[Elvis]

It's pretty laughable.

Inglewood is good because it's a one team solution? Well Carson could be a one team solution too.

Inglewood is good because it's more than just a football stadium? Well maybe Carson could be more too (now that apparently a giant parking lot for tailgating isn't polling as well as they thought it would).

The other good thing about Inglewood is it's legit. Carson hasn't quite reached that bar yet.

But my question is this, and it comes down to what has always been my question: What are the Chargers up to? What do they really want?

Who is all this propaganda and spin meant to fool? I can't imagine Stan Kroenke or Jerry Jones are buying it. Are any of the owners? Who's their target audience? What's the end game?

If we all think it's BS, who is it that matters to The Chargers that doesn't?

[Hacksaw_64]

So if this billionaire savior buys the Raiders and builds an NFL Carson Disneyland why in the world would Spanos want to be a tenant? I don't see him wanting to be outshined by the Raiders anyway. None of this makes sense to me.

[BuiltRamTough]

No ones buying the Raiders and closing the deal in 2 months.

It's not like you're buying a ham sandwich. Who falls for this shit?

My God. We're LA! We've been hearing rumors and nonesence like this for 20 years!

[azramsfan93]

Something that I've long considered to be the most important point, that Kroenke doesn't need the NFL or help to get his deal done, as the reason that the NFL would prefer his deal over all others, may actually be the opposite.

Look at what kind of precedent that would set. If Kroenke comes in and builds a successful venue without any public funding, would any future franchise get public funding? This line of thinking has me doubting Kroenke's palace for the first time in a while.

There are not enough owners with that kind of wealth to be able to set a precedent like that. This LA situation is unique and a one time shot.
If another mega wealthy owner was to come along and want to move their team for similar reasons, 1, LA would no longer be available. And other than moving to LA or another former home,, why?

It wouldn't be about the details though, would it? Is the public perception, even now, that the NFL couldn't afford to build it's own stadiums? I don't think so.

It wouldn't matter that Kroenke's got so much more money than any of the other owners, it would just do down as an NFL stadium finally being built without public money. Unless of course there have been others already.

The difference here is that the "competing" proposal in Carson also proposes to use no public money. That given, it should come down to the preferred project and the preferred site.

[Hacksaw]

Good point AZ93

[TSFH Fan]

About that financing, more tilted towards a tax payer POV, I'd say this:

MetLife was supposedly 100% privately funded -- https://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.co ... 2-2-11.pdf

But no one should be fooled -- all this talk about public and private financing, so far, has ignored the idea of infrasturcture improvements, subsidies and tax breaks that seem to occur with every stadium, that owners seem to like.

Zoffinger said that while the teams liked to claim that they built their stadium with private funds, New Jersey taxpayers are on the hook for about $400 million in road improvements, a new rail link from Secaucus and more than $100 million to retire the debt on the old stadium after it is torn down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/sport ... taxes.html

"These hidden or obscured costs add to the total cost ... and most of these hidden costs are public costs," Long said.

Extra costs to taxpayers add up from a variety of sources: subsidies for the land, ongoing operational costs, capital improvements, city services and lost revenue from stadiums exempt from paying property taxes, Long said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/3663541/

Stan's stadium has that infrastructure reimbursement clause, the City saved him the time and money of getting an environmental report, and there's talk of extending a rail line, at public cost, plus other things that are hidden -- so really, it's not 100% privately financed. But, just imagine what type of hidden public money would have to go into fixing up toxic Fake Carson Stadium, especially with that hard working City Hall over there.

Bottom line is that while owners would love public money to flow into their pockets, they also appreciate the public not taking/taxing money out of their pockets.

[BuiltRamTough]

About that financing, more tilted towards a tax payer POV, I'd say this:

MetLife was supposedly 100% privately funded -- https://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.co ... 2-2-11.pdf

But no one should be fooled -- all this talk about public and private financing, so far, has ignored the idea of infrasturcture improvements, subsidies and tax breaks that seem to occur with every stadium, that owners seem to like.

Zoffinger said that while the teams liked to claim that they built their stadium with private funds, New Jersey taxpayers are on the hook for about $400 million in road improvements, a new rail link from Secaucus and more than $100 million to retire the debt on the old stadium after it is torn down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/sport ... taxes.html

"These hidden or obscured costs add to the total cost ... and most of these hidden costs are public costs," Long said.

