and examines what the NFL sees as the facts of each hometown’s proposal to build a new stadium and keep their teams.

Goodell says in the report that city leaders in each town agree that their current stadiums don’t work. And each city had “ample opportunity, but did not develop proposals sufficient to ensure retention of their teams,” the source said, citing the report.

In St. Louis’ case, Goodell says the task force’s riverfront stadium plan is uncertain. The Missouri Legislature could block payment of bonds necessary to build the facility, the report notes. And the task force asked for $300 million in league stadium funding, $100 million “in excess of the maximum provided under current policy,” the source said, again citing the report.

Goodell said in the report that the Rams have the right to relocate, as a contingent of their lease with the Edward Jones Dome, the source said. The Dome authority, a public body, failed to meet requirements of the lease, the source said, and defaulted.

In addition, Goodell’s report declares that both Los Angeles plans — Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium, and the Raiders’ and Chargers’ joint venture in Carson — are “first class stadiums,” the source said. Both can host two teams; both are ready for development now.

And NFL market research supports the conclusion that the L.A. area is capable of supporting two teams, the source continued.

Goodell also notes in the report, the source said, that the league hasn’t approved a franchise relocation in nearly two decades, and continues to place a “high value” on team stability.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:58 pm
by welch
The view from Los Angeles: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html

- Raiders play in the Oakland Coliseum, built in the mid-60s

- Chargers play in the re-named Jack Murphy Stadium, built about 1965

- Rams play in the Edward Jones Dome, built in 1995.
The Dome provides multiple stadium configurations that can seat up to 70,000 people. Seating levels include: a private luxury suite level with 120 suites, a private club seat and luxury suite level with 6,400 club seats, a concourse level (lower bowl) and terrace level (upper bowl)

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:35 am
by Countertrey
welch wrote:The view from Los Angeles: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html

- Raiders play in the Oakland Coliseum, built in the mid-60s

- Chargers play in the re-named Jack Murphy Stadium, built about 1965

- Rams play in the Edward Jones Dome, built in 1995.
The Dome provides multiple stadium configurations that can seat up to 70,000 people. Seating levels include: a private luxury suite level with 120 suites, a private club seat and luxury suite level with 6,400 club seats, a concourse level (lower bowl) and terrace level (upper bowl)

Fascinating...
every team (including the Rams) that has gone to LA has left ASAP... What the hell has changed?
Hopefully, if the Rams leave, the city will have legal recourse. If they didn't get some kind of commitment from the team when they built the stadium, well, that's just stupid.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:17 am
by welch
Countertrey wrote:
welch wrote:The view from Los Angeles: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html

- Raiders play in the Oakland Coliseum, built in the mid-60s

- Chargers play in the re-named Jack Murphy Stadium, built about 1965

- Rams play in the Edward Jones Dome, built in 1995.
The Dome provides multiple stadium configurations that can seat up to 70,000 people. Seating levels include: a private luxury suite level with 120 suites, a private club seat and luxury suite level with 6,400 club seats, a concourse level (lower bowl) and terrace level (upper bowl)

Fascinating...
every team (including the Rams) that has gone to LA has left ASAP... What the hell has changed?
Hopefully, if the Rams leave, the city will have legal recourse. If they didn't get some kind of commitment from the team when they built the stadium, well, that's just stupid.


The LA Rams left because the stadium (LA Coliseum, I think) did not have enough luxury suites. The Raiders and Chargers want to share a new stadium. The owner of the Rams -- a real estate millionaire (billionaire?) from St Louis -- has property in LA on which he plans to build. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that both LA plans have commitments from local government to fund the stadiums.

I've heard that the St Louis lease has a loophole. Yes, that's a big mistake. Still, it's strange that a stadium built 20 years ago with luxury suites is already obsolete.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:40 am
by Countertrey
welch wrote:
Countertrey wrote: Fascinating...
every team (including the Rams) that has gone to LA has left ASAP... What the hell has changed?
Hopefully, if the Rams leave, the city will have legal recourse. If they didn't get some kind of commitment from the team when they built the stadium, well, that's just stupid.


