(11-13-2015 11:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 08:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Boom.

Carson wins. Raiders and Chargers to LA. Rams stay put in STL. Kroenke bows out.

Rams move to AFC West. Raiders or Chargers to NFC West (not sure which makes more sense).

Carson hasn't won anything yet. While both teams appear to have 11 acres of land, this I would argue is a a potential showstopper:

Quote:Now a vacant lot, the 157-acre portion of the site next to the 405 Freeway used to be the Cal Compact landfill. Municipal waste lurks below, along with millions of barrels of solvents and paint sludge.

Now, the Carson mayor says that what the NFL team have isn't contaminated and the the city will bare the burnt of remediation. But contaminated soil/water has a way of ending up in places where you least expect it.

Link

You say so.

I say that the FAA stops the Inglewood Dome's show.



Maybe the correct answer is that LA is just not meant to have an NFL team.

Spanos and Kroenke can block each other, are both stubborn old, rich, white men, which means no one can force them to work together.

(11-13-2015 11:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 08:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Boom.

Carson wins. Raiders and Chargers to LA. Rams stay put in STL. Kroenke bows out.

Rams move to AFC West. Raiders or Chargers to NFC West (not sure which makes more sense).

Carson hasn't won anything yet. While both teams appear to have 11 acres of land, this I would argue is a a potential showstopper:

Quote:Now a vacant lot, the 157-acre portion of the site next to the 405 Freeway used to be the Cal Compact landfill. Municipal waste lurks below, along with millions of barrels of solvents and paint sludge.

Now, the Carson mayor says that what the NFL team have isn't contaminated and the the city will bare the burnt of remediation. But contaminated soil/water has a way of ending up in places where you least expect it.

Link

Either site could overcome those issues. Inglewood has to tweak its plan so that radar doesn't reflect off of the roof of the building and maybe adjust the shape of the roof slightly. Carson or the teams will have to spend a lot of money to remediate the toxic soil and water, and it might delay construction, but it can be done, e.g., the Colorado Rapids soccer stadium was built on land that (they hope) is no longer contaminated.

It's still going to come down to NFL owner politics. The sportswriters who cover this have consistently said that Kroenke has enough votes to block Spanos and vice versa, and that a deal between Kroenke and Spanos might be the only way for anyone to get 24 owner votes in time to play in LA next season.

But neither want to deal with each other and the NFL can't make them.

So there goes that.

(11-13-2015 02:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But neither want to deal with each other and the NFL can't make them.

So there goes that.

If they refuse to deal with each other even after the league tells them to deal, then no one has 24 votes. The league told all the owners that no one was moving for 2015, they could do the same for 2016.

That extra year would give San Diego enough time to get voter approval for funding for a new stadium, and Spanos doesn't want that to happen. He wants to get to LA before SD can hold that election. Because of that, my guess is that he will deal with Kroenke at some point in time before it's too late to get the NFL to authorize a move for the 2016 season.

(11-13-2015 07:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 02:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But neither want to deal with each other and the NFL can't make them.

So there goes that.

If they refuse to deal with each other even after the league tells them to deal, then no one has 24 votes. The league told all the owners that no one was moving for 2015, they could do the same for 2016.

That extra year would give San Diego enough time to get voter approval for funding for a new stadium, and Spanos doesn't want that to happen. He wants to get to LA before SD can hold that election. Because of that, my guess is that he will deal with Kroenke at some point in time before it's too late to get the NFL to authorize a move for the 2016 season.

You have a valid point. And you could end up being right, even if Spanos wouldn't say or admit that was the reason he decided to cut a deal with Kroenke.


On the other hand, Spanos could attempt to make the following argument.

He waited years and years for San Diego to get its act together. It never happened, so he moved on. He already has a deal with Raiders owner to build a new stadium in Carson and both teams are moving there. Thus, he doesn't care if San Diego was able to put together a deal for a new, downtown stadium at the last second. He's moving forward anyway, to Carson.


On the (third?) hand, Spanos could roll the dice on San Diego actually being able to figure out a deal, even with an extra year. Meanwhile, no one being able to get 24 votes and thus no one moving for the 2016 league year might exactly what Spanos wants, otherwise: i) it may kill Kroenke's deal and his will and ii) it gives him the time he needs to get the issues with the Carson stadium figured out and get that ball rolling.

Cutting a deal with each other is the safest play for both Kroenke and Spanos. They might wait until the last minute after they give up on flipping some of the owners who are on the other guy's side.

Given an additional year, St. Louis and/or San Diego might come up with rock-solid stadium plans and additional public money ($500 million might be the magic number) that enough of the owners won't vote for a move out of those cities.

