(10-19-2015 02:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The NFL will be holding a dog-and-pony show later this month in each of the three cities whose teams publicly aspire to move to Los Angeles:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...-san-diego

Quote:The NFL announced today that it will conduct public hearings later this month in Oakland, St. Louis and San Diego as part of the league's procedures for evaluating potential franchise relocations. The hearings will take place on October 27 (St. Louis), October 28 (San Diego) and October 29 (Oakland).

The purpose of these hearings is to provide an opportunity for fans and others in the community to ask questions and express their views directly to the NFL before any decisions are made about potential relocation of a club or clubs from a current market. Members of Commissioner Goodell's executive staff will be in attendance to listen to comments and answer questions from the audience.

Each hearing will take place from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. local time and will be streamed live on NFL.com/publichearings.

The hearings are open to the public and a free entry pass is required to attend. Pre-registration to request an entry pass begins tomorrow. Information on how to submit your request is provided below.

Entry passes will be reserved for season ticket members of each team on a first-come, first-serve basis. Members of the community who are not season ticket members will also have the opportunity to request an entry pass on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Do you plan on going to one? I'm getting the impression that it's going be nothing more than a public vent forum. the city gov't of Oakland and SD have nothing regarding new stadium and while STL does have a proposal, the Rams owner couldn't care less.

(10-20-2015 11:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 02:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The NFL will be holding a dog-and-pony show later this month in each of the three cities whose teams publicly aspire to move to Los Angeles:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...-san-diego

Quote:The NFL announced today that it will conduct public hearings later this month in Oakland, St. Louis and San Diego as part of the league's procedures for evaluating potential franchise relocations. The hearings will take place on October 27 (St. Louis), October 28 (San Diego) and October 29 (Oakland).

The purpose of these hearings is to provide an opportunity for fans and others in the community to ask questions and express their views directly to the NFL before any decisions are made about potential relocation of a club or clubs from a current market. Members of Commissioner Goodell's executive staff will be in attendance to listen to comments and answer questions from the audience.

Each hearing will take place from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. local time and will be streamed live on NFL.com/publichearings.

The hearings are open to the public and a free entry pass is required to attend. Pre-registration to request an entry pass begins tomorrow. Information on how to submit your request is provided below.

Entry passes will be reserved for season ticket members of each team on a first-come, first-serve basis. Members of the community who are not season ticket members will also have the opportunity to request an entry pass on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Do you plan on going to one? I'm getting the impression that it's going be nothing more than a public vent forum. the city gov't of Oakland and SD have nothing regarding new stadium and while STL does have a proposal, the Rams owner couldn't care less.

I might watch on the internet. I agree that it looks pointless. There were hundreds of Raiders fans demonstrating when the NFL had some meeting in SF a few months ago. It'll be the same people showing up at the Paramount Theatre for the forum there. We can already predict what the fans are going to say. In Oakland, it will be, "Hey, NFL, we love our Raiders so much that you shouldn't penalize us for having a bumbling city government." In St. Louis and San Diego, it will be, "Hey, NFL, you should force these greedy owners to take whatever deal we offer, even though the owner will still have to pay between $500 million and $1 billion, instead of allowing them to seek the best deal wherever they can."

Speaking of the latter... the NFL told all three cities that their final-final new stadium proposal has to be submitted to the league (not to the team) before the December NFL owners' meeting. I'd be surprised if Oakland submits anything more than "we're still working on it", but reportedly the other two cities will submit detailed term sheets.

The greedy owners just want to own an NFL franchise in LA. So fine, make it so they can't take the team name, logos, history, etc. out of the city, even if they do move the team.

(10-20-2015 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I might watch on the internet. I agree that it looks pointless. There were hundreds of Raiders fans demonstrating when the NFL had some meeting in SF a few months ago. It'll be the same people showing up at the Paramount Theatre for the forum there. We can already predict what the fans are going to say. In Oakland, it will be, "Hey, NFL, we love our Raiders so much that you shouldn't penalize us for having a bumbling city government." In St. Louis and San Diego, it will be, "Hey, NFL, you should force these greedy owners to take whatever deal we offer, even though the owner will still have to pay between $500 million and $1 billion, instead of allowing them to seek the best deal wherever they can."

