[Hacksaw]

I'm actually Armenian lol, ya for sure. When they come back we should make plans and get together and tailgate.

ինչպես եք?
A Medeteranian tailgate will be in order. Shish kebobs on the grill. We will definetly do this.

Loll I can't read that, I was born in Hollywood. As for the rest I AM DOWN. Tailgating in Inglewood is going to be amazing. We're gnna have the best stadium in the world. The parks and bars all around the stadium WOW. Get drunk and watch the game!

Ha Ha, neither can I. I am Armenian (1/2 fathers side) as well.
Tailgating will be awesome again. The game in SD gave me a taste (no pun) of it again. I sure hope this happens !! I'll bring the kebos.

The best part, when was the last time the Rams had their own state of the art stadium? even if they stay it will be the first time but this palace in LA ,,,WOW.

[Elvis]

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/05/ ... -chargers/

Big week for NFL, Rams, Raiders, Chargers
Posted on May 17, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

As NFL owners gather this week in San Francisco for their annual May meetings, and with Los Angeles relocation one of the primary points of emphasis, news is already beginning to bubble to the surface.

In San Diego, the word I’m getting is Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s advisory committee is preparing to announce a stadium plan for the Chargers, perhaps as early as Monday afternoon.

I’ve heard from a couple of sources the number $1.5 billion dollars being bandied about, and if that’s accurate it will be interesting to see how much of that $1.5 billion is devoted to the stadium and how much is committed to the bigger picture aspects of the Mission Valley development plan.

It will also be interesting to find out what the task force plan is to deal with the financing and timing issues, two huge concerns relative the the Chargers and NFL.

If the stadium is part of a bigger development, that means a lengthy entitlement process and financing elements of which the Chargers and NFL have expressed long-time concerns.

Between the time consuming entitlement process and the necessity for a public vote next year – and no guarantee of a favorable outcome – the Chargers would be taking a huge gamble it all plays out in their favor.

The danger is the St. Louis Rams filing for relocation to Los Angeles sometime in the next six months – and getting NFL approval – resulting in the Chargers stadium plans in Carson falling by the wayside and Los Angeles vanishing as a fall-back plan.

For San Diego Chargers fans, the hope is Mayor Faulconer’s task force heeded the advice of NFL vice president Eric Grubman, who met with some members last month and urged them to come up with a plan that meets the Chargers and NFL’s financing and timing needs.

Otherwise, San Diego is in great danger of losing the Chargers.

Meanwhile, up in Oakland things are looking bleaker by the day. According to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle, “the deal to build the Raiders a new stadium in Oakland “is gurgling blood” — the only question being when it’s going to be declared dead, according to one Coliseum official close to the talks.

Three big problems stand in the way, according to the Chronicle story: “The cost of the stadium, the cost of the land for the stadium and the future of the A’s.”

According to a Chronicle source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the Raiders want free land,something elected officials in Oakland and Alameda County say they can’t deliver.

As for the money for the stadium, “the Raiders and the NFL have about $500 million between them,” the source told the Chronicle.

That’s about half what the stadium is likely to cost. So barring the emergence of big-bucks investors, someone — i.e., the public — will have to come up with a cool $500 million.

If, as the Chronicle story suggests, the Raiders are in a non-winnable fight as it relates to the current plan being considered, they are as vulnerable as the Chargers.

And that creates a huge problem for the NFL, as it seems Rams owner Stan Kroenke has his heart set on Los Angeles and believes he has strong justification for relocation even if state leaders in Missouri come up with a plan to help build him a new stadium in downtown St. Louis.

If Kroenke truly wants Los Angeles, no matter what Missouri offers, and the Raiders and Chargers have no viable stadium plans on the table from Oakland and San Diego, how does the NFL sort out the dilemma of two teams needing Los Angeles and one team wanting Los Angeles?

And what happens to the hopes of Los Angeles NFL fans for the return
of pro football if the entire situation devolves into a standoff, with the Chargers and Raiders mustering the votes of seven other owners to prevent Kroenke from achieving the three-fourths majority he needs to relocate?

At the risk of being an alarmist, that almost seems bound to happen.

And it leave fans and analysts and even people involved coming up with ideas to piece together a complicated puzzle.

Everything from the Kroenke selling the Rams and buying the Raiders to the Rams moving to Inglewood, where they will be joined by the Chargers, and the Raiders moving into the new St. Louis stadium.

In fact, just the other day St. Louis stadium task force head Dave Peacock threw out the possibility of an ownership change with the Rams that enables Kroenke to get his wish.

While speaking at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast, Peacock said the following:

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles. I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there. This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

A few thoughts.

After doing some poking around here is how I’d categorize some of the possibilities being discussed:

Kroenke selling the Rams and buying another team to move to L.A.: Low.

The Raiders moving to St. Louis: Extremely low.

The Chargers and Raiders in Carson: Decent chance

The Rams and a fellow team in Inglewood: High

The Raiders moving to Levi Stadium: Extremely low

The Rams staying in St. Louis: Low

San Diego coming up with a viable Chargers stadium: Low

Oakland/Alameda coming up with a viable Raiders stadium: Low

However, I will say all of this is a reminder of all possible permutations and outcomes still at play.

Short of this situation figuring itself out naturally, which I’m growing more and more pessimistic of, the NFL and the teams involved will have to get creative and flexible in satisfying everyone’s needs and wants.

To that end, I’m working on a story that forwards some ideas on how the NFL might solve the Rams and Chargers needs and keep the Raiders in the Bay Area, which should be ready to roll next week.

So stay tuned.

[Hacksaw]

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/05/17/big-week-for-nfl-rams-raiders-chargers/

Big week for NFL, Rams, Raiders, Chargers
Posted on May 17, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

After doing some poking around here is how I’d categorize some of the possibilities being discussed:

Kroenke selling the Rams and buying another team to move to L.A.: Low.

