[Gareth]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... tml#page=1


Almost six months ago, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans to build an NFL stadium in Inglewood on the site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack.

The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders responded with a competing plan of their own, a proposal for a shared stadium in Carson.

Both stadium visions cleared all the necessary entitlement hurdles with blistering speed.

Suddenly, the Los Angeles market, the NFL's most glaring vacancy for the past 20 years, was flush with options.

Now the hard part: whittling down those options to find an actual solution. In the coming months, the league will navigate a minefield — owners pitted against owners — in an effort to solve one of the biggest riddles in sports.

Times NFL writer Sam Farmer asks and answers some questions about the process and what we can expect:

Question: What's happening behind the scenes now?

Answer: Some if not all of the owners backing one proposal or the other are lobbying fellow owners by sharing the details of their plans. The general ownership will hear the Inglewood and Carson presentations Aug. 11 in a special meeting in Chicago.

Q: Should we expect big news coming out of that meeting?

A: Not in terms of site selection, but the league is likely to announce a revised schedule for accepting relocation applications and making an ultimate decision on a site and team or teams. The L.A. issue is big enough to warrant its own meeting, and this is a rare one-per-club meeting, meaning only principal owners (plus a family member) or one team representative is invited to attend. In general, owners are more comfortable hashing out tough issues when there are fewer people in the room.

Q: When it comes to applying for relocation, what's the process?

A: The current window for relocation applications is mid-January through February. The NFL wants to give more time to teams considering a move, and there's a reasonable chance it could begin accepting applications as soon as October. The league will work on those applications with teams before submission, so the NFL will have a good idea of what's contained in them. Then comes an accelerated review process. The Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities will be first to review the applications, then pass them on to the stadium, finance and labor committees, followed by a vote of the owners.

Q: Which owners are on the L.A. committee?

A: It is chaired by Pittsburgh's Art Rooney II, and includes New England's Robert Kraft, Houston's Bob McNair, Carolina's Jerry Richardson, Kansas City's Clark Hunt, and John Mara of the New York Giants.

Q: How soon could a final vote of all owners happen?
Political infighting could cast Carson in poor light in NFL stadium race
Political infighting could cast Carson in poor light in NFL stadium race

A: Opinions are all over the map on this. Some in the league believe L.A. could know it's getting a team by late December, before the end of the regular season. Others say there should be a vote either during the playoffs or Super Bowl week, although the NFL is mindful of not stealing the spotlight from those events. Still others believe a vote would happen in late March at the annual owners meetings, even though that would cut into the season-ticket selling season for fall 2016, so that could be a little late.

Q: What's a nightmare scenario for the NFL?

A: It would be a major headache if all three teams apply for relocation, even though we appear to be headed that direction now. There aren't going to be three teams moving to L.A., so if three teams were to apply, at least one of them would be sent back to a market it tried to leave. That's not good. It would be much better for the NFL to have a predetermined outcome, as opposed to a wide-open horse race. The coming months will be about orchestrating the outcome so each of the three teams comes away with something positive — a tricky proposition.

Q: What are the selling points of the competing projects?

A: Kroenke controls nearly 300 acres in a location L.A. sports fans know well. His Rams have a long and nostalgic relationship with the market, and he has the deepest pockets by far of the three relocation-minded owners. He would not have a problem financing his futuristic, $2-billion stadium, which features a roof but is open on the sides. There's an argument that he should stay in St. Louis if the deal there is compelling enough, but he can counter that he didn't ask that city to come up with a new stadium plan and that he already satisfied his requirements to leave.

The Chargers and Raiders have a plan for a football-only, open-air facility, one with excellent freeway access and proximity to Orange County. The Raiders have a robust fan base in Southern California, and are financially hurting in their current situation. The Chargers and Raiders play in two of the league's worst stadiums, and a new shared home could be a silver-bullet solution for a pair of clubs that for years have failed to get traction on new homes in their current markets.

Q: A team needs a three-quarters majority of the 32 owners for permission to move. Does this boil down to the Rams looking for 24 votes, and the Chargers and Raiders lobbying for nine votes to block them?

