TVNewsLover 728 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 While we all knew the filing by the three teams was coming, I think most owners have no idea what the final outcome will be. Neither plan has the 24 votes needed to move, but both sides have the required 9 votes needed to block the other side. St. Louis has the most advanced new stadium plan in place, with San Diego in second place, and Oakland in a distant third place. On the other hand (and in opposing order), Davis (Raiders) seems most heartbroken about leaving Oakland, Spanos (Charges) has repeatedly said that he doesn't want to leave San Diego but is proceeding to protect his team's interests (knee jerk reaction as a result of Kroenke announcing desire/plans to move LA), and Kroenke (Rams) seems hell bent on moving with zero desire to stay in St. Louis. Davis and Spanos will likely abide by the vote. Kroenke will likely to do whatever he wants regardless of the vote, even proceeding with legal action. Inglewood is the better project. However, Carson has slightly more support. There seems to be no compromising going on (Chargers joining Rams in Inglewood perhaps). The NFL seems hell-bent on helping the city that has done the least to build a stadium (Oakland). Nothing about this whole situation makes any sense to the everyday NFL fan, but I guess it make lot$ of ¢ent$ to the NFL owners. Personally, I hope no vote is taken because no consensus is reached. Figure out another solution that doesn't result in breaking fans hearts. Two outside the box outcomes that would satisfy everyone: -Grant two expansion teams (either both to L.A., or one to L.A. and one to Toronto). Sorry I don't think London needs a permanent team. Try expanding the brand within our continent first! Give one of them to Kroenke and keep the Rams in St. Louis with new owner. -Help get the Broncos sold to Kroenke (their current owner is in ailing health). That would eliminate his desire to be in L.A. and would likely allow the other two teams to work something out in there home markets. L.A. has done fine with no teams for 20 years. I have also repeatedly said that the Jaguars in Jacksonville makes no sense, but I will leave that rant for another day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Former Member 207 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Unless they can work out the logistics that would satisfy everyone involved, London won't be getting a NFL team anytime soon. As far as relocation swapping/relocation, one idea I heard that was the Jaguars would replace the Rams if the latter were to leave St. Louis. The ownership swap between Stan Kroenke (Rams) and Pat Bowlen (Broncos) was also another idea thrown out there, but Bowlen publicly stated that he has no plans on selling his team. Obviously, Kroenke's connection to Denver via his family's ownership of the area's sports teams not named the Broncos or Rockies make a lot sense, and it also stays in line with the NFL's cross-ownership rules (one of which is that a NFL team owner can't own another sports team that plays in another city, and because of that, Kroenke turned over ownership of his Denver teams to his son, Josh). Kroenke's Inglewood-Hollywood Park stadium site is pretty much shovel-ready at this point; they just had a groundbreaking ceremony a couple months ago, and stadium construction should be begin once debris clean-up surrounding the stadium. Remember too that the Inglewood site will be a mixed-use complex, with housing and retail also being a part of the project. I just passed by there the another day, and even though I wouldn't say it's an official tell-tale sign that the stadium is definite (and Kroenke's people and the Inglewood officials have publicly said that the stadium will be built), a parking structure is being constructed at the southwest corner of the property, near the intersection of Century Bl. and Prairie Avenue, and across from the casino (which I've been to several times over the years--that place is a dump). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennTV1983 748 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Unless they can work out the logistics that would satisfy everyone involved, London won't be getting a NFL team anytime soon. I don't even understand why the NFL would even consider putting a team in London at this point after the whole WLAF/NFL Europe experiment failed years ago. Just because they decided to have 2-3 games a year in London doesn't necessarily mean a full-fledged team would even work there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channel2 872 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 No selling the Broncos to Kroenke, or his son. They're running the Nuggets into the ground, and I think the plan is to sell the Broncos to an Elway-led group if the Bowlens don't want to keep it after Pat dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickp 297 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Stay Oakland, Raiders! We have the best fans in the league! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennTV1983 748 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The first shoe has just dropped. The St Louis Rams have been granted approval to move back to LA. