[max]

This isn't the best news of the day...

L.A. Update: Carson surges ahead

In the wake of last week’s NFL meeting on the future of football in Los Angeles, and with the resolution of this soap opera five weeks away (let us pray), a few things I learned from people involved in the story:

• The Carson proposal—with either the Chargers and Raiders together, or the Chargers alone—seems to have more momentum than Stan Kroenke’s plan to move the Rams to a complex in Inglewood. Part of the sentiment for Carson is simple: The owners want to support the Spanos family and the Chargers, feeling they have done everything they can to make a new stadium work in San Diego for years.

• The six-owner Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities (perhaps the NFL could name a Vice President of Committee Name Improvement) is likely to end up either 4-2 or 5-1 in favor of the Carson project, a source with knowledge of the committee’s feelings told me. One asterisk there: The committee is likely to side with Carson as long as the new St. Louis stadium is rock-solid when it comes time to vote. If any of the six believe the St. Louis proposal is flawed, they could switch to Kroenke and Inglewood.

• Neither site is close to having the 24 votes to approve one plan.

• No one knows the outcome. The reason, essentially, is that there are still a few important factors up in the air. St. Louis aldermen are scheduled to vote this month to approve funding for a new stadium for the Rams; if they do, how can the NFL abandon a city that has twice in the past 20 years committed to build a downtown stadium for the league? One other recent headache: The Federal Aviation Administration believes the Inglewood stadium would interfere with radar for plane traffic at Los Angeles International Airport. Could that be fixed? The league is confident Kroenke’s plan could be amended to address that.

• Robert Iger, the Disney CEO, has been a boon to the Carson project since he joined forces with the Chargers/Raiders last month. “He feels like a partner to people like Roger Goodell and Bob Kraft,” said one source. Why shouldn’t he? Disney is the parent of ESPN. ESPN has enriched the NFL with rights fees, signed off by Iger, for years. Snagging Iger was the right move.

• One ownership source said he thinks Spanos, if he were in the Carson project alone with Iger, would probably have 24 votes to win the project now. Some owners view the Raiders as a drag on the Carson project, feeling the team brings little to the table. And some owners still seem to carry some enmity for the late Al Davis.

• As for the league’s ability to finalize the plan for Los Angeles at a series of meetings in Houston on Jan. 12-13, that’s no lock. It’s probable, but not certain.

• And as for Rams owner Stan Kroenke, should his dream of the Inglewood project die: No one knows what he’ll do. I hear he’s not interested in becoming the owner to move to London. But every other piece of speculation—that he sells the Rams, that he keeps the Rams in a stadium he doesn’t like, that he waits out the Bowlen family and buys the Broncos—is talk-show fodder. My best guess is he’d hang on to the team and become the biggest franchise free-agent in the coming few years. I keep hearing he doesn’t like the new St. Louis stadium project. It could be an ugly shotgun marriage, or Kroenke refusing to go to the altar.

• Last point: The one thing I heard a lot in the last few days is about what’s best for the Chargers, and best for the Raiders, and—to a much lesser degree—what’s best for the Rams. I haven’t heard many people asking: What would be best for Los Angeles? Roger Goodell is on record, multiple times, saying the league will only go back to Los Angeles after the 21-year hiatus with what makes the most sense for Los Angeles and the NFL. Is solving bad stadium situations for the Chargers and Raiders the best thing for Los Angeles? Is a two-team plan best for a market where you’re reintroducing a sport that’s very expensive for fans? NFL owners will be voting on a lot when they vote on L.A., with ramifications that will reverberate for years.

[bubbaramfan]

I can't believe my luck. Carson stadium is ahead! My property is going to double! With the news of not much parking for the stadium, I can get maybe 30 cars in my front and backyard at 30-40 bucks a car! (they charge 60 bucks around the colesium on Trojan home games).
F the Rams- I'm jumping on the Charaider bandwagon!

[SWAdude]

One man, one opinion.

I am inclined to think Peter King is experienced in evaluating player and team performance. Not the politics of big business. I could argue the sh!t out of his analysis. Like at best, both Carson and St Louis are conceptual ideas with BIG problems to solve. Inglewood is shovel ready.

[Stranger]

I've always thought of Peter as a shill. And I think that's exactly what he's doing here.

So, if I'm right, who is he shilling for, and to what end? For example, does Fabiani think that by getting King to publish this article he puts more negotiating pressure on ESK and NFL HQ? Could that be what's happening, because I don't view this article as anything more than propaganda.

So guys, help me understand the backstory motives here

[Hacksaw]

max, where did you get that article? I Googled it and nothing recent came up.

This is the holiday season and the season for articles about relocation.

I agree with SWA that this info might not be in Kings wheel house. It sounds like more 2nd hand reporting of what we have all heard just with his spin and a few specifics we hadn't heard yet.

I ask why would this be floated like all the similar reports? Obviously we have surmised that it keeps folks in the 3 cities attending games. It seems to have worked in Oakland, but not so much in SD or StLoo. Davis has been the most local fan favorite owner of the 3 through all this though so perhaps that is the connection.

