[Elvis]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... l-a-delay/

Talk commences of a possible one-year L.A. delay

Posted by Mike Florio on June 28, 2015, 1:39 PM EDT

At a time when it’s become a foregone conclusion that the NFL will return to Los Angeles in 2016, a possible caveat has emerged

The return might come in 2017.

According to an item from the Editorial board of U-T San Diego, “There is speculation that the owners at the August meeting [to discuss Los Angeles] may delay the entire process for a year to let everything percolate in [Oakland, San Diego, and St. Louis] to see what develops.”

The paper calls it the “best possible outcome” for San Diego, since it would give the local politicians more time to properly pursue a vote regarding the use of taxpayer funds. It also would give both the city and the team cover, if the voters decide to reject the use of public money — necessarily paving the way for the Chargers to return to the city where the team spent its first season in 1960, the inaugural year of the AFL.

It’s unclear where the speculation came from. It could be something that the Editorial board of U-T San Diego conjured (“yes, there is speculation, started by us”) as a Hail Mary pass to keep an NFL team in town for U-T San Diego to cover. If, of course, a public vote regarding the use of taxpayer money would go against the current national trend against subsidizing billionaires’ ballparks.

Tapping the brakes could have unintended consequences. For example, if one of the three teams linked to L.A. gets too antsy about the situation, it could in theory decide to go rogue, moving without NFL approval and bracing to argue that a group of independent businesses ultimately can’t tell one of those businesses where it should conduct its business without violating the antitrust laws.

It’s also possible (“yes, there is speculation, started by us”) that the owners could decide to green light a return by the Rams to L.A. for 2016, with the question of whether the team’s new stadium in Inglewood would be shared with the Chargers or Raiders unresolved.

No amount of delay will change the fact that L.A. has quickly morphed from luxury to necessity for the NFL, with three teams having unsettled stadium situations and each circling the City of Angels. But if the eventual goal is to put two teams in L.A. and to ensure that the third has a new stadium in its current market, it could be that one more year will allow one of the teams to work out a deal locally, allowing the other two to move.

Under that scenario, it’s unlikely that the Chargers would accept an outcome that puts them in a new San Diego stadium and the Rams and Raiders back up the road in L.A. Delaying the process that would allow the Chargers to grab one of the two seats in Los Angeles increases the likelihood that, when the music stops, three franchises will be clustered into territory in which the Chargers currently enjoy their status as the only NFL show in town.

For that reason alone (and the fact that they’ve been trying for 14 years to bring this situation to a head), the Chargers probably aren’t inclined to wait any longer.

[Elvis]

There is speculation that the owners may? Powerful stuff.

Albert Breer on the speculation:

[BuiltRamTough]

Mike Florio - UT San Diego article so mehhhh
I'm sure SD would like another year to try.

Albert Breer - music to my ears.
The part about IF STL gets financing. Mehhhh
Didn't say for the Rams. Still mehhhh

[Hacksaw]

With the City of Champions project the leverage will remain. Breer is spot on and the SD based article is registering on the Bernie meter.

[BuiltRamTough]

[moklerman]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... l-a-delay/

Report: NFL not considering an L.A. delay

Posted by Mike Florio on June 29, 2015, 8:30 AM EDT

Over the weekend, the Editorial board of U-T San Diego cited the existence of “speculation” that the NFL will delay the process of returning to Los Angeles by a year, in order to give the three teams looking to L.A. more of a chance to get new stadiums in their current markets. The speculation apparently isn’t accurate.

Citing an unnamed source, Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the league is not considering a one-year delay in the process.

U-T San Diego didn’t specifically report that a delay would happen. Instead, U-T San Diego seemed to be floating the idea, possibly in order to generate public sentiment for a delay — and in turn to place pressure on the league and the Chargers to give the city more time to legally lay the foundation for a public vote.

The league will conduct a special ownership meeting on August 11 to focus on the L.A. situation. And even if the entire process isn’t delayed, it remains possible that one team (like the Rams) would secure clearance to move to L.A. for 2016, with more time being given to the Chargers and Raiders to get a new stadium for one team in its current market — and for the other to then join the Rams in Inglewood.

[Elvis]

According to Vinny B. Grubman called him and wanted it to be known the story was "not accurate."

SD radio guys are saying that's because the NFL wants to keep the pressure on the home markets without offering them any hope of reprieve, not because there's definitely going to be football in L.A. in 2016. That's their take anyway...

[Hacksaw]

According to Vinny B. Grubman called him and wanted it to be known the story was "not accurate."

SD radio guys are saying that's because the NFL wants to keep the pressure on the home markets without offering them any hope of reprieve, not because there's definitely going to be football in L.A. in 2016. That's their take anyway...

Did you mean "because there 's definitely NOT going to be football" ?

If so, and the SD guys are correct, there is only one scenario that plays out that way for the NFL..

[BuiltRamTough]

According to Vinny B. Grubman called him and wanted it to be known the story was "not accurate."

SD radio guys are saying that's because the NFL wants to keep the pressure on the home markets without offering them any hope of reprieve, not because there's definitely going to be football in L.A. in 2016. That's their take anyway...

Did you mean "because there 's definitely NOT going to be football" ?

If so, and the SD guys are correct, there is only one scenario that plays out that way for the NFL..

If you want to turn the pressure up a notch you let Stan build and use Inglewood as a threat for the 2nd team in 2017-2018. That way the cities know that could be them, then the threat is really real.

If in August they move up the relocation window then I think LA is going to happen in 2016. But who knows, can't wait for August!

[Elvis]

According to Vinny B. Grubman called him and wanted it to be known the story was "not accurate."

SD radio guys are saying that's because the NFL wants to keep the pressure on the home markets without offering them any hope of reprieve, not because there's definitely going to be football in L.A. in 2016. That's their take anyway...

Did you mean "because there 's definitely NOT going to be football" ?

If so, and the SD guys are correct, there is only one scenario that plays out that way for the NFL..

We all interpret Grubman's statement to mean there will be football in L.A. in 2016.

The SD guys are taking it to mean, "I'm saying this to keep the pressure on the 3 home markets, maybe there will be football in L.A. in 2016 or maybe there won't, i just don't want to say that because it's bad for negotiations."

And the reason the SD guys are reading it that way is because, according to Vinny, Grubman pretty much insisted he be quoted as saying a delay isn't happening...