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000621645/article/rams-approved-to-relocate-to-los-angeles Chargers could follow, but the Raiders have decided to stay in Oakland for the time being. EDIT: Although the Raiders had since bowed out from relocating at the moment, they could still move to LA, but only if the Chargers decide not to, according to the updated article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieboy247 42 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The first shoe has just dropped. The St Louis Rams have been granted approval to move back to LA. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000621645/article/rams-approved-to-relocate-to-los-angeles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damien6786 9 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 You happy because they lose a lot or because they are moving out of St. Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC 7 Denver 1554 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 No selling the Broncos to Kroenke, or his son. They're running the Nuggets into the ground, and I think the plan is to sell the Broncos to an Elway-led group if the Bowlens don't want to keep it after Pat dies. I think Pat's daughter will run the org, iirc. I wish the Monforts' would just give it up and sell the Rockies. They are waaay too focused on the stadium and not on the f*cking team! They'd update the stadium before doling out more for stronger pitching (which is always where they are weakest). I think that they could keep Coors, but sell the team since they don't have any strong interest in the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channel2 872 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I think Pat's daughter will run the org, iirc. I wish the Monforts' would just give it up and sell the Rockies. They are waaay too focused on the stadium and not on the f*cking team! They'd update the stadium before doling out more for stronger pitching (which is always where they are weakest). I think that they could keep Coors, but sell the team since they don't have any strong interest in the latter. I do too, but they've said they intend to hand it down from generation to generation. The best apparent hope is for a Rocky Wirtz situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieboy247 42 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 You happy because they lose a lot or because they are moving out of St. Louis Um, FYI....I'm happy because the Rams are back where they belong and L.A. has a team again. Is that a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardek1995 200 Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 Um, FYI....I'm happy because the Rams are back where they belong and L.A. has a team again. Is that a problem? No, in fact, it's a boon to us all, especially Fox (which, should any of you happen to live in LA, would get to see the Rams on Fox 11 starting next season) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damien6786 9 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Um, FYI....I'm happy because the Rams are back where they belong and L.A. has a team again. Is that a problem? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTVNews 1367 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Would you picture The Raiders move to the Alamo City (San Antonio)? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/raiders-could-playing-texas-soon-040346098.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennTV1983 748 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Would you picture The Raiders move to the Alamo City (San Antonio)? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/raiders-could-playing-texas-soon-040346098.html It's possible, but then again, the NFL isn't exactly lukewarm to the idea of placing a team in San Antonio. You also have to wonder if the Texans and Cowboys would be in opposition of such a move by the Raiders if this happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardek1995 200 Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 Would you picture The Raiders move to the Alamo City (San Antonio)? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/raiders-could-playing-texas-soon-040346098.html No. I picture the Raiders staying in the Bay Area, specifically in Oakland. It's possible, but then again, the NFL isn't exactly lukewarm to the idea of placing a team in San Antonio. You also have to wonder if the Texans and Cowboys would be in opposition of such a move by the Raiders if this happens.The NFL would be more lukewarm to creating 8 expansion teams, 1 for each conference, than a football team in San Antonio at this point. In fact, if they wanted to have a football team there, the people should've voted on a football team in San Antonio over Jacksonville back in the early 90s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 728 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 No. I picture the Raiders staying in the Bay Area, specifically in Oakland. The NFL would be more lukewarm to creating 8 expansion teams, 1 for each conference, than a football team in San Antonio at this point. In fact, if they wanted to have a football team there, the people should've voted on a football team in San Antonio over Jacksonville back in the early 90s I think you mean 1 for each division, not conference. Also, if they want balance, they don't need to go to 40 (8 divisions, 5 teams each). They could achieve that by going to 36 (6 divisions [East-Central-West], 5 teams each). