[SoCalRam78]

https://twitter.com/ShaneGmoSTLRams/status/684222846332059648

Stay classy Shane you great big quivering turd.

Who cares what this fucking idiot says? Don't put any value into what he says. He has ZERO insight. He's a cheerleading douche stick.

Why will the Rams move? I'll give you the reasons. 1. Kroenke has the more ready, better stadium and 2. the money. the jack. the dinero.

This idiot wants to think the cash strapped Raiders are going to finance a new stadium in toxic wasteland Carson, CA (which I'm sure he has no clue where this is) with their division rivals and pay 550 million in relo fees, go ahead.

[BuiltRamTough]

This guys has 4.7 mill followers.

[SoCalRam78]

Carson is a joke.

[RamsFanSince82]

I assume you know he is? He makes a lot of stupid comments to get attention.

He's the typical annoying, Boston asshole.

[Elvis]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html

Rams, Chargers and Raiders submit relocation applications to NFL; now for the hard part

Sam Farmer and Nathan Fenno

In an aggressive move Monday to end the NFL's two-decade absence from Los Angeles, three franchises — the Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers and St. Louis Rams — submitted relocation applications to the league on the first day they were eligible to do so.

The development was unprecedented since the Raiders and Rams left the country's second-largest market after the 1994 season. Dozens of stadium proposals and renderings have come and gone, but this is the first time any teams have formally requested to fill the L.A. vacancy.

"We are sad to have reached this point," the Chargers said in a statement.

A year ago Tuesday, Rams owner Stan Kroenke unveiled plans for a $1.86-billion stadium in Inglewood that would serve as the centerpiece of a 298-acre entertainment, retail and housing development at the site of the former Hollywood Park racetrack.

Six weeks later, the Chargers and Raiders, AFC West rivals, announced they were teaming on a competing project in Carson. The $1.7-billion venue would be built on a 157-acre parcel located on an old landfill adjacent to the 405 Freeway.

In an interview with the Chargers' website, owner Dean Spanos blamed the Rams for forcing his team to take action on L.A.

"I think that is what really was the catalyst that got this whole thing going," he said, "because when the Rams decided to make their move there, this was a move to protect our business more than anything. So we find ourselves where we do right now."

The Rams issued a two-sentence statement on their website confirming their desire to relocate for the 2016 season.

The applications Monday were the most predictable step in a process rife with uncertainty. But there isn't a consensus among NFL owners on which plan to approve.

The 32 owners will convene in Houston for a special meeting next week, in hopes of taking a vote to resolve the competition. There's a growing sense among owners that leaving teams in limbo is damaging to the league and that the matter needs to be resolved in time for the 2016 season. That would require a decision by March, at the latest, after years of false starts and dashed hopes for L.A.

In order for one of the projects to move forward, three-fourths of owners must vote for it. Only one stadium will be approved. Each proposal currently has at least nine votes to block the other. Both sides have been lobbying fellow owners for more support.

Disney Chairman and CEO Robert Iger, who is backing the Carson proposal and would oversee the effort if it is approved, has made calls to NFL owners on behalf of that project.

In advance of the Houston meetings, members of the stadium, finance and L.A. committees will meet at league headquarters in New York for two days this week to discuss a path forward. It's a particularly busy time, as five of the six men on the L.A. committee own teams in the playoffs, and the sixth, New York Giants co-owner John Mara, accepted the resignation Monday of longtime coach Tom Coughlin.

The high-stakes emotional, financial and political nature of the L.A. conundrum is uncomfortable for the NFL, which typically takes pains to avoid pitting owner against owner. The league has made it clear that it does want not a game of musical chairs in which one or two teams are left out and forced to return empty-handed to markets they tried to leave.

Monday's development brings the league one step closer to that possibility.

As it stands, there is not even the broad outline of a compromise — or grand bargain — to satisfy all three teams.

Last week, the three markets responded to the NFL's request for their best and final stadium solutions. None was compelling enough for any of the teams — and the league cannot force an owner to accept a deal he or she doesn't want.

St. Louis has the most advanced plan, calling for a $1.1.-billion riverfront stadium that would be paid for, in part, with public money.