Speaking of the latter... the NFL told all three cities that their final-final new stadium proposal has to be submitted to the league (not to the team) before the December NFL owners' meeting. I'd be surprised if Oakland submits anything more than "we're still working on it", but reportedly the other two cities will submit detailed term sheets.

I think Oakland will simply rehash the Coliseum City proposal. Though I think Oakland's major hold up is the fact that the A's don't have a place to go because I think the Coliseum could be rehabbed if it's a football only facility. I haven't seen anything from San Diego so I can only imagine they will propose rehabilitation of Jack Murphy Stadium, much to the displease of Spanos.

(10-20-2015 01:23 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I might watch on the internet. I agree that it looks pointless. There were hundreds of Raiders fans demonstrating when the NFL had some meeting in SF a few months ago. It'll be the same people showing up at the Paramount Theatre for the forum there. We can already predict what the fans are going to say. In Oakland, it will be, "Hey, NFL, we love our Raiders so much that you shouldn't penalize us for having a bumbling city government." In St. Louis and San Diego, it will be, "Hey, NFL, you should force these greedy owners to take whatever deal we offer, even though the owner will still have to pay between $500 million and $1 billion, instead of allowing them to seek the best deal wherever they can."

Speaking of the latter... the NFL told all three cities that their final-final new stadium proposal has to be submitted to the league (not to the team) before the December NFL owners' meeting. I'd be surprised if Oakland submits anything more than "we're still working on it", but reportedly the other two cities will submit detailed term sheets.

I think Oakland will simply rehash the Coliseum City proposal. Though I think Oakland's major hold up is the fact that the A's don't have a place to go because I think the Coliseum could be rehabbed if it's a football only facility. I haven't seen anything from San Diego so I can only imagine they will propose rehabilitation of Jack Murphy Stadium, much to the displease of Spanos.

Oakland: Latest report is that the Raiders have a particular developer in mind and want the city/county to work with them, now that they ditched the guy who had the awful first plan, but the city and county haven't signed onto that. The Raiders haven't detailed ideas publicly, but my guess is that their plan would involve a football stadium on the current Coliseum parcel and paying for the "public contribution" by using all of the rest of the city/county owned land there for real estate development, i.e., they would have to evict the A's or wait until the A's lease is up (in 8 years, IIRC).

San Diego: The proposal they have on the table, which the mayor has shopped in face-to-face meetings with the owners on the "Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities", is for a new stadium in the parking lot of Qualcomm (Jack Murphy) Stadium. They would then tear down the old stadium and use that land for parking as was done in Denver. Dean Spanos doesn't support the plan. There is an outside chance of an alternative proposal for a stadium near Petco Park, but my guess is that they won't be able to make a fully-formed proposal on that by December, and so the "best offer" presented at the owners' meeting will be the new stadium next to where the Q is now.

(10-20-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The greedy owners just want to own an NFL franchise in LA. So fine, make it so they can't take the team name, logos, history, etc. out of the city, even if they do move the team.

All three teams have history with LA, why are the current locations more deserving of retaining the name and history?

(10-20-2015 01:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Oakland: Latest report is that the Raiders have a particular developer in mind and want the city/county to work with them, now that they ditched the guy who had the awful first plan, but the city and county haven't signed onto that. The Raiders haven't detailed ideas publicly, but my guess is that their plan would involve a football stadium on the current Coliseum parcel and paying for the "public contribution" by using all of the rest of the city/county owned land there for real estate development, i.e., they would have to evict the A's or wait until the A's lease is up (in 8 years, IIRC).

San Diego: The proposal they have on the table, which the mayor has shopped in face-to-face meetings with the owners on the "Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities", is for a new stadium in the parking lot of Qualcomm (Jack Murphy) Stadium. They would then tear down the old stadium and use that land for parking as was done in Denver. Dean Spanos doesn't support the plan. There is an outside chance of an alternative proposal for a stadium near Petco Park, but my guess is that they won't be able to make a fully-formed proposal on that by December, and so the "best offer" presented at the owners' meeting will be the new stadium next to where the Q is now.

Thanks for the links. Though I know the Q sits on a flood plain, I'm not sure why a new stadium there would pass EIS. Spanos definitely isn't getting a facility in downtown SD IMO. The Oakland idea is a dream that without the city's assistance, doesn't look as if it has a chance. I was listening to Howie Long on the radio on Monday and he felt that the NFL was positioning itself to leave the Raiders out to dry.