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadcowatbk 144 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Would you picture The Raiders move to the Alamo City (San Antonio)? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/raiders-could-playing-texas-soon-040346098.html Jerry would probably prefer they to go London or STL and replace the Rams instead of SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneManHerd 553 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 A 40-TEAM LEAGUE??? I both love and despise that idea. 4 more games per weekend would be kinda cool (Monday night could become a double-header), and they'd have to add like 2 more weeks to the season (which might happen with 32, anyway), BUT the quality of players and officials would go in the crapper. (I claim a second team for Chicago, right now.) If the Bay Area can have two teams, why not Chicago? Renovate Northwestern's stadium in Evanston, and there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 728 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 The thing that gets me with this is they keep saying they are doing what's best for the NFL. But according to them, what's best for the NFL is what's best for pleasing their pocket$, not pleasing the fans. Kroenke claimed he had to do what's best for the team and even proclaimed his love for St. Louis on the way out, after not talking to them for the past three years!! What's best for the team is not uprooting the players and coaches and the fanbase that's developed over the past 20 years. What's best for Kroenke's pocket is moving to LA. St. Louis arguably worked their butts off trying to get a plan together to build a new stadium, and they were rewarded with .... nothing!!! The NFL led them on and kept moving the goal post. In the meantime, Oakland has done NOTHING and the NFL is trying to reward them by giving them $100 million in helping to build a new stadium there. Let's also not forget that that metropolitan area already has a team to route for, St. Louis and San Diego have no other choice in their metropolitan area. Why does it make sense for LA to get two teams simultaneously? Did the Jets and Giants come into existence at the same time? Onto Goodell. He wants this to be his legacy, that he put a team or two in L.A., yet, this is what I'll remember him for: 1. Goofing up player suspensions. 2. Trying to eliminate kickoffs (which would eliminate surprise onsides kicks). 3. Changing the extra point (which also in effect eliminated the fake extra point and go for two). 4. Trying to get a team in London (which arguably the majority of fans in the U.S. don't want). 5. Lying to St. Louis fans (and possibly San Diego fans) and ripping their hearts out by taking their teams away. The NFL has become too rich for its' own good, and it may come crashing down eventually. Hopefully they come to their senses and find workable solutions for the Chargers and Raiders in their current towns, and by workable, I mean for both the owners and the fans. Otherwise, I think I am done with this money-hungry entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damien6786 9 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 The thing that gets me with this is they keep saying they are doing what's best for the NFL. But according to them, what's best for the NFL is what's best for pleasing their pocket$, not pleasing the fans. Kroenke claimed he had to do what's best for the team and even proclaimed his love for St. Louis on the way out, after not talking to them for the past three years!! What's best for the team is not uprooting the players and coaches and the fanbase that's developed over the past 20 years. What's best for Kroenke's pocket is moving to LA. St. Louis arguably worked their butts off trying to get a plan together to build a new stadium, and they were rewarded with .... nothing!!! The NFL led them on and kept moving the goal post. In the meantime, Oakland has done NOTHING and the NFL is trying to reward them by giving them $100 million in helping to build a new stadium there. Let's also not forget that that metropolitan area already has a team to route for, St. Louis and San Diego have no other choice in their metropolitan area. Why does it make sense for LA to get two teams simultaneously? Did the Jets and Giants come into existence at the same time? Onto Goodell. He wants this to be his legacy, that he put a team or two in L.A., yet, this is what I'll remember him for: 1. Goofing up player suspensions. 2. Trying to eliminate kickoffs (which would eliminate surprise onsides kicks). 3. Changing the extra point (which also in effect eliminated the fake extra point and go for two). 4. Trying to get a team in London (which arguably the majority of fans in the U.S. don't want). 