Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... blic-vote/

San Diego proposal hinges on June 2016 public vote

Posted by Mike Florio on January 2, 2016, 5:56 AM EST

The three cities that face losing NFL teams have made their final offers aimed at persuading the league’s owners to prevent the teams from leaving town. In San Diego, the proposal is roughly the same as the one that the city made during 2015 negotiations.

PFT has obtained a copy of the document submitted by San Diego on December 30. It provides for $350 million in public funding that would be available only if a June 2016 election results in approval for the investment. The rest of the $1.1 billion would come from the NFL ($200 million), the Chargers ($363 million), and PSL sales ($187 million).

The proposal also relies on an aggressive approach under the California Environmental Quality Act; still, the project has qualified for a program that requires all litigation challenging it to be finalized within 270 days. This means that, even with a favorable vote in June, a final answer through the courts may not come until much later.

The downside to the proposal becomes obvious. If the vote fails or if a court decides the project doesn’t pass environmental muster, the Chargers could be shut out of L.A., assuming the Rams secure approval to move to the stadium owner Stan Kroenke wants to build in Inglewood.

That’s one of the big reasons Kroenke was believed to be pushing for a one-year delay in a final vote on Los Angeles. He thinks that the extra year will show that San Diego can get something done on a new stadium — and that St. Louis can’t.

Even if the Chargers secure approval to move on January 13, San Diego can still try to put in place a plan for building a new stadium in the hopes of luring a replacement team. Indeed, portions of the San Diego proposal seem aimed at conveying the broader message that San Diego is indeed an NFL city.

The problem for the Chargers is that San Diego needs more time to prove that it’s an NFL city (via the ballot box and the litigation process) than the Chargers are willing to invest, especially after 15 years of waiting for the local politicians to wake up. It’s possible that a departure of the Chargers will trigger a strong local incentive to regain NFL status, pushing the effort through and making San Diego a potential destination for another team that needs a new stadium but can’t work something out in its local market.

Which makes the possibility of the Raiders moving to San Diego not as far fetched as it would seem.

Raiders to SD? For the love of gawd. That is so way out of bounds. Now I know they are all just making noise.

In NY next week, map out something acceptable to the 3 owners. Not even sure why Davis is there other than perception.
If they can't get all to agree with the most obvious scenario (CoC), then have ESK/Spanos draw up a reasonable lease revenue split in case SD blows it.
That way Spanos isn't totally happy but he get's into LA and doesn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. He just need to compensate ESK for the construction costs.

ESK isn't totally happy but his dream becomes a reality.

Davis? Well, like JJ stated you get what you earn and he doesn't want idiot sons who didn't earn their way up to control LA. (ipp)

Perhaps once the Rams move, ESK can hold Deans hand and work with SD to close the $363 million dollar team requirement or stadium location to keep them there.

I remember a few comments coming out early on before the gags were put on, that all ESK wanted was a 2 year head start. This is just about how all this would time out. And it keeps SD and Oakland alive. Geezus,

Wait, what? Kroenke wants another year delay per Florio. Lol.

Farmer's Field got a fast tracked EIR, so I think the Mission Valley site would get theirs this year. As for the referendum vote, who knows, but if it's a simple majority, they may get it as well.

There was a rumor on the compost (take it with grain of salt, most likely fake, though it works out for us) that SK would pay the Chargers share of stadium in SD or 363 million or whatever.

I imagine in this hypothetical possible bs scenario, this would allow the Carson project to die and cry baby man child Spanos gets his free stadium in SD with literally no out of pocket expense other than the G4 and PSLs. Literally SK would have to pacify the son of a bitch. As a contingency, I assume Kroenke would leave a key for Spanos at Inglewood with his earlier proposed 50/50 split of the stadium only if the SD plan fails in '16.

As for the Raiders, who cares. Clown franchise has flipped the NFL the bird twice in 35 years and don't have a pot to piss in. No reason to negotiate with them.

Someone cue the man child gif

Sam Farmer was saying Carson wants a decision sooner rather than later, that their financing could fall apart in a year whereas Kroenke's is obviously rock solid...

Elvis wrote:Sam Farmer was saying Carson wants a decision sooner rather than later, that their financing could fall apart in a year whereas Kroenke's is obviously rock solid...

That must be a leverage ploy. If GS smell money, why would it fall apart? The only way it falls completely apart (if it really exists in the first place) is if ESK starts digging.
Now whether or not Carson is there in a year is another story considering the way their budget is going.

I'm wondering what the other owners are thinking about Spanos trying to keep Kroenke out of LA and not working together. He seems dead set on keeping Kroenke out of LA. Kroenke has even offered him equal partnership in Inglewood without stadium design/development.

Spanos is OK with sharing a stadium with Davis but not Kroenke. I'm thinking it's because the Chargers can't compete with the Rams in LA. If Spanos knows this then the other owners know it also. If finding the best solution for LA was the objective then Spanos found it for them. Spanos knows the best fit for LA and is proving it by his actions.

The Rams/Inglewood is the best way to bring football back to LA.