(10-21-2015 07:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 01:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The greedy owners just want to own an NFL franchise in LA. So fine, make it so they can't take the team name, logos, history, etc. out of the city, even if they do move the team.

All three teams have history with LA, why are the current locations more deserving of retaining the name and history?

Doesn't matter. Sue anyway. That's the American way, at least.

Particularly St. Louis. Kroenke doesn't give a poop about the Rams. He just wants to own an NFL franchise in LA, in his Inglewood Dome.

So if that is to come to pass, then let him do it without the Rams brand, history, etc.


The other two I feel less strongly about.

(10-21-2015 07:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 01:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Oakland: Latest report is that the Raiders have a particular developer in mind and want the city/county to work with them, now that they ditched the guy who had the awful first plan, but the city and county haven't signed onto that. The Raiders haven't detailed ideas publicly, but my guess is that their plan would involve a football stadium on the current Coliseum parcel and paying for the "public contribution" by using all of the rest of the city/county owned land there for real estate development, i.e., they would have to evict the A's or wait until the A's lease is up (in 8 years, IIRC).

San Diego: The proposal they have on the table, which the mayor has shopped in face-to-face meetings with the owners on the "Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities", is for a new stadium in the parking lot of Qualcomm (Jack Murphy) Stadium. They would then tear down the old stadium and use that land for parking as was done in Denver. Dean Spanos doesn't support the plan. There is an outside chance of an alternative proposal for a stadium near Petco Park, but my guess is that they won't be able to make a fully-formed proposal on that by December, and so the "best offer" presented at the owners' meeting will be the new stadium next to where the Q is now.

Thanks for the links. Though I know the Q sits on a flood plain, I'm not sure why a new stadium there would pass EIS. Spanos definitely isn't getting a facility in downtown SD IMO. The Oakland idea is a dream that without the city's assistance, doesn't look as if it has a chance. I was listening to Howie Long on the radio on Monday and he felt that the NFL was positioning itself to leave the Raiders out to dry.

Why is the downtown SD stadium dead? It looks really nice, and right by Petco. Seems like a really logical place for there to be a stadium. Similar to Seattle.

If Spanos can't pay $500million to make it a reality, then let him pay that money over time. Have the city borrow everything to build it and then charge him interest on his owed $500million share. Surely, he can pay it all back over 30 years.


No reason to have two stadiums in the bay area. Oakland can make an agreement to play in Levi Stadium or they can move to LA and play either in Kroenke's Dome or try to make Carson work.

The Raiders are the ones I most support moving to LA.

Why doesn't the NFL just offer LA an expansion team and get it over with. Just moving teams for the sake of "markets" while fans of a town loses a team is just nonsense to me. Lord I despise the NFL and Goodell.

Plus,

Teams/brands failed there in the past, what makes me think that they'll be successful in LA this go-around.

(10-21-2015 09:19 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why doesn't the NFL just offer LA an expansion team and get it over with. Just moving teams for the sake of "markets" while fans of a town loses a team is just nonsense to me. Lord I despise the NFL and Goodell.

Add two expansion teams, one each to the NFC and AFC West divisions.

Then add another six markets. Orlando, San Antonio, Salt Lake, Las Vegas, Portland, Birmingham.

(10-21-2015 09:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why is the downtown SD stadium dead? It looks really nice, and right by Petco. Seems like a really logical place for there to be a stadium. Similar to Seattle.

If Spanos can't pay $500million to make it a reality, then let him pay that money over time. Have the city borrow everything to build it and then charge him interest on his owed $500million share. Surely, he can pay it all back over 30 years.

It's just my opinion but the downtown site doesn't have the land secured yet while the Q already has the space. And while Spanos could pay in installments, he wouldn't nearly make as much money as he would like.

Quote:No reason to have two stadiums in the bay area. Oakland can make an agreement to play in Levi Stadium or they can move to LA and play either in Kroenke's Dome or try to make Carson work.

The Raiders are the ones I most support moving to LA.

Well Davis has already stated that he's not interested in playing at Levi's stadium.

(10-21-2015 10:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 09:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why is the downtown SD stadium dead? It looks really nice, and right by Petco. Seems like a really logical place for there to be a stadium. Similar to Seattle.