Why else? Could something happen as a result of the vote or decision that would possibly prompt this sort of info being put out there now?

I suspect it could be a form of leverage against Stan. However he has appeared to have already capitulated to some degree so I don't know about that.
It could be continued leverage against StLoo but that is completely unnecessary now so I doubt that too.
It could be the absolute truth because the owners are a bunch of cronies with big bucks and no common sense. Could be but again, I doubt it.

I believe this is another article floated to keep the NFL out of trouble. By giving the communities all the rope, forming a lopsided committee slanted against the Rams, by extending deadlines, by performing the town hall and other relocation protocols, all of it is designed to give the impression that each city (especially St Louis) was given every chance to succeed in an attempt to look good in the loser market/s. To avoid major bad PR and create a legal argument in anticipation of potential lawsuits.

A StLoo failure also diverts the onus of the decision away from the owners with regard to rejecting Dean Spanos allegedly preferred move.
The point being the committee is leaning towards Carson,,, "but if StL is flawed then they might change". Ipp
I find it interesting that the NFL has allegedly put a different price tag in the Gnat (where is that flyswatter) which would essentially doom the StL effort. This after imposing another extended but now firm deadline (to 12-30-15). Keeping in mind that Senator Schaff tweeting that he has pre-filed legal actions against the powers that be IF it does pass the 2 Alderman votes.

So certainty could be manipulated. That additional $300MM should do StL in. They haven't yet disclosed where the other $75MM is coming from. So it's easy to say we are leaning away when they are manipulating it for their pre determined goal.

King:
• Last point: The one thing I heard a lot in the last few days is about what’s best for the Chargers, and best for the Raiders, and—to a much lesser degree—what’s best for the Rams. I haven’t heard many people asking: What would be best for Los Angeles?

I thought those questions were asked last summer in the focus group with the CEO's of the fortune 500 companies in LA and the polls taken. Kings assessment leans against those findings.

Please everyone, let me know if what I am saying makes me one of those LA kooks with my head buried like an ostrich in the sand.

[max]

I've always thought of Peter as a shill. And I think that's exactly what he's doing here.

So, if I'm right, who is he shilling for, and to what end? For example, does Fabiani think that by getting King to publish this article he puts more negotiating pressure on ESK and NFL HQ? Could that be what's happening, because I don't view this article as anything more than propaganda.

So guys, help me understand the backstory motives here

I doubt King knows anything that Kroenke doesn't know. So I doubt it puts any pressure on anyone.

King is not in the room with the other owners, Kroenke is. And when the 29 other owners are in there alone without Spanos, Kroenke, and Davis, you can be sure those 3 guys are being told everything that went on in those closed meeting by their major supporters.

If King is shilling he's shilling for the NFL to keep the general public guessing.

But one thing I can't figure out is why the media isn't spending much time at all vetting the Carson site, including King.

BTW, here's the link for King...

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/07/chip ... triots-nfl

[SoCalRam78]

this is such bullshit

One key phrase in the article: One asterisk there: The committee is likely to side with Carson as long as the new St. Louis stadium is rock-solid when it comes time to vote. If any of the six believe the St. Louis proposal is flawed, they could switch to Kroenke and Inglewood.

So what does flawed mean? If the B of A hasn't voted yet? If there are funding issues? If the money doesn't add up?

[SWAdude]

The St Louis plan was literally thrown together after the Inglewood plan became public. Hence the quick fifth grade art contest like renderings of the St Louis plan. (No offense to fifth graders intended). The ONLY reason the St Louis plan exists is because of the Inglewood plan. The ONLY reason the Carson project exists is because of the Inglewood plan. This isn't business, its politics. Appearances is the name of the game here but the facts are what they are and my guess is 30 owners LOVE the Inglewood plan and need to make it look otherwise. They need to appear as if they gave everyone their due consideration and this is how they do this.

Unemotional logic (if that is possible), with everything considered, can not vision why Inglewood would not be the overwhelmingly favored home for an NFL stadium. If moving the Rams wasn't in the mix, slam dunk it wins over Carson. With the Rams in the mix, it becomes political.

[Hacksaw]

this is such bullshit

One key phrase in the article: One asterisk there: The committee is likely to side with Carson as long as the new St. Louis stadium is rock-solid when it comes time to vote. If any of the six believe the St. Louis proposal is flawed, they could switch to Kroenke and Inglewood.

So what does flawed mean? If the B of A hasn't voted yet? If there are funding issues? If the money doesn't add up?

Don't forget that additional $300MM valuation and the missing $75 MM or the Scaff and his pre-filed lawsuit / appeals.

[bubbaramfan]

Spot on SWA. Carson and St. Louis stadium plans only came about because of Inglewood. St. Louis financial plan keeps changing by the day. After almost a year in the planning, it still isn't complete or finalized by the politicians, again they will be at the last minute.