Also, Mark Davis is a total wild card and if things drag on another year he might just back out of Carson completely, for any reason, and Carson isn't financially viable with only one team.

(11-15-2015 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Cutting a deal with each other is the safest play for both Kroenke and Spanos. They might wait until the last minute after they give up on flipping some of the owners who are on the other guy's side.

Given an additional year, St. Louis and/or San Diego might come up with rock-solid stadium plans and additional public money ($500 million might be the magic number) that enough of the owners won't vote for a move out of those cities.

Also, Mark Davis is a total wild card and if things drag on another year he might just back out of Carson completely, for any reason, and Carson isn't financially viable with only one team.

It's tough for me to see Kroenke giving in to a 50% split on the Inglewood Dome. I can't see how it would be fair for Spanos to get less.

After all, Korenke thinks that this is 100% his stadium and he should get all the money from every football game played there (like Jerry Jones in Arlington).


Your point is still valid, but I just don't know how a deal can get done.


Maybe, somehow, the NFL just overrides Spanos/Davis and says Kroenke can build his stadium and he can start a new NFL franchise in LA. And that's it, one team. For now. Rams, Raiders and Chargers stay put.

Nothing really new here, but a nice summary: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-...story.html

And the Chiefs don't want the Chargers and Raiders to share an LA stadium if both stay in the AFC West: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...alignment/

The Chiefs are right (and the Broncos probably agree) -- the Chargers and Raiders would each have 9 home games every year and only 7 road games if they were in the same division and sharing the same stadium. I'd veto that advantage, too. But that issue is much more easily fixed than all of the other issues, like owners being forced to choose one owner over another, figuring out how to pay off the owners who are denied a move to LA, and getting new stadium deals in "existing markets" to the owners' satisfaction.

Farmer is essentially saying (again) that the owners are holding out the possibility of delaying everything for another year as an incentive to push Kroenke and Spanos to deal. The uncertainty of not knowing how the owners would vote, if forced to vote, is another incentive. (As in, "Make a deal now, because you might not like the outcome if all of the owners decide it themselves.")

As I said above, Kroenke and Spanos will let it play out for a few more weeks and try to count the votes among owners, and if it still looks like a stalemate then they will negotiate with each other.

I was born and raised in the LA/OC metroplex and am old enough to have attended LA Rams games at the LA Coliseum as a kid. I loved the Rams and still hate Georgia for what she did to that team after Carroll Rosenbloom died. Coincidentally, I now have a professional interest in the NFL returning to LA, so I have been paying close attention. A few thoughts on what I've read in this thread...
1. I think it's nearly a lock that the Raiders come to LA, as the second banana in either stadium (a la the Clippers at Staples). They have a terrible stadium that generates terrible revenue and they have no viable offer on or even near the table. It pains me to say this because I'm still pissed at what Al Davis did to LA (especially Irwindale) and I do not like Raider Fan.
2. I don't understand the concern about Spanos' wallet. He's got Goldman Sachs on the team - financing is not an issue.
3. Environmental concerns are overblown. The City of San Diego is pissed that they had to do a crappy, rushed 6K page EIR, when Inglewood and Carson just had to do cursory reviews, but this is legal because of a California SC ruling last year in a Walmart case. The normal California Environmental Quality Act requirements do not apply.
4. There's not enough to separate the plans on their merits right now, so the decision will be political. It's pretty clear that neither the Rams nor Chargers have enough votes to win but both have enough to block the other. I assume there's going to be a backroom deal worked out where one team gets to move and the other gets concessions.

Well, California doesn't deserve four NFL teams (Rams move to LA, Chargers stay in SD).

OK. How about supporting your claim?

(11-25-2015 04:10 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  OK. How about supporting your claim?

It's not a claim, it's an opinion.

No reason why one state should have four NFL franchises at the expense of St Louis.

As I understand it, St Louis has the lowest attendance, by percentage of stadium capacity, in the league. Why do they deserve a team? And to keep their team the community is going got have to pay 100s of millions. Is that fair? The population of the Los Angeles metroplex alone is double the population of both Missouri and Kansas combined.

Really, I'd like to understand what you mean by "deserve".

(11-25-2015 01:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  2. I don't understand the concern about Spanos' wallet. He's got Goldman Sachs on the team - financing is not an issue.

I don't think the issue is Spanos' lack of money per se, though it's true that the Spanos family has almost no money (I mean "almost no money" by NFL owner standards, not by you-and-me standards) apart from the value of the Chargers.

The issue that I think concerns the NFL is the risk involved with the stadium financing. The 49ers had Goldman Sachs engineer the Levi's Stadium financing, which is the analogy that Spanos points to, but the key is that the city of Santa Clara is ultimately responsible for paying off the stadium in the event that the amount of stadium revenue earmarked for paying it off eventually falls short.