The LA Rams left because the stadium (LA Coliseum, I think) did not have enough luxury suites. The Raiders and Chargers want to share a new stadium. The owner of the Rams -- a real estate millionaire (billionaire?) from St Louis -- has property in LA on which he plans to build. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that both LA plans have commitments from local government to fund the stadiums.

I've heard that the St Louis lease has a loophole. Yes, that's a big mistake. Still, it's strange that a stadium built 20 years ago with luxury suites is already obsolete.
I get that... but, doesn't it seem that, if the largest city in the country were truly a viable NFL market, there would NEVER be a time that it had no NFL team?

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:08 pm
by welch
Countertrey wrote:
welch wrote:
Countertrey wrote: Fascinating...
every team (including the Rams) that has gone to LA has left ASAP... What the hell has changed?
Hopefully, if the Rams leave, the city will have legal recourse. If they didn't get some kind of commitment from the team when they built the stadium, well, that's just stupid.


The LA Rams left because the stadium (LA Coliseum, I think) did not have enough luxury suites. The Raiders and Chargers want to share a new stadium. The owner of the Rams -- a real estate millionaire (billionaire?) from St Louis -- has property in LA on which he plans to build. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that both LA plans have commitments from local government to fund the stadiums.

I've heard that the St Louis lease has a loophole. Yes, that's a big mistake. Still, it's strange that a stadium built 20 years ago with luxury suites is already obsolete.
I get that... but, doesn't it seem that, if the largest city in the country were truly a viable NFL market, there would NEVER be a time that it had no NFL team?


Agreed. I thought it was strange that both the Raiders and then the Rams left. LA is a giant market; it had the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl, and both have about 100,000 seats. Maybe this shows the value of luxury boxes? Not long ago, New Jersey built an extra set of skyboxes at Giants Stadium. Awesome things extending and above skyboxes that had already been built. Private elevators hat ran up the back side of the real stands. So high that the skybox owners usually watched the game on TV. About five years ago, New Jersey replaced Giant Stadium with MetLife Stadium.

None of it makes good sense.

Here is the latest from the LA Times: appears that NFL owners want the Chargers and Rams to share a new stadium that would cost more than $2 billion and would include many "extras".

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

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:25 am
by flamethrower
Rams got a vote of 30 for them to relocate to L.A. and 2 against.
Rams are officially gone from Saint Louis.
I thought that the Chargers sharing a stadium with the Raiders was a dumb idea, and I still do.
Raiders probably have to find another plan.
Chargers should be allowed to share Stadium with Rams. This makes the most sense for them.
Raiders could move several places. I'll list them in order of common sense
#1 they share the stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers until they get another stadium built in either Sacramento, or San Jose, or just stay there like the Jets, and Giants do in New Jersey.
#2 they move to San Diego
#3 they move to Portland Oregon after a stadium is built there
and now for the wild ideas that probably won't happen
#4 they move to Saint Louis and play in the Edward James Dome for a few years til St.Louis and them build a new stadium.
#5 they move to San Antonio. Alamo Dome is already built, and they can play there for a few years until a new Stadium is built for them.
#6 they move to Las Vegas. I freely admit that this ain't happening, but would be a fun road trip
#7 they move to Honolulu Hawaii. I freely admit that now I am seriously reaching here
#8 they move to Salt Lake City. Probably won't ever have an NFL team.
#9 they move to Albuquerque New Mexico
#10 they move to New York City and keep the Oakland Raiders name. I needed a 10th one, and I wanted one that was beyond stupid to finish it off.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:13 am
by SkinsJock
It certainly looks like the Chargers will soon be a part of the Rams deal in LA ...