The Raiders moving to St. Louis: Extremely low.

The Chargers and Raiders in Carson: Decent chance

The Rams and a fellow team in Inglewood: High

The Raiders moving to Levi Stadium: Extremely low

The Rams staying in St. Louis: Low

San Diego coming up with a viable Chargers stadium: Low

Oakland/Alameda coming up with a viable Raiders stadium: Low

So the difference between 'High" and Done Deal = Decent chance? But StL keeping Rams = "Low". Something seems off even in the generalities.

I'd like to see VB's meter since JT's got stuck.

[Elvis]

Vinny goes with his gut, hoping for a JT update soon...

[Elvis]

[Hacksaw]

Sup Hacksaw!

What Peacock is basically saying is this..

"Stan is going to LA but we're working with the NFL to try and force Stan to sell his team to us"

First of all, Stan is not going to sell the team. Second of all, Stan is apart of the NFL.

Think about this, if STL could force Stan to sell his team, why can't SD and OAK do the same?

Hey bro.. Yeah, when I heard this I thought the dude is either swinging an enormous set of balls or he is like a cornered animal swinging away. These guys are like lawyers who usually seem to maintain a quiet resolve through these matters, so it surprises me a bit. I would think that since his job is to line up money, it is in his causes's best interest to keep everyone believing that they have options and that their support won't go down in flames.

Forcing ESK to sell somehow is worse than forcing him to stay in StL against his will. That is precisely what Peecock is trying to do.
In his next life he will be a meter maid.

[Hacksaw]

Has Chargers/Raiders stadium project really leaped ahead of Rams’ Inglewood stadium?
Posted on May 29, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015...e ... d-stadium/

One of the interesting takeaways from last week’s NFL owners meetings in San Francisco is the national perception that the Chargers’ and Raiders’ Carson stadium plan has nudged ahead of Ram’s owner Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood project.

If you read some of the reports coming out of the meetings, the consensus seems to be the Chargers and Raiders now have the edge over the Rams should all this come down to a vote between the three teams and two plans.

I don’t necessarily see it that way. To me, the two projects were virtually neck and neck heading into last week and when the meetings wrapped up Wednesday that remained the case.

What’s changed, I believe, is more and more people finally realizing Carson is a legit plan with legit interest from the NFL and not just a smokescreen by the Chargers and Raiders to motivate San Diego and Oakland leaders into helping them build new stadiums.

As I’ve said all along, the need for smokescreens and leverage is long gone. The fact is, the Chargers and Raiders seem likely to need new homes. The work and money being invested in Carson is to insure the clubs have a soft landing spot in case new stadiums don’t emerge locally.

And the longer this drags on without a local solution, the more people begin seeing Carson for what it truly is: A very real, very legitimate back-up plan for the Raiders and Chargers. Perhaps even their next home.

It also didn’t hurt Carson’s cause that long-time NFL executive Carmen Policy was hired as the point man the day before the meetings began and the land transaction between the Chargers, Raiders and Carson officially closed on the very morning owners and reporters began gathering in the Bay Area.

The well-timed announcements resulted in a noticeable buzz. Momentum soon followed.

Nothing changed, necessarily. But perception was altered. All of a sudden, Carson became more real and viable.

But that’s been the case for sometime. Only now, people are beginning to see it as such.

Still, it’s a mistake to think Carson has now leaped ahead of Kroenke’s Inglewood project.

They are in a dead heat. Have been for some time.

So much so that the ultimate deciding factor isn’t so much whether the NFL prefers Inglewood or Carson as it is what’s on the table from St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland.

And by deciding factor, we mean who NFL owners deem the most justified to relocate to Los Angeles.

Even then, depending on what Kroenke’s true intentions are this still might come down back-door negotiations in which all three teams work toward a solution in which they each walk away satisfied.

As far as Carson and Inglewood, they’re neck and neck.

[Rams Dominate]

Powerful stuff.

Indeed, SK has the best hand, that out clause is gold, they know it & so does SK...Strange things can happen we have no control of but looks to me like a done deal...

[dieterbrock]

I keep seeing Goldman Sachs being pandered about in other forums. What I don't see is how GS gets paid back on their investment.
The way I see it when all is said and done, is either GS makes a debilitating fortune off their investment or Spanos/Davis see none of the stadium revenues. Either way it seems one of the two will prefer a home town package. Or Kroneke

[Hacksaw]

I keep seeing Goldman Sachs being pandered about in other forums. What I don't see is how GS gets paid back on their investment.
The way I see it when all is said and done, is either GS makes a debilitating fortune off their investment or Spanos/Davis see none of the stadium revenues. Either way it seems one of the two will prefer a home town package. Or Kroneke

I hear you dieter. The pay back I've heard could take 30 years since only team profits are allowed to be used to repay for their numbers to work. Not 100% certain but that's what I've gleaned. So there seems to be little room for error. This makes it a riskier investment which usually brings a more lucrative payment for the investor.
Then there is the land on which they intend to build. I live 40 miles from there and know the area all too well, Our friend bubba is not BS'ing. That is a very problematic site. One which I'm surprised the league would entertain at all. there are better places.

Factor a reactionary last minute pairing of the odd couple (which screws up other things) and weigh all that against Kroenkes self funded superior project where only one fan base get's nixed (at least for now), leaving leverage and options for either one of the Charaiders and it can be done soonest.

Seems like a no brainer.

Those arguing the opposite have valid points but it just doesn't seem to me those will hold up in the light of day. Arguing the minutia to keep there hopes alive.

I'll be very surprised if the Rams are left behind.