[Hacksaw]

per Times - Roger Goodell, six owners taking more prominent role in NFL's potential return to L.A.
22 Sep 2015, 17:38

The NFL's potential return to Los Angeles has quietly entered a new phase.

For two decades, the process has been controlled by league executives and staff. They have done the analyzing, the comparing, the haggling. They have set the tempo of discussions.

Now, with the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders eyeing a move before the 2016 season, team owners are taking control of the process.

The Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities, comprising six owners, along with Commissioner Roger Goodell, will take a more prominent role in the proceedings in the next few weeks. This has not happened since the Raiders and Rams left the L.A. market 20 years ago.

In the coming weeks, people such as NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman, for months the point man on L.A., will step into the background and defer to Goodell and the committee, which is chaired by Pittsburgh Steelers owner Art Rooney II, and includes New England's Robert Kraft, Carolina's Jerry Richardson, Kansas City's Clark Hunt, Houston's Bob McNair, and the New York Giants' John Mara.

It's no coincidence that influential group includes the chairmen of the Stadium Committee (Rooney), Broadcast Committee (Kraft), Finance Committee (McNair), International Committee (Hunt), and Management Council (Mara).

On the surface, this might seem like a subtle change — and it might be. The process has been glacial, and the situation hasn't changed much since the spring, when the Chargers and Raiders got the necessary entitlements on their joint project in Carson to pull even with the Rams in Inglewood.

But, with the league heading into its fall meetings in New York in the second week of October, this could represent a major shift. The owners are the ultimate decision makers and may choose to nudge the L.A. situation along by making some actual decisions.

They could make a firm commitment to a temporary site or sites – although the Coliseum is officially the only game in town at this point – or move up the window for submitting relocation applications. That currently opens at the beginning of 2016, but the league has talked about opening it earlier to give a team or teams more time to get up and rolling in L.A.

Most significantly, those owners could tip their hand as to which project they prefer. So far, they have not taken an official position on that. When they do, it could be the start of a real relocation.

Up to now, if Grubman or staff leaned one way or another, it didn't have the weight of an owner expressing a preference.

Goodell's role is pivotal too. He knows Southern California, because he was in Grubman's role, the point man for bringing a team back to L.A. in the late 1990s, when Paul Tagliabue was commissioner.

Although it's unlikely Goodell would go against the recommendation of an L.A. committee he appointed, it's also safe to assume he has some ability to influence and shape the opinion that comes out of that room.

Both the Rams and the Chargers/Raiders believe they have the superior plan. But nobody knows for sure what those six committee members think, or what they will eventually decide.

So which of the two plans, Inglewood or Carson, benefits most from this shift to the owners?

That's where the tea-leaf reading comes in.

The Rams think they have the better project and location, and the deeper pockets and L.A. roots.

The Chargers and Raiders are confident they have the support of most NFL owners – San Diego's Dean Spanos is especially popular among his peers – and, not surprisingly, those two teams prefer their plan, location, and the fact theirs would be an outdoor stadium with real grass.

What we know for sure is the people who can actually vote on a decision are stepping forward and taking control, something that had not happened up to this point. And that just might be progress.

sam.farmer@latimes.com.

Twitter: @LATimesfarmer

[BuiltRamTough]

I could smell it already. #larams

[Elvis]

A little something from Vinny:

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/09/ ... financing/

A quick refresher on Carson stadium financing

Posted on September 22, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

I’ve been getting some questions recently about the financing mechanisms in place for the Chargers and Raiders Carson project, and the responsibility of the city of Carson.

The concern, of course, is what Carson might be on the hook for and whether Carson will be responsible for any shortfall in the future should anything go sour.

It’s a valid concern, of course. And over the last few months I’ve talked with people in the know on the city end and from the Raiders and Chargers. The good news is, Carson seems well protected.

Here is the long and short of it.

REMEDIATION BONDS

Prior to the Raiders and Chargers coming on board, the city of Carson sold bonds to cover the remaining remediation work still needed on the land involved. Those bonds have already been issued by the city and the Reclamation Authority and were independent of the stadium project. The remediation work needs to be done whether a stadium is built on that land or a shopping center goes up. Moving forward, no more bonds need to be sold.