Extra costs to taxpayers add up from a variety of sources: subsidies for the land, ongoing operational costs, capital improvements, city services and lost revenue from stadiums exempt from paying property taxes, Long said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/3663541/

Stan's stadium has that infrastructure reimbursement clause, the City saved him the time and money of getting an environmental report, and there's talk of extending a rail line, at public cost, plus other things that are hidden -- so really, it's not 100% privately financed. But, just imagine what type of hidden public money would have to go into fixing up toxic Fake Carson Stadium, especially with that hard working City Hall over there.

Bottom line is that while owners would love public money to flow into their pockets, they also appreciate the public not taking/taxing money out of their pockets.

Shhhh quiet no one is supposed to know this lol

[RedAlice]

So if this billionaire savior buys the Raiders and builds an NFL Carson Disneyland why in the world would Spanos want to be a tenant? I don't see him wanting to be outshined by the Raiders anyway. None of this makes sense to me.

Good point.

I thought Spanos was going to "partner" with the Raiders because he saw them as weak, and himself as strong. IF, this money man comes in .... that changes things for Spanos. Everything from marketing to sponsors, to etc.

Why not go with Kroenke then? The $$$ man won't be coming in to love the weak Chargers.

[max]

I thought it was interesting when Farmer said Jerry Richardson worked very hard to get Spanos and Davis together. That means the league put a guys who is basically a key component of the Carson project on the LA Committee. But Jerry Jones isn't on the Committee. Almost all of them are very Pro Spanos. They stacked the deck in favor of Carson. Yet, Kroenke and Jones and other Inglewood supporters accepted the rigged Committee. Why?

My guess is that Kroenke and friends aren't concerned that the Committee will railroad them out. Let the Committee do their thing, Inglewood is so superior to Carson that Kroenke believes when he puts it in front of all the owners there is no way Carson will get a majority.

As long as Carson doesn't get a majority, Kroenke wins. The decision either goes back to the NFL head shed which is ruled by Goodell, Jones, and Kraft. Or the owners say they are going to push it back a year, in which case Kroenke just starts building in Inglewood. They can't stop him from doing that and they won't want the fallout of that happening.

The only question that I have now is does the NFL want the Rams in LA alone or with the Chargers. Do they help their good buddy Spanos as the expense of possibly saturating the LA market with 2 teams immediately and also losing their LA leverage for another team?

It all comes down to this, how much are the owners willing to risk and give up in order to help Spanos.

One way of analyzing that question is asking when was the last time the NFL willingly risked their future to help one owner.

[The Ripper]

I don't have the link on me now but I posted on RRF the link for the 2 gazillion page hearing the Senate had in 99 on the 90's move of teams and one thing the Congress has been wanting to do for awhile now is stop all public financing of stadiums. They did some legislation back in the 80's that they thought would end public finance but the states found loop holes and still funded the venues. So in my opinion after this is all said and done I think the NFL will meet and come out with a new set of bylaws that will for the most part make a franchise tied to a specific market for life, except under certain circumstances which will be spelled out and not subject to interpretation as they are now when it comes to a move.

I think the NFL will be forced to do this because ya have 3 teams and 5 cities now playing musical chairs and so some Congress men after this is done will wanna show the voters how much they care for them, and have their reelection or election in mind and want some brownie points. So that is to many folks affected by a NFL move at one time so no way a politician misses the opportunity to step in and leave his or in this case their marks. So the NFL after all this is done is gonna preempt them and show how good they are at self policing so the politicians don't have the last say and everyone in the future having to privately fund their stadium.

Here's the link. https://archive.org/stream/professional ... 5/mode/2up

In the 1996 hearings it wasn't so much that they wanted to remove funding for stadiums but more that they wanted to limit the movements of teams that received public funds. The problem with any of the restrictions on public funding is that they can't single out sports stadiums. Any limit would also have to include limiting public money for all private businesses. It's one of those ideas along with forbidding the use of tax free bonds for stadiums, that gets proposed every few years but never has support and is more for the headlines than something that will actually be passed.

Congress and the courts have told the NFL to make the relocation policy objective so it could withstand a legal challenge but the owners have refused to give up the vote. The main problem is that this would give the League too much power over the teams and it could lead to other issues down the road. They may set up a system that incorporates some objective measures but the final decision will still be made by the owners.

Congress may hold hearings but nothing will come from them just like every other time they have held hearings. The current situation is completely different from the relocations in the 80's and 90's because this time 2 of the 3 teams were given the right to relocate by the cities. The local politicians can complain but in the end the fault is their own.