[Elvis]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spo ... story.html

NFL might be able to help Chargers stay put


Chargers chairman Dean Spanos poses with Boltman before a Dec. 4 game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (K.C. Alfred / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Kevin Acee

What is possible?

How can the NFL help save the troubled marriage between the Chargers and San Diego? Might the league be able to help bridge the funding gap between what the team says it needs and the city believes it can responsibly provide?

We may be closer to finding out this week when owners convene at a luxury hotel outside Dallas for their final quarterly meeting of 2017.

Amidst numerous reports and rampant speculation that the Chargers are all but packed and ready to go to Los Angeles, multiple sources said in the past week that factions inside the league are workshopping ways to keep the team in San Diego.

“Some of these are outside the purview of the Chargers,” said one executive.

Those sources did not provide details but suggested the solutions could include additional money by way of a friendly loan, NFL investment in a stadium development and/or the guarantee of two Super Bowls in a short period of time.

“We have to decide how badly we as a league want the San Diego market,” one team owner said. “I think there is considerable sentiment that we do.”

Nothing official will be decided by NFL owners when they meet Wednesday at the Four Seasons hotel here.

This is the annual afterthought of owners meetings, a fourth-quarter get-together where they dot some i’s and cross some t’s, exchange holiday well-wishes, get back on their private jets and go home.

However, this gathering is the final time Chargers chairman Dean Spanos is scheduled to be with his fellow owners before the Jan. 15 deadline to declare his intentions regarding Los Angeles.

“I’m looking forward to Dean in front of the owners,” one league executive said. “What’s he going to say?”

Spanos has in hand an option to join the Los Angeles Rams in their Inglewood stadium as a sort of equity-holding tenant. He can also request an extension on that option, though a couple people around the league said if Spanos does not decide to move in January his best course of action is to say he has officially given up the option to do so.

“He could still work something out with (the Rams) and the league that would protect him in L.A.,” said one source who is familiar with the deal in place between the two teams.

Reports in recent weeks have characterized the Chargers as needing a “miracle” and as “99.9 percent” certain to move to Los Angeles. That reflects a pessimism over what the Chargers have relayed about the state of negotiations with the city. It is not known how the will respond to a group of city councilmembers proposing the Chargers get a 99-year, $1 lease of the Qualcomm Stadium land

Several people around the league pointed out the owners can resolve to do whatever they want, as long as three-quarters of them agree. And as was seen last January, when a divided ownership quickly morphed into a 30-2 vote to approve the Rams move from Los Angeles over a plan by the Chargers and Oakland Raiders, they tend to come around to almost one mind.

That, too, could play into Spanos’ decision. While he was awarded on that January night the ability to move to L.A., two sentiments were widely expressed in recent conversations with an owner and other executives – that Spanos does not want to leave San Diego and has always shown a reluctance to go against the collective will.

The consensus is that Spanos has not decided to leave. Reports the Chargers’ move is imminent appear to be based on the sincere frustration expressed by the Chargers over the situation in San Diego rather than Spanos saying he is leaning that way. However, several people around the league said they have heard Spanos’ advisors are unanimously telling him the prudent course leads to L.A.

Several NFL folks believe Spanos is playing a leverage game with the league more than with San Diego with media leaks regarding his frustration over the lack of movement in San Diego and likelihood the Chargers will relocate.

He is aware of the challenges in San Diego – the likelihood the city won’t budge from its pledge of $200 million, with the possibility that even an additional $150 million from the county would leave the public contribution about $150-$200 million short of what the Chargers contend they need. So there really is no motivation to commence a staredown with San Diego’s politicians.

It is not known whether Spanos will address his fellow owners as a group or even how the league will handle its presentation on the situations in San Diego and Oakland.

Some speculated that Spanos will somehow make it known he wants to remain in San Diego and will essentially say, “What can you do for us?”