Davis and the Raiders seem to have limited options and not having the personal wealth (like Spanos & Kroenke) has hurt him here ...

money talks

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:13 am
by Countertrey
Honolulu... so, how does a state with a total population of 1.42 million, and where only 953K are even able to drive to a game support a team? If you figure that out, you could probably get use of any property in the state that you want, for the rest of your life! Serious reach, I agree... but that would be one happy ohana.


... and the cheerleaders would be instant winners!

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:00 pm
by Deadskins
flamethrower wrote:Rams got a vote of 30 for them to relocate to L.A. and 2 against.
Rams are officially gone from Saint Louis.
I thought that the Chargers sharing a stadium with the Raiders was a dumb idea, and I still do.
Raiders probably have to find another plan.
Chargers should be allowed to share Stadium with Rams. This makes the most sense for them.
Raiders could move several places. I'll list them in order of common sense
#1 they share the stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers until they get another stadium built in either Sacramento, or San Jose, or just stay there like the Jets, and Giants do in New Jersey.
#2 they move to San Diego
#3 they move to Portland Oregon after a stadium is built there
and now for the wild ideas that probably won't happen
#4 they move to Saint Louis and play in the Edward James Dome for a few years til St.Louis and them build a new stadium.
#5 they move to San Antonio. Alamo Dome is already built, and they can play there for a few years until a new Stadium is built for them.
#6 they move to Las Vegas. I freely admit that this ain't happening, but would be a fun road trip
#7 they move to Honolulu Hawaii. I freely admit that now I am seriously reaching here
#8 they move to Salt Lake City. Probably won't ever have an NFL team.
#9 they move to Albuquerque New Mexico
#10 they move to New York City and keep the Oakland Raiders name. I needed a 10th one, and I wanted one that was beyond stupid to finish it off.

How about?
#11 they move to London, and give the NFL the European presence they want so bad.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:08 pm
by flamethrower
Deadskins wrote:
flamethrower wrote:Rams got a vote of 30 for them to relocate to L.A. and 2 against.
Rams are officially gone from Saint Louis.
I thought that the Chargers sharing a stadium with the Raiders was a dumb idea, and I still do.
Raiders probably have to find another plan.
Chargers should be allowed to share Stadium with Rams. This makes the most sense for them.
Raiders could move several places. I'll list them in order of common sense
#1 they share the stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers until they get another stadium built in either Sacramento, or San Jose, or just stay there like the Jets, and Giants do in New Jersey.
#2 they move to San Diego
#3 they move to Portland Oregon after a stadium is built there
and now for the wild ideas that probably won't happen
#4 they move to Saint Louis and play in the Edward James Dome for a few years til St.Louis and them build a new stadium.
#5 they move to San Antonio. Alamo Dome is already built, and they can play there for a few years until a new Stadium is built for them.
#6 they move to Las Vegas. I freely admit that this ain't happening, but would be a fun road trip
#7 they move to Honolulu Hawaii. I freely admit that now I am seriously reaching here
#8 they move to Salt Lake City. Probably won't ever have an NFL team.
#9 they move to Albuquerque New Mexico
#10 they move to New York City and keep the Oakland Raiders name. I needed a 10th one, and I wanted one that was beyond stupid to finish it off.

How about?
#11 they move to London, and give the NFL the European presence they want so bad.

I wanted to stop at 10. Yes your #11 fits perfectly as the actual #10. To all other posters who have commented. Read the line between #3 and #4.
It says "And now for the wild ideas that probably won't happen". I just wanted to show how stupid it is to have 3 teams in L.A. . Rams, and Chargers in L.A. works for me. I didn't like the first time the Raiders moved to L.A. . I sure don't like this repeat. Raiders have plenty of other options. I listed a few. I bet there are more than I listed. I wouldn't be shocked to see them in San Jose in about 5 years. San Jose actually has land set aside for the A's. The A's have been blocked by the San Francisco Giants. So there is actually land there set aside already to build a stadium.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:41 pm
by Countertrey
flamethrower wrote: To all other posters who have commented. Read the line between #3 and #4.
It says "And now for the wild ideas that probably won't happen". I just wanted to show how stupid it is to have 3 teams in L.A.