A: The league is looking to avoid that type of vote. Owners will get the chance to hear the specific details of each plan and make a decision about which one is better for the NFL as a whole. The challenge for Commissioner Roger Goodell, and for Eric Grubman, the executive vice president overseeing this process, is untangling this knot in a way that allows each of the three owners to walk away at least somewhat satisfied.

Q: What would speed up or simplify this process?

A: If one of the three teams were to agree to stay in its home market, an L.A. deal could come together quickly. Neither the Chargers nor the Raiders are optimistic about what they've seen in their home markets so far, and — although St. Louis is off to the most promising start on a new stadium — the Rams have given no indication they want to stay there.

Q: Is it likely this decision will be delayed a year, so that a team doesn't come to L.A. until 2017?

A: There are two ways of looking at this. First, the meandering return to the L.A. market has been defined by 20 years of false starts and dashed dreams. Nothing is a sure thing until it actually happens. In that sense, yes, this could get pushed back a year or more.

But this is a different situation than we've seen before. There are two viable proposals with all the necessary entitlements and financing plans to begin construction — and, most important, they are sites backed by existing team owners, as opposed to local developers and business leaders pushing their own stadium dreams. The stars are in alignment for the NFL to return, and the league knows that delays, postponements and loss of momentum are the death knell of these types of projects. So there would be strong resistance by owners and NFL executives to pushing the pause button here.

That said, if one or more of the home markets were close to proposing a deal, or taking a public vote, and the situation looked especially promising from the NFL's perspective, the league might be swayed to pump the brakes. After all, it's more important to do L.A. the right way than it is to do it right now.

Q: Will those home markets get a chance to make their case before all the owners?

A: Yes. Any of the three cities who are making what the league considers a serious proposal will be invited to present it at the annual October meetings in New York. Representatives from St. Louis and San Diego almost certainly will be there. The way the league sees it, Oakland has yet to put forth a serious proposal, so at this point that market probably has yet to make the list.

Q: The NFL reached out to potential temporary venues this week, asking them to submit their proposals to host a relocated team or teams for at least two seasons, starting in 2016. Why is the league taking over those duties?

A: There are a few reasons why the NFL is handling negotiations with potential temporary homes. First, it's against league rules for any team to sign a lease outside of its home market. (Those can be negotiated, but not signed.) Next, it's best for temporary stadiums to have as much lead time as possible to work through any scheduling constraints, and those are considerable in the case of the Coliseum and Rose Bowl. Imagine how it would blow up potential negotiations with a home market if word got out that Team X had secured a deal to play the 2016 and '17 seasons at the Coliseum. But if the NFL strikes such a deal, without identifying a team, that news is not as disruptive. And finally, there are persistent rumors that some stadiums have blackballed the Raiders. If so, the league can better deal with that issue if it is handling negotiations.

Q: Is it possible that one temporary stadium could host two teams? And is the 27,000-seat StubHub Center in the mix?

A: Having one stadium host two NFL teams is theoretically possible but highly unlikely. In the case of the Coliseum or Rose Bowl, home to USC and UCLA, respectively, scheduling would be next to impossible and the natural-grass fields would look like the day after Woodstock.

As for using StubHub Center, the league has entertained the idea of creating an intimate, high-end game experience, so it hasn't ruled out that venue. Still, given there are more traditional options, the NFL isn't likely to stack experiment upon experiment in returning to a market that already has lost three teams.

Q: What's most likely to happen when the dust settles on this entire process?

A: Don't be surprised if there's some type of grand bargain, one that none of these three owners would be willing to accept now. That could be the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium at Hollywood Park; or the league telling the Rams the deal in St. Louis is too enticing to leave on the table, thereby paving the way for the Chargers and Raiders in Carson; or a host of other scenarios.

Even the league doesn't know how this is going to end. For now, it's less football and more crystal ball.

[Elvis]

Good article (i cleaned it up a little).

So, some temporary locations are leery of The Raiders and there seems to be a consensus that the league wants to avoid a war between the owners...

[den-the-coach]

Good article (i cleaned it up a little).

So, some temporary locations are leery of The Raiders and there seems to be a consensus that the league wants to avoid a war between the owners...

The answer is so easy...Rams to LA...Chargers later if they can't come to an agreement in San Diego and Oakland stays gets some of the relocation money to stay in Oakland because that's what the owner wants and LA people as well IMHO. Everybody wins with the exception of St. Louis, but the demographics have changed over the last 20 years in the Gateway City.