In the Carson proposal, as I understand it, there is no such role for the city of Carson. If the stadium is built and they don't generate enough revenue over the long haul to pay it off, then who is on the hook? That seems like a risk and would be an even bigger risk if only one team is there.

Maybe they'll ultimately come up with a solution that results in neither the franchises nor the NFL being exposed to that risk, and if they do then I think the financial question won't be major.

(11-25-2015 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 01:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  2. I don't understand the concern about Spanos' wallet. He's got Goldman Sachs on the team - financing is not an issue.

I don't think the issue is Spanos' lack of money per se, though it's true that the Spanos family has almost no money (I mean "almost no money" by NFL owner standards, not by you-and-me standards) apart from the value of the Chargers.

The issue that I think concerns the NFL is the risk involved with the stadium financing. The 49ers had Goldman Sachs engineer the Levi's Stadium financing, which is the analogy that Spanos points to, but the key is that the city of Santa Clara is ultimately responsible for paying off the stadium in the event that the amount of stadium revenue earmarked for paying it off eventually falls short.

In the Carson proposal, as I understand it, there is no such role for the city of Carson. If the stadium is built and they don't generate enough revenue over the long haul to pay it off, then who is on the hook? That seems like a risk and would be an even bigger risk if only one team is there.

Maybe they'll ultimately come up with a solution that results in neither the franchises nor the NFL being exposed to that risk, and if they do then I think the financial question won't be major.

Gotcha. You're right - Carson is not on the hook. The team(s) would be but I haven't heard anything about the NFL having any kind of obligation. And I haven't heard or read any concerns by the league regarding this arrangement. If you have a citation I'd be very interested to read it.

(11-25-2015 10:29 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 01:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  2. I don't understand the concern about Spanos' wallet. He's got Goldman Sachs on the team - financing is not an issue.

I don't think the issue is Spanos' lack of money per se, though it's true that the Spanos family has almost no money (I mean "almost no money" by NFL owner standards, not by you-and-me standards) apart from the value of the Chargers.

The issue that I think concerns the NFL is the risk involved with the stadium financing. The 49ers had Goldman Sachs engineer the Levi's Stadium financing, which is the analogy that Spanos points to, but the key is that the city of Santa Clara is ultimately responsible for paying off the stadium in the event that the amount of stadium revenue earmarked for paying it off eventually falls short.

In the Carson proposal, as I understand it, there is no such role for the city of Carson. If the stadium is built and they don't generate enough revenue over the long haul to pay it off, then who is on the hook? That seems like a risk and would be an even bigger risk if only one team is there.

Maybe they'll ultimately come up with a solution that results in neither the franchises nor the NFL being exposed to that risk, and if they do then I think the financial question won't be major.

Gotcha. You're right - Carson is not on the hook. The team(s) would be but I haven't heard anything about the NFL having any kind of obligation. And I haven't heard or read any concerns by the league regarding this arrangement. If you have a citation I'd be very interested to read it.

I don't have a specific citation. I'm just inferring that this is the concern based on sportswriters saying that some owners are skeptical about the Carson financing arrangement and from the fact that Carson isn't on the hook. Because, as far as I know, the proposed Carson financing is modeled after what Goldman Sachs did for the 49ers, except for the lack of a home-city backstop.

Do you really need a backstop? It's the modern day NFL. It's a guaranteed winner.*

* if you have a new stadium

(11-25-2015 07:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  As I understand it, St Louis has the lowest attendance, by percentage of stadium capacity, in the league. Why do they deserve a team? And to keep their team the community is going got have to pay 100s of millions. Is that fair? The population of the Los Angeles metroplex alone is double the population of both Missouri and Kansas combined.

Really, I'd like to understand what you mean by "deserve".

STL issues are easily solved with a new stadium. And a winning team helps too.

LA should have a team, ideally. But not at the expense of a market that already has a team. They should get a team before, say Portland, LV, SLC, San Antonio, Birmingham, etc. get one. Sure.

(11-27-2015 12:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Do you really need a backstop? It's the modern day NFL. It's a guaranteed winner.*

* if you have a new stadium

A bad team is no guarantee to sell out a new stadium. If I were the NFL, I would definitely want to see a solid plan for paying off the loans or bonds in case revenue from ticket sales is disappointing. Carson would be an open-air stadium, which limits the amount of money they can make from non-NFL events in the stadium. Jerry Jones' Cowboys stadium has a roof that allows it to host any kind of event when the Cowboys aren't using the stadium. Kroenke's Inglewood stadium would have a roof and would generate more revenue the same way. I personally think a football stadium should have real grass, especially in southern California where there's no weather excuse for using carpet, but a building with a roof can make more money.