Ummm... which is why I stated...
Serious reach, I agree
in my response about Honolulu... I just imagine that, while completely unviable, it would be an incredible venue for an NFL team... and, as I said.. the person who figures out how to do it get's an incredible home for life. (even though the team would NEVER win an away game due to permanent jet lag)

Mahalo, hoaloha! Pilikia 'a'ole.

Image

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:09 pm
by Deadskins
No surfing! would become a contract staple.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:17 pm
by DEHog
Countertrey wrote:
flamethrower wrote: To all other posters who have commented. Read the line between #3 and #4.
It says "And now for the wild ideas that probably won't happen". I just wanted to show how stupid it is to have 3 teams in L.A.

Ummm... which is why I stated...
Serious reach, I agree
in my response about Honolulu... I just imagine that, while completely unviable, it would be an incredible venue for an NFL team... and, as I said.. the person who figures out how to do it get's an incredible home for life. (even though the team would NEVER win an away game due to permanent jet lag)

Mahalo, hoaloha! Pilikia 'a'ole.

Image

That stadium would be filled every week!! It would be with the visiting team's fans but filled none the less!! :D

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:16 pm
by flamethrower
Countertrey wrote:
flamethrower wrote: To all other posters who have commented. Read the line between #3 and #4.
It says "And now for the wild ideas that probably won't happen". I just wanted to show how stupid it is to have 3 teams in L.A.

Ummm... which is why I stated...
Serious reach, I agree
in my response about Honolulu... I just imagine that, while completely unviable, it would be an incredible venue for an NFL team... and, as I said.. the person who figures out how to do it get's an incredible home for life. (even though the team would NEVER win an away game due to permanent jet lag)

Mahalo, hoaloha! Pilikia 'a'ole.

Image

Love the photo. But, I am actually in total agreement with you. The only time a pro football league had a team in Hawaii was the WFL. I have no idea how the attendance was. I also admitted that it was a reach. Longer than the distance of the Grand Canyon.
Where would I like to see the Raiders move to? Either San Jose California, Portland Oregon, or San Antonio Texas. My personal first choice seeing that I live in Texas is easy. San Jose California, or Santa Clara California sharing with the 49ers. Because I feel that The Bay area could support both teams if they would be willing to work together.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:54 pm
by welch
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 450ae.html

HOUSTON • An ebullient Jerry Jones, one of the leading backers of Stan Kroenke’s now-approved relocation to Los Angeles, gushed Tuesday night over the prospect of the Rams’ playing in a $2 billion-plus stadium in Inglewood.

“Stan is a tremendous asset for the NFL,” said Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys. “He’s God-sent really. He gave us, and is giving us the opportunity with this great project, to do what we need to do in Los Angeles.

“It’s such a natural to have the Los Angeles Rams be in Los Angeles.”

He also praised NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for his role in steering the Rams out of St. Louis and to Los Angeles.

“Our commissioner was brilliant in how he led the ownership to this decision,” Jones said Tuesday evening, shortly after a second round of voting produced a landslide 30-2 vote in favor of the Rams’ relocation.

It has been apparent for weeks, months even, that neither the Carson plan of San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos (teamed with Mark Davis and the Oakland Raiders), nor Kroenke’s Inglewood plan had enough votes to be approved.

Jones helped break the stalemate. As the NFL owners gathered here in Houston, Jonens proposed an alternate resolution — namely having the Chargers join Kroenke and the Rams in the Inglewood project.

Although the Chargers continued to balk, the league eventually approved a plan in which Spanos’ team has a year to join Kroenke and the Rams in Ingelwood. If the Chargers decide against that, the Raiders can then opt to join Kroenke.

Both teams were told by the league that they would be given an extra $100 million — on top of the league’s existing $200 million stadium fund — if they decided instead to build a stadium in their home markets.

