[Elvis]

Eric Grubman On Why San Diego Won’t Present To NFL At October Meetings

by Marty Caswell



Last month, the NFL invited San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, city attorney Jan Goldsmith and county supervisor Ron Roberts to New York for their October meetings, at which time the cities of San Diego and St. Louis would make their full presentations to all NFL owners on progress for a new stadium.

The invitation has been retracted.

NFL executive vice president Eric Grubman explained the reasoning through email.

“After talking to a number of owners, I felt that Committee members would want to engage with and talk to the presenters in some detail, and that the full group of owners might benefit from a back and forth discussion about the potential projects. That kind of dialogue usually doesn’t happen at league meetings when there are outside presenters, and particularly when we have a full agenda. We discussed it with the LA Committee and it was decided that we would figure out a better arrangement for any next presentations. ”

“Several of the cities are continuing to work on projects, and the schedules for them to make their plans and get things done, and for us to analyze the various options remains fluid and still flexible.”

I asked Grubman if the city of San Diego would have a chance to present at a later date.

“I certainly think that we are going to have further discussions, and there could very well be an opportunity in the coming weeks and months. We have to discuss it with them.”

Grubman also told Bernie Wilson of the Associated Press that the NFL was still figuring out the details for town hall meetings in San Diego, St . Louis and Oakland for fans to vent their thoughts and frustrations.

Faulconer’s spokesman Matt Awbrey says dialogue between the City and County’s negotiators and NFL officials will continue.

“To better allow for an in-depth presentation, the NFL is looking at having hometown cities present to a smaller setting of team owners. We look forward to making a more detailed presentation to NFL owners at an upcoming time to update them on San Diego’s progress and commitment to keeping the Chargers in San Diego.”

[Hacksaw]

To bad LA didn't get a chance to air their grievances before GF bolted. Everything these days is so much more transparent.
They are clearly giving everyone the opportunity to make their pitches. I hope that all the time and now copying isn't allowing the Rams proposal to slide backward.

[Rams the Legends live on]

To bad LA didn't get a chance to air their grievances before GF bolted. Everything these days is so much more transparent.
They are clearly giving everyone the opportunity to make their pitches. I hope that all the time and now copying isn't allowing the Rams proposal to slide backward.

I really don't think the added time will hurt. What I do is just place myself in their shoes. If i was a owner and looked at all proposals since I am in business and I like money which one does the most for my bottom line. If the Rams stay I know I could at least count on like my share of the next tv contract being 200 million I believe that is what the last break down for each was. Anyway I would figure my share would at least be the same even though the next contract I am sure will be larger with a much lager share. I would just figure about the same when I factor in inflation and cost of living.

St. Louey also means if they stay I as a owner have to ante up. Since the G-4 money is money I have put in. A stay in StL means my ante gets used. Am I ok with that or do I think my ante can be better used somewhere else or down the road.

A move to LA means I can realistically count on a bigger share of the tv contract money next time around by virtue of how large the market is and LA also has a greater lure for another branded team to have international appeal which means I can make more in shared revenue from branded items sales such as shirts and the whole gambit of the brand. My ante also does not get used up so instead of using my ante I get a share of the fee imposed for a move.

Which also effects my attitude on the Raiders as well since I am looking at possibly having to forgo any fee so the Raiders can afford to move and once again my ante might have to be used.

So anyway if I was a owner and looking at all this from the number side the time just makes me salivate more just like when ya are grilling or cooking your favorite meal and your senses become overloaded by the smell and the anticipation of tasting. So in my opinion the delay could just mean fellow owners develop more of a appetite waiting to bite into a greater share of revenue.

[TSFH Fan]

[Elvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... Gc.twitter

St. Louis presentation at NFL owners meeting is off for now

By Jim Thomas

The eagerly anticipated — at least in St. Louis — presentation of the St. Louis stadium project proposal at next month's NFL owners meeting will not take place.

NFL executive Eric Grubman, the league's point man on Los Angeles relocation and "home market" stadium projects, has confirmed that the league does not intend to have St. Louis or San Diego make presentations at the Oct. 6-7 owners meetings in New York.

As recently as late last week, members of the St. Louis stadium task force headed by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz were rehearsing their presentation.

"After talking to a number of owners, we felt that (Los Angeles) Committee members would want to engage with and talk to the presenters in some detail and that there would be a benefit from a back-and-forth discussion about the potential projects," Grubman said via e-mail.

"That kind of dialogue usually doesn't happen at league meetings when there are outside presenters, and particularly when we have a full agenda. We discussed it with the LA Committee and it was decided that we would figure out a better arrangement for any next presentations."

Grubman said the cities have been informed and told that the league is thinking through various options.

In a statement released this afternoon, Peacock said: "We are comfortable with the NFL’s rationale to postpone our presentation to one or more of the relevant owner committees until later this fall. We expect to be notified of the new date and protocol in the coming days. The delay has no bearing whatsoever on our approach. Our excellent progress continues. St. Louis will be ready when the time comes. "

Grubman added: "This decision has nothing to do with the state of the various projects; it is simply a judgment about how best to proceed."

Grubman said there is a chance that St. Louis (and San Diego) will be allowed to make a presentation to the entire membership of NFL owners sometime in the future.

"But the key questions are about timing and about the substance of the conversations that can occur around any project, not the ceremony of appearing at a league meeting," he said.

If the members of the Los Angeles Committee and commissioner Roger Goodell feel the full membership needs to hear a presentation from the home-market cities in the future, that's what will happen. If not, they will let the home-market representatives deal with the committee, and then have the committee report to the owners.

"We often have major issues handled by committees, with committee reports to the full membership," Grubman said.