"We've anticipated this filing from the Rams for more than a year," the St. Louis stadium task force said in a written statement. "It's why we started working in November 2014 to produce a viable St. Louis stadium proposal for consideration by the Rams and the National Football League. . . . [We] feel extremely confident that it will be well received as the league weighs its options in the weeks ahead."

San Diego is proposing a new $1.1-billion venue on the Mission Valley site of the current Qualcomm Stadium, though the public contribution to the project would hinge on a June vote.

Oakland has not submitted a plan, but sent the league a letter expressing its desire to keep the Raiders.

"In accordance with the relocation policies, the Oakland Raiders submitted a relocation package to the NFL," the team said on its website. "The matter is now in the hands of the NFL's owners."

Meanwhile, schematics are complete for the Inglewood proposal, which could be ready in time for the 2018 season, with developers grading the site while finishing the permitting process. That includes ongoing negotiations with the Federal Aviation Administration to resolve the agency's concerns that the stadium might interfere with radar at nearby Los Angeles International Airport.

The Carson project, which was significantly reworked earlier in the year to overhaul the stadium design and add extras such as a farmer's market, isn't as far along in the design process. The landfill remediation, overseen by the state's Department of Toxic Substances Control, can't be completed until plans for the site are final.

The Chargers, Raiders and Rams all played in L.A. at one point, and Carson and Inglewood were two of the original sites for stadium proposals in the mid-1990s.

[email protected]

Twitter: @LATimesFarmer

[email protected]

Twitter: @nathanfenno

Copyright © 2016, Los Angeles Times

[AltiTude Ram]

This perked my interest.

I'm wondering what part of league Staff Goodell and Grubman are in charge of? I knew the committees were part of the process but how much does the "NFL Staff" weigh in?

The NFL has done a good job stretching this out to allow all 3 cities a chance. Amazing that we are this close to the finish line and still don't know the winner. You would think the NFL would at least end the drama now that the season and ticket sales are done for all 3 teams.

[RedAlice]

Awesome!

Great news to see at the end of today. Thank you all for putting the info all together here.

[Stranger]

Rams, Chargers, Raiders apply for L.A. relocation
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... relocation



As expected, the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders have submitted applications for relocation to Los Angeles.

Monday was the first day the organizations were eligible to petition the league, as required by the NFL Policy and Procedures for Proposed Franchise Relocations.

The NFL released the following statement:

"The applications will be reviewed this week by league staff and three league committees that will meet in New York on Wednesday and Thursday -- the Los Angeles Opportunities, Stadium, and Finance committees. The applications will be presented for consideration at next week's league meeting in Houston on Tuesday and Wednesday. The relocation of a franchise requires the affirmative vote of three-quarters of the NFL clubs (24 of 32)."

The Chargers released a statement of their own, outlining the reasons for this action:

"We have tried for more than 14 years, through nine separate proposals and seven different mayors, to create a world-class stadium experience for fans in San Diego. Despite these efforts, there is still no certain, actionable solution to the stadium problem. We are sad to have reached this point."

The Rams' statement was more elemental:

"The St. Louis Rams informed the National Football League today that the Rams propose to relocate to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. The relocation would be effective for the 2016 NFL League Year."

The Raiders were the last to release a statement:

"In accordance with the relocation policies, the Oakland Raiders submitted a relocation package to the NFL. The matter is now in the hands of the NFL's owners. An owners' meeting is scheduled to take place in Houston, Texas on January 12 and 13, 2016."

[max]

Listening to Spanos gives the impression that he has no appetite for teaming with Kroenke under any circumstances. He is saying the loser goes home, as if he expects the other owners to make a decision that will force at least one of the 3 owners to return to their existing city.

Biggest problem with that is its a worst case outcome for only one owner, Kroenke. This is the key issue the NFL has to resolve. How do they satisfy Spanos when his position is he wants to screw Kroenke or go home, while Kroenke is willing to partner with anyone the NFL wants.

[dieterbrock]

Sending Kroenke back to St Louis creates a new problem for the NFL.
They cant force him to particiapte in that stadium.