[Elvis]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... tings-nfl/

NFL on way to L.A., but questions remain

By Kevin Acee | 6:54 p.m. Oct. 7, 2015

NEW YORK — San Diego’s greatest hope remains in uncertainty.

Fact is, less than three months from an anticipated day of reckoning, the NFL doesn’t know precisely what it wants to do or what is possible in Los Angeles, and there is far from a consensus among the 32 team owners about which one of the two L.A. stadium proposals they should support or when the league should return to the nation’s second-largest market. The NFL also is willing to negotiate with San Diego in lieu of the Chargers, though the team would have to approve the terms of a deal.

It is a faint glimmer of a ray of hope, but it is not the total darkness of an impending move.

It still doesn’t look good for San Diego.

The Chargers remain opposed to San Diego officials’ plans to build a stadium, and there are several NFL owners reluctant to disagree with one of their own on that assessment.

At this point, the NFL expects the Chargers, St. Louis Rams and Oakland Raiders to file for relocation in January.

“I think there will be a vote,” Steelers chairman Art Rooney II, a member of the influential Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities, said after the 32 owners met Wednesday inside a Park Avenue hotel.

Chargers stadium: Complete coverage

It was a sentiment with which NFL commissioner Roger Goodell agreed.

That doesn’t guarantee a vote, which would require three-quarters approval by owners for a team to move, will happen. And it certainly doesn’t mean a team – let alone two – will be approved for relocation.

The NFL told owners in their gathering here, in fact, that it isn’t sure whether L.A. is a two-team market. Owners were also told the league might not be ready for a vote in January.

One owner said he was “frustrated” by the lack of progress. Others also clearly felt the process should be moving along more quickly. However, NFL relocation point man Eric Grubman said he felt each step is a necessary part of the process and there is time for all issues to be resolved.

“I think there was an honest exchange of viewpoints,” Grubman said of Wednesday afternoon’s session, which included just the 32 owners in a room. “… I think it’s (necessary) they begin to understand where one another might be.”

The league shared with owners that it is confident there will be a temporary stadium deal in place for the 2016 season. The league staff provided updates on progress in San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland. Kroenke and Spanos spoke briefly about their respective L.A. proposals, and then they, along with Raiders owner Mark Davis, left the room. At that point, owners shared views. Among them was an assertion by the Jets and Giants ownership, who share a stadium, that if two teams are moving to Los Angeles, they must do so at the same time in order to be on equal footing.

Among the three teams, only Davis seems OK with the idea of the process dragging out. He is also the one with the least capital and least leverage, as many in the league are of the opinion that Oakland will never have a viable stadium solution. Chargers chairman Dean Spanos and Rams owner Stan Kroenke declined comment, but sources said both earnestly seek a resolution for 2016.

Multiple sources said both Spanos and Kroenke are confident they have at least the nine votes apiece it would take to block the other from relocating.

There is a growing opinion among owners that a vote should not occur – at least not as presently envisioned – and that Kroenke and Spanos should be prompted by the NFL to get together and come up with a solution.

RELATED: Spanos has allies, Kroenke has money | Chargers, Rams mediation could happen
Grubman said San Diego submitted via e-mail a term sheet of its proposal to build a stadium at the end of last week. He said the league expects to receive St. Louis’ term sheet soon.

Grubman said he has not extensively studied the San Diego term sheet. Two sources said the sheet contained essentially the same proposal that San Diego made to the NFL in August, with the update that the deadline for a January election has passed and it will shoot for a June election.

The Chargers cut off negotiations with the city in June, primarily over concerns about the city’s plans to conduct an expedited environmental impact report. Spanos has made sure his fellow owners know the holes he sees in San Diego’s plan, including the EIR and what the team sees as underestimated costs. Owners are naturally sympathetic to what they see as a deal that requires the Chargers to assume cost overrun and litigation risk.

Grubman said Wednesday the league can negotiate with San Diego in place of the Chargers. He cited the NFL’s intervention in the late 1990s that kept the New England Patriots in Foxborough, Mass., after the team had agreed to move to Hartford, Conn.

“That’s how things sometimes happen,” Grubman said. “I don’t accept because an owner isn’t going to negotiating sessions that means there is no negotiation.”

[Elvis]

[ramfaninsd]

i don't quite understand tweets is scott tweeting kevin a major story is brewing or vice versa

[Elvis]

I think Scott is telling Kevin...

[SoCalRam78]

Rams and Chargers belong in so cal, and by so cal I'm including the Whale's Vagina with LA. Raiders belong in Northern California. It's the perfect 2 AFC/2 NFC California franchises, one of each north and south of the grape vine.

[RedAlice]

I hope Scott is right. #savetheirbolts

[ramfaninsd]

i do to, i don't want to see san diego lose the chargers.

[Elvis]

I think we all pretty much agree the Chargers belong in SD and the Rams in L.A.

Now we just have to wait and see how it turns out...

[den-the-coach]

I think we all pretty much agree the Chargers belong in SD and the Rams in L.A.

Now we just have to wait and see how it turns out...

[Hacksaw]

Nice den. Can't disagree Elvis,, but a cherried out new stadium is more important right now so the chargers will blow it all up. Brilliant.