One person familiar with the sentiment of a significant number of owners predicted if Spanos does ask for assistance from the league in an effort to stay in San Diego, he will get it. If Spanos says he wants to go to Los Angeles, the person said that while there would be support for that decision from ownership there would also be an endeavor to see what it would take to keep Spanos in San Diego.

“I think they’ll move if San Diego doesn’t do anything,” one source said last week. “But I’d be surprised if in the next couple weeks there’s not some significant movement from the league’s perspective.”

While it is far more clear what Raiders owner Mark Davis intends to do next month in filing for relocation to Las Vegas, there figures to be continued discussion about that pending positioning. The owners’ decision regarding that request almost certainly plays into the Chargers’ status.

It seems unlikely the league will leave both markets. There is something of a split among owners about which is more desirable for the league.

Given Oakland’s inability to come up with a plan the NFL deems acceptable and Davis’ seemingly clear intention to leave, one compromise that continues to be bandied in league circles is the Raiders ending up in San Diego if the Chargers go to Los Angeles. Two league sources said this week they were dubious of the owners’ willingness to put two teams in Los Angeles and one in Las Vegas.

In summing up what is to come between now and a resolution to the Chargers’ search for a new home – wherever that may be – one league executive used two metaphors.

“You are, at best, in the third quarter,” the executive said. “And you may not even be there. I certainly don’t think this is in the fourth quarter.”

And in regard to how this week’s meetings and ensuing discussions among the ownership play into Spanos’ decision:

“There are a lot of cards to be played,” the executive said. “… You have to see what you have.”

To see what is possible.

[moklerman]

I still think the Chargers will stay put. I don't know about Oakland but I just can't envision Spanos giving up SD. He doesn't want to leave, much less be second fiddle in LA, he just wants help paying for a new stadium. I think if it comes down to it, the league would rather help him pay for things in SD than have another franchise abandon it's city.

[Elvis]

[St. Loser Fan]

I don't think the Chargers will get a suitcase of cash. Additional straight up money to the Chargers will certainly anger some owners and bring possible litigation from the city of St. Louis. My guess is a bunch of rules/guidelines will be adjusted so the Chargers can stay in San Diego.

[azramsfan93]

I don't think the Chargers will get a suitcase of cash. Additional straight up money to the Chargers will certainly anger some owners and bring possible litigation from the city of St. Louis. My guess is a bunch of rules/guidelines will be adjusted so the Chargers can stay in San Diego.

What would STL's litigation be based upon? The fact that a private entity choose to do business in San Diego and not STL?

Those decisions happen all the time in business. Private entities walk away from incentives in one locale only to invest their own funds in another. Depends on what fits their business plan.

It's a business. The Rams moved. The situation in San Diego has no bearing on that fact, other than Spanos' option on joining them in Inglewood.

[RedAlice]

I don't think the Chargers will get a suitcase of cash. Additional straight up money to the Chargers will certainly anger some owners and bring possible litigation from the city of St. Louis. My guess is a bunch of rules/guidelines will be adjusted so the Chargers can stay in San Diego.

litigation from StL? On what basis?

Every relocation from now to the forever is not based what happened in StL. Also, it seems like Spanos really wants to stay in San Diego, that already right there makes the circumstance 100% different. I also think the owners want a team to stay in San Diego, so probably more would be happy than upset.

We can blame it on the weather. StL can't sue us for that. I'm wearing flip flops and a tank top today.

[St. Loser Fan]

litigation from StL? On what basis?

Every relocation from now to the forever is not based what happened in StL. Also, it seems like Spanos really wants to stay in San Diego, that already right there makes the circumstance 100% different. I also think the owners want a team to stay in San Diego, so probably more would be happy than upset.

I'm not going to argue this as it will just get me in trouble again.

[Elvis]

[RedAlice]

Higgins tweet at the end is great -

Shouldn't be cause for increased alarm (above the high state of alarm already).

[moklerman]

So, is this still an attempt to leverage SD?