5. Lying to St. Louis fans (and possibly San Diego fans) and ripping their hearts out by taking their teams away. The NFL has become too rich for its' own good, and it may come crashing down eventually. Hopefully they come to their senses and find workable solutions for the Chargers and Raiders in their current towns, and by workable, I mean for both the owners and the fans. Otherwise, I think I am done with this money-hungry entity. Well spoken. You should went to the press conference. So you is done with the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 728 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Well spoken. You should went to the press conference. So you is done with the NFL? I am superly disgusted with them right now. And I am not even a fan of any of the three teams involved (I'm an Eagles fan living in eastern PA). I guess I will have to take the Dean Spanos approach and take a step back and assess all my options. But I can tell you that my love of NFL football has decreased greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I am superly disgusted with them right now. And I am not even a fan of any of the three teams involved (I'm an Eagles fan living in eastern PA). I guess I will have to take the Dean Spanos approach and take a step back and assess all my options. But I can tell you that my love of NFL football has decreased greatly. I wouldn't take the Dean Spanos approach to anything. The guy has been nothing but a backstabbing weasel to Chargers fans and the City of San Diego, that lacks the guts to say anything publicly, instead he relies on his scumbag mouthpiece, Mark Fabiani. Don't believe all the rosy crap that the media and NFL owners are portraying of him. Political leaders here and Spanos are to blame for not coming up with a solution to build a new stadium. This crap has gone on for the last 14 years. Spanos did not endear himself to the fans/region after the way he's been treating us the last year or so. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has seemed more committed than his predecessors to getting something done, but every time the city and county announce a new development to getting something done, Spanos and Fabiani drop some new crap to derail any progress. I should mention that Spanos left the negotiating table last June, despite the city/county willing and able to work through a solution that would satisfy both sides. I am very pessimistic that anything will get done here. The way that Spanos and Fabiani have conducted this whole LA move, involved pissing off and hurting a lot of Chargers fans and residents. They ran a scorched earth campaign because they were under the impression that they were going to move to LA. With everyone here so pissed at them, I have a hard time believing that the people will be sympathetic to their cause and will be willing to help them out. I do sincerely hope I am wrong, but I can't be optimistic with the way things developed over the last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 728 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I wouldn't take the Dean Spanos approach to anything. The guy has been nothing but a backstabbing weasel to Chargers fans and the City of San Diego, that lacks the guts to say anything publicly, instead he relies on his scumbag mouthpiece, Mark Fabiani. Don't believe all the rosy crap that the media and NFL owners are portraying of him. Political leaders here and Spanos are to blame for not coming up with a solution to build a new stadium. This crap has gone on for the last 14 years. Spanos did not endear himself to the fans/region after the way he's been treating us the last year or so. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has seemed more committed than his predecessors to getting something done, but every time the city and county announce a new development to getting something done, Spanos and Fabiani drop some new crap to derail any progress. I should mention that Spanos left the negotiating table last June, despite the city/county willing and able to work through a solution that would satisfy both sides. I am very pessimistic that anything will get done here. The way that Spanos and Fabiani have conducted this whole LA move, involved pissing off and hurting a lot of Chargers fans and residents. They ran a scorched earth campaign because they were under the impression that they were going to move to LA. With everyone here so pissed at them, I have a hard time believing that the people will be sympathetic to their cause and will be willing to help them out. I do sincerely hope I am wrong, but I can't be optimistic with the way things developed over the last year. I was only referring to the most recent approach by Dean Spanos. I guess that was a bad example. Also, I believe the negotiations were broken off because the team believed there would be legal challenges to the route the city was taken. I've maintained all along that Spanos and the Chargers would still be trying to work something out with SD (with LA not in the picture) had Kroenke not made the jump first. Nonetheless, as things appear today, I believe that it's seeming inevitable that Southern California will end up with three teams regardless of how things pan out, with 2 in LA and 1 in SD. If Chargers stay in SD, it is likely Raiders will take the option to move to LA. If Chargers leave for LA, it seems that the Raiders preferred destination (other thank Oakland or LA) is San Diego. Not sure that the Raiders brand is a good fit for SD, but I'm guessing they're hoping to draw fans from the LA area (while the Chargers are hoping to draw fans from SD and Orange County). What a mess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardek1995 200 Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 If the Bay Area can have two teams, why not Chicago? Renovate Northwestern's stadium in Evanston, and there you go. And why not Philly or Houston? Hell, DFW could have a second team, either in Dallas or Fort Worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.