[snackdaddy]

I was playing a little devil's advocate at ROD. One thing I noticed hasn't been addressed much, does Kroenke let his emotions dictate decisions? I mean, if the stadium plan in the Lou gets done and the league says he's gotta stay and fork out $250 mil, who's to say he won't get pissed and exercise the year to year lease and stay in the dome for the next few years? Does St. Louis win by keeping the Rams? Or do they lose because they have no one to play in the stadium which in turn likely means no stadium?

He could hold out and build the new stadium in the process. Maybe in 2 years there won't be an appetite for public funds. But I can see that being a gamble. He'd be more likely to go rogue.

[Elvis]

Maybe this is too easy for me to say because i live in L.A. but the team that most belongs in their home market is SD. The Raiders have been vagabonds, the Rams have a 50 year history with Los Angeles but the Chargers are SD.

Still, as Fred pointed out last week, like any team, moving to L.A. will increase the value of the Chargers. And if the Spanos' have any intention of selling in the near future, The L.A. Chargers will likely sell for a lot more than the SD Chargers...

[BuiltRamTough]

I still don't see how it makes sense to drop 2 teams in LA simultaneously. Sure LA is big enough even with all the different sport franchises here but 2 teams from the get go? Idk I just don't see it. I'm fine if one of the teams is the Rams but it's risky business even for the NFL. I agree with Den, 2016 Rams and see how it all goes then if SD or Oak still can't get a stadium then one will join the Rams.

[Elvis]

It makes sense if you're trying to make a deal. Nobody wants to be the 2nd team in with 2nd choice of corporate money...

[moklerman]

I was playing a little devil's advocate at ROD. One thing I noticed hasn't been addressed much, does Kroenke let his emotions dictate decisions? I mean, if the stadium plan in the Lou gets done and the league says he's gotta stay and fork out $250 mil, who's to say he won't get pissed and exercise the year to year lease and stay in the dome for the next few years? Does St. Louis win by keeping the Rams? Or do they lose because they have no one to play in the stadium which in turn likely means no stadium?

He could hold out and build the new stadium in the process. Maybe in 2 years there won't be an appetite for public funds. But I can see that being a gamble. He'd be more likely to go rogue.

I agree and have mentioned the same thing. The only way the league could even think of forcing Stan to stay in St. Louis is if they build and pay for a new stadium. No way they can force him to contribute to a new stadium when he's got a perfectly good arrangement with the EJD in place for another 20 years.

What's more amazing to me is all this hypothetical money St. Louis is now willing to spend. They not only balked at $700M upgrades that would honor the contract they had with the Rams, they flat out pissed on it. Because that's what all of this ultimately boils down to. St. Louis was tired of the lease they had in place. The lease that was responsible for luring the Rams to St. Louis in the first place. They now want a St. Louis friendly lease. Not only friendly, but heavily in their favor. I suppose it's reasonable to understand why but I don't see how the NFL could possibly side with them. Rewarding the city for continually not living up to the terms of a stadium lease agreement hardly seems like something the other owners would do to one of their own.

[bubbaramfan]

Good post MM. and the St. Louis homers on the other boards just can't seem to understand those facts, they just can't come to grips that St. Louis stepped on their d**k and Stan doesn't have to do squat. they screwed to pooch. No way the owners are going to do business with St. Louis again. After losing two teams, the last by not honoring the contract they made, and then not abiding by the arbitration. I think they even screwed themselves out of getting an expansion team.

[The Ripper]

Good post MM. and the St. Louis homers on the other boards just can't seem to understand those facts, they just can't come to grips that St. Louis stepped on their d**k and Stan doesn't have to do squat. they screwed to pooch. No way the owners are going to do business with St. Louis again. After losing two teams, the last by not honoring the contract they made, and then not abiding by the arbitration. I think they even screwed themselves out of getting an expansion team.

If they had been maintaining the dome the whole time this wouldn't have been an issue. The other problem that got them even further behind was proposing $ 30 million in maintenance for the 2005 review. It seems like Shaw knew that in accepting the proposal and putting in the arbitration process the Rams would relocate in 2015.