If Spanos can't pay $500million to make it a reality, then let him pay that money over time. Have the city borrow everything to build it and then charge him interest on his owed $500million share. Surely, he can pay it all back over 30 years.

It's just my opinion but the downtown site doesn't have the land secured yet while the Q already has the space. And while Spanos could pay in installments, he wouldn't nearly make as much money as he would like.

Quote:No reason to have two stadiums in the bay area. Oakland can make an agreement to play in Levi Stadium or they can move to LA and play either in Kroenke's Dome or try to make Carson work.

The Raiders are the ones I most support moving to LA.

Well Davis has already stated that he's not interested in playing at Levi's stadium.

I understand.

Raiders and Chargers to LA, then, in Carson, in a few years. Which is exactly what they've said they're going to do.

(10-21-2015 09:19 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why doesn't the NFL just offer LA an expansion team and get it over with. Just moving teams for the sake of "markets" while fans of a town loses a team is just nonsense to me. Lord I despise the NFL and Goodell.

If there's a way to screw up this rush to LA, Goodell will find it, for sure.

As for an expansion team: I think that Dean Spanos will oppose any team (expansion or otherwise) going to LA if the Chargers have to stay in SD. If Spanos has enough owner votes to block a move to LA that doesn't include the Chargers, then he also has enough votes to block an expansion team going to LA if the Chargers have to stay in SD. Maybe there's a solution in which the Rams or an expansion team go to LA while the Chargers get a nine-figure bribe, errrr, "subsidy" to stay in SD with a new stadium. In any event it looks like the teams that don't go to LA will get a "subsidy", somehow. The advantage to the NFL of letting the Rams go to LA is that they can make Kroenke pay that subsidy and call it a "relocation fee", whereas if it's anyone else, the NFL will have to pay it.

(10-21-2015 07:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 01:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Oakland: Latest report is that the Raiders have a particular developer in mind and want the city/county to work with them, now that they ditched the guy who had the awful first plan, but the city and county haven't signed onto that. The Raiders haven't detailed ideas publicly, but my guess is that their plan would involve a football stadium on the current Coliseum parcel and paying for the "public contribution" by using all of the rest of the city/county owned land there for real estate development, i.e., they would have to evict the A's or wait until the A's lease is up (in 8 years, IIRC).

San Diego: The proposal they have on the table, which the mayor has shopped in face-to-face meetings with the owners on the "Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities", is for a new stadium in the parking lot of Qualcomm (Jack Murphy) Stadium. They would then tear down the old stadium and use that land for parking as was done in Denver. Dean Spanos doesn't support the plan. There is an outside chance of an alternative proposal for a stadium near Petco Park, but my guess is that they won't be able to make a fully-formed proposal on that by December, and so the "best offer" presented at the owners' meeting will be the new stadium next to where the Q is now.

Thanks for the links. Though I know the Q sits on a flood plain, I'm not sure why a new stadium there would pass EIS. Spanos definitely isn't getting a facility in downtown SD IMO. The Oakland idea is a dream that without the city's assistance, doesn't look as if it has a chance. I was listening to Howie Long on the radio on Monday and he felt that the NFL was positioning itself to leave the Raiders out to dry.

I think Howie is right that if this comes down to the NFL owners choosing between three fellow owners, Mark Davis will finish in third place. The Raiders' best, and maybe only, shot at getting to LA is if there is some grand deal made that involves one of the other owners getting a too-good-to-turn-down deal to not go to LA.

As I said in my previous comment, I think the Raiders will get money for not moving. Some fans will fantasize that one or more of these owners will get absolutely stiffed, but the NFL isn't going to do that. They'll give money (and/or benefits that translate into money) to the teams that don't go to LA. Or, they'll kick the can down the road and wait another year to decide.

I agree that the Raiders' apparent Oakland idea can't work unless the city essentially gives its Coliseum-area land to the Raiders and says, build your own stadium and squeeze as much money as you can out of the rest of that land. Even then I'd be very skeptical that the Raiders would do it. The Chargers explored several similar schemes in the San Diego area and walked away from them because they would have been taking the risk that the development of the excess land would produce enough revenue to pay for the stadium. NFL owners prefer to get their windfalls risk-free.

Now, if the Raiders leave and Oakland offered that deal to the A's, there is a greater possibility the A's would accept, because a new ballpark will cost much less than a new football stadium -- less risk because they need to squeeze less revenue out of the land. Also, the A's owners, despite their penny-pinching operation of the team, have a lot of money to play with, beyond the value of their franchise, and the Raiders don't.