As owner after owner checked out of the Westin Memorial City hotel here, they expressed how Tuesday’s result left everybody happy.

“This is a great solution,” Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said.

But where does this leave St. Louis, New York Giants owner Steve Tisch was asked. Out of luck?

Tisch paused, smiled, and said: “Apparently.”

Jones insisted that wasn’t the case.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:47 pm
by Countertrey
Some fan base always gets screwed.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:49 pm
by Burgundy&GoldForever
Countertrey wrote:Some fan base always gets screwed.


Why do you have to make everything about the Redskins? 8-[

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:51 pm
by Countertrey
Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Some fan base always gets screwed.


Why do you have to make everything about the Redskins? 8-[


Get OUT OF MY HEAD!!! [-X

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:22 pm
by welch
(1) The loophole that allowed Rams owner Stan Kroenke to walk away from a stadium/conference complex built only 20 years ago: the lease agreement said that the St Louis stadium had to be among the top 10% of NFL stadiums, where "top 10%" was a slippery -- re-definable -- judgement.

(2) Deadspin has the best coverage of Rams/Raiders/Chargers, but I would have to post them in the Smack forum. A columnist for the NY Times says nearly the same thing without some of the colorful words:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/sport ... ries-below


Hello, They Must Be Going {yes...a reference to a Groucho Marx song}

by Michael Powell

Bye-bye.

The No Guarantee League this week did what it does best, which is to unsentimentally discard loyalties, cities and players in service of an owner’s bottom line.

The N.F.L. owners voted this week to let the billionaire owner of the St. Louis Rams move his team to just outside Los Angeles, a move consistent with this league’s tear-’em-up, toss-’em-out ethos.

The players know this drill. Fall out of favor with a coach? Take too long to recover from an injury? Unless you’re an N.F.L. star, you have a problem. Garry Gillam, a behemoth of a man, offered a stirring story as he went from an undrafted player to starting at tackle for the Seattle Seahawks. He signed a three-year, $1.5 million contract.

However, if in the next game he misses a few blocks or gets nicked up and his coaches tire of him, Seattle could release him and pay just the guaranteed portion of his contract, which is to say $12,000.

Most American cities are offensive tackles. San Diego? Oakland? Cleveland? Buffalo? Baltimore? Ask league officials, and they’ll assure you that they dig your collective pigskin history. But please. If the San Diego fathers and mothers fail to ante up for a new stadium, if Oakland fails to agree to sluice all the money from luxury boxes, seat licenses and naming rights into the pockets of a wealthy owner? Harry, call the moving van.

St. Louis made a yeoman’s struggle to keep the Rams. It found a pretty site alongside the Mississippi and offered to put up $400 million, and all the little extras that add up to $100 million here and $80 million there. They asked — politely, gently — that the owner Stan Kroenke pay $250 million or so, but he could have offset most of that by claiming all the money from the stadium naming rights.

The Rams slotted the N.F.L. to contribute $300 million. Commissioner Roger Goodell treated that offer as a near inconceivable insult.

“This premise is fundamentally inconsistent with the N.F.L.’s program of stadium financing,” Goodell wrote to the St. Louis Stadium Task Force.

Goodell’s annual compensation runs north of $30 million.

All of which brings us to those owners. We’ll start with Kroenke, a man whose father named him after the legendary St. Louis Cardinals slugger Stan Musial.

Kroenke has done reasonably well in life: He is worth $6 billion, and his wife, who hailed from the Wal-Mart Waltons, contributed her own $4.9 billion to their connubial bliss. They live in a palazzo in Columbia, Mo., and so might have been expected to put a sentimental thumb on the scale for St. Louis.

That would be no. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch obtained the Kroenke proposal to the league, making the case for the Los Angeles metropolitan area and against St. Louis. He was unsparing. “Compared to all other U.S. cities,” his proposal stated, “St. Louis is struggling.”

Et tu, Stan?