Well my prediction, for what it's worth is this:

- Spanos and Davis get enough owners to block Kroenke from moving the Rams to LA
- Spanos and Davis aren't ready to move on the Carson project yet, so will come back to the NFL in a couple years, ready to go
- Kroenke gets pissed off at sells the Rams
- New Rams owner accepts the new stadium deal in STL

(10-21-2015 12:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I think Howie is right that if this comes down to the NFL owners choosing between three fellow owners, Mark Davis will finish in third place. The Raiders' best, and maybe only, shot at getting to LA is if there is some grand deal made that involves one of the other owners getting a too-good-to-turn-down deal to not go to LA.

As I said in my previous comment, I think the Raiders will get money for not moving. Some fans will fantasize that one or more of these owners will get absolutely stiffed, but the NFL isn't going to do that. They'll give money (and/or benefits that translate into money) to the teams that don't go to LA. Or, they'll kick the can down the road and wait another year to decide.

I agree that the Raiders' apparent Oakland idea can't work unless the city essentially gives its Coliseum-area land to the Raiders and says, build your own stadium and squeeze as much money as you can out of the rest of that land. Even then I'd be very skeptical that the Raiders would do it. The Chargers explored several similar schemes in the San Diego area and walked away from them because they would have been taking the risk that the development of the excess land would produce enough revenue to pay for the stadium. NFL owners prefer to get their windfalls risk-free.

Now, if the Raiders leave and Oakland offered that deal to the A's, there is a greater possibility the A's would accept, because a new ballpark will cost much less than a new football stadium -- less risk because they need to squeeze less revenue out of the land. Also, the A's owners, despite their penny-pinching operation of the team, have a lot of money to play with, beyond the value of their franchise, and the Raiders don't.

An alternate solution is the A's build a new place on the Coliseum site in an open parking lot, allowing the Raiders to rebuild O.Co as a football only facility. Especially since the A's can't get to San Jose.

(10-21-2015 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well my prediction, for what it's worth is this:

- Spanos and Davis get enough owners to block Kroenke from moving the Rams to LA
- Spanos and Davis aren't ready to move on the Carson project yet, so will come back to the NFL in a couple years, ready to go
- Kroenke gets pissed off at sells the Rams
- New Rams owner accepts the new stadium deal in STL

You're prediction is certainly plausible. But as Wedge said, Kroenke has enough spare cash to essentially pay a relocation fee that can effectively bribe the owners in opposition to the Rams move.

(10-21-2015 03:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 12:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I think Howie is right that if this comes down to the NFL owners choosing between three fellow owners, Mark Davis will finish in third place. The Raiders' best, and maybe only, shot at getting to LA is if there is some grand deal made that involves one of the other owners getting a too-good-to-turn-down deal to not go to LA.

As I said in my previous comment, I think the Raiders will get money for not moving. Some fans will fantasize that one or more of these owners will get absolutely stiffed, but the NFL isn't going to do that. They'll give money (and/or benefits that translate into money) to the teams that don't go to LA. Or, they'll kick the can down the road and wait another year to decide.

I agree that the Raiders' apparent Oakland idea can't work unless the city essentially gives its Coliseum-area land to the Raiders and says, build your own stadium and squeeze as much money as you can out of the rest of that land. Even then I'd be very skeptical that the Raiders would do it. The Chargers explored several similar schemes in the San Diego area and walked away from them because they would have been taking the risk that the development of the excess land would produce enough revenue to pay for the stadium. NFL owners prefer to get their windfalls risk-free.

Now, if the Raiders leave and Oakland offered that deal to the A's, there is a greater possibility the A's would accept, because a new ballpark will cost much less than a new football stadium -- less risk because they need to squeeze less revenue out of the land. Also, the A's owners, despite their penny-pinching operation of the team, have a lot of money to play with, beyond the value of their franchise, and the Raiders don't.

An alternate solution is the A's build a new place on the Coliseum site in an open parking lot, allowing the Raiders to rebuild O.Co as a football only facility. Especially since the A's can't get to San Jose.

Why not, just out of curiosity? They put the new football stadium about as far from San Francisco as you can get, in the bay area. Might as well put a new baseball stadium right next to it.