The N.F.L. has baroque rules of self-governance, not the least covering how it splits revenue. Owners all share in television and general ticket revenue. But luxury boxes are pure gold, and a team’s owner doesn’t have to share a penny of that revenue with the owners of other teams.

This has led to an arms race, as owners seek to build ever-grander stadiums with ever-more-luxurious boxes.

“It’s very hard for the great American cities of 50 years ago to compete,” noted Victor A. Matheson, an economics professor at the College of the Holy Cross and a longtime critic of tax giveaways for stadiums. “St. Louis has a baseball team because of what they did in earlier centuries.”

It is no different elsewhere. Five hundred miles to the north, Minneapolis, a handsome if currently frozen-solid city, has held tight to its Vikings. But it succeeded only after its politicians agreed to help build a mighty $1 billion ziggurat for the team. The mayor also sidestepped a law requiring a voter referendum before pouring hundreds of millions of public dollars into a sports stadium.

Meanwhile, 1,900 miles to the southwest of St. Louis, the citizens of San Diego hold to their team by a fraying rope. The owners, the Spanos family, have complained for years that the city will not use tax dollars to build them a new stadium. (The Chargers’ first owner was a famous gambler and a buddy of a mob-connected Los Angeles lawyer. This lineage is not unusual; several of the N.F.L.’s founding fathers made fortunes in bootlegging, gambling and other vaguely licit capitalist enterprises).


<snip>

The rest of the article, including a graphic of the restless franchises of the NFL, is well worth a read.

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:06 pm
by Countertrey
welch wrote:

Hello, They Must Be Going {yes...a reference to a Groucho Marx song}

by Michael Powell

The Rams slotted the N.F.L. to contribute $300 million. Commissioner Roger Goodell treated that offer as a near inconceivable insult.

<snip>“This premise is fundamentally inconsistent with the N.F.L.’s program of stadium financing,” Goodell wrote to the St. Louis Stadium Task Force..


Facinating... still looking for the article I read yesterday which noted that the NFL will contribute $200 million for construction of a stadium, via it's construction fund... Goodell told St Louis that anything more was not possible... however, the minute the decision was made yesterday, the league announced that, in addition to the 200 mil it would contribute for the LA stadium, it was going to toss in another $100 million! WHAT??? $300 Million isn't consistent for St Louis, but suddenly, because it's LA, there's a policy change????? WTH?????? St Louis fans should be LIVID!!!

St Louis fans! Welcome to OUR world of Mara screw jobs! Medium and Small market NFL fans... YOU are NEXT!

Re: Rams, Raiders, Chargers want to move to LA

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:51 pm
by welch
Countertrey wrote:
welch wrote:

Hello, They Must Be Going {yes...a reference to a Groucho Marx song}

by Michael Powell

The Rams slotted the N.F.L. to contribute $300 million. Commissioner Roger Goodell treated that offer as a near inconceivable insult.

<snip>“This premise is fundamentally inconsistent with the N.F.L.’s program of stadium financing,” Goodell wrote to the St. Louis Stadium Task Force..


Facinating... still looking for the article I read yesterday which noted that the NFL will contribute $200 million for construction of a stadium, via it's construction fund... Goodell told St Louis that anything more was not possible... however, the minute the decision was made yesterday, the league announced that, in addition to the 200 mil it would contribute for the LA stadium, it was going to toss in another $100 million! WHAT??? $300 Million isn't consistent for St Louis, but suddenly, because it's LA, there's a policy change????? WTH?????? St Louis fans should be LIVID!!!

St Louis fans! Welcome to OUR world of Mara screw jobs! Medium and Small market NFL fans... YOU are NEXT!


I saw the same article (or two) saying that the NFL would give an extra $100 million toward the new LA stadium. Yes, St Louis fans are furious. Deadspin noted that "Tiger Bob" Irsay at least had the decency to sneak out of Baltimore in the middle of the night. Rams and NFL dragged St Louis -- and Missouri -- through a swamp. Oakland and San Diego, so far, have not bothered to offer public money to build stadiums.