STADIUM FINANCING

The financing of the actual $1.7 billion project is on the teams and on Goldman Sachs, not on the city or anyone else.

In basic terms, the stadium project needs to borrow funds for construction. These borrowings will be in the form of construction loans by each teams’ StadCos and the Municipal Stadium Authority. Goldman will provide the constructions loan. The loans are secured only by football stadium revenues.

WHO COVERS SHORTFALLS, WHAT IF THE PROJECTED NUMBERS ARE WRONG?

If the teams are wrong about the amount of revenue that the stadium
will generate, then the only recourse that the lenders will have will be against the teams.

If that happens, in all likelihood the team or teams would need to sell equity to come
up with additional resources.

Failing that, the teams would have to be sold to new owners, with some
of that cash used to pay off the remaining debt.

Keep in mind, though, that this is a risk that both of the teams, and
Goldman Sachs, are willing to take.

But, if everyone is wrong, then the only recourse is against the teams.

There is no scenario where the taxpayers, or any other entity
(including the NFL) become financially responsible.

Hope that helps

[Hacksaw]

It just doesn't add up. And the owners are warming up to Carson because they like Spanos? They're going to award the prize to the guy who won't paint his 50's gold? lol
For the life of me I cannot understand how all these wise wealthy men would risk building on that site. I smell something bad is going to happen there if they do.
I cannot think of one reason that makes any business sense other than 16 home games would likely generate more income per season as opposed to 8 games (1 team only). But could the 2nd fiddle Chargers make/keep enough money after GS takes their premiums, to share with the rest of the league? The Raiders?
Usually when something doesn't make any sense it's either corrupt, a bluff or some other form of bull-crap.

[BuiltRamTough]

It just doesn't add up. And the owners are warming up to Carson because they like Spanos? They're going to award the prize to the guy who won't paint his 50's gold? lol
For the life of me I cannot understand how all these wise wealthy men would risk building on that site. I smell something bad is going to happen there if they do.
I cannot think of one reason that makes any business sense other than 16 home games would likely generate more income per season as opposed to 8 games (1 team only). But could the 2nd fiddle Chargers make/keep enough money after GS takes their premiums, to share with the rest of the league? The Raiders?
Usually when something doesn't make any sense it's either corrupt, a bluff or some other form of bull-crap.

Exactly. This whole situation smells fishy. You're right on point.

[bubbaramfan]

Regarding the remediation Bonds: As of today, no remediation has been started. What has to be done to satisfy the remediation will take a year or more likely. two years. Are the owners prepared to wait that long? The City of Carson has only sold 50 mil in remediation bonds. Are they sure that will be enough for the cleanup? What if they run into cost over runs?

This was the first about remediation at that site with more than one sentence. The facts about the remediation have yet to be fully disclosed. The powers that be don't want to go there.

[SoCalRam78]

They don't have financing, it's all Goldman Sachs footing the bill. Then they'll be indebted to GS indefinitely. Neither of these idiots have the coin to pull off a stadium in their own market. I gotta give these guys (Chargers) credit for a good charade. Literally spent virtually nothing to put together a fake stadium proposal with an idiot local Carson goverment and backed by the biggest IB in the world. It sounds nice, but it's still fake.

[Elvis]

Regarding the remediation Bonds: As of today, no remediation has been started. What has to be done to satisfy the remediation will take a year or more likely. two years. Are the owners prepared to wait that long? The City of Carson has only sold 50 mil in remediation bonds. Are they sure that will be enough for the cleanup? What if they run into cost over runs?

This was the first about remediation at that site with more than one sentence. The facts about the remediation have yet to be fully disclosed. The powers that be don't want to go there.

It's quite a little game they're playing.

Every time Carson says they're ready to start as soon as the decision is made what they mean is they're ready to start with remediation, not building a stadium...

[The Ripper]

My question, has this problem from last year been rectified.

Cal Compact Landfill
20400 Main Street, Carson, CA 90745
Tanks & Spills Details for Cal Compact Landfill

ID # T10000005544
Type: SiteStatus: Open - InactiveStatus Date: 1/6/2014RegionalWaterBoardCase#: 95-075
Tank related leaks and spills are caused by mismanaged or poorly designed underground and above ground storage tanks and containers designed to hold a variety of potential polluters. They may pose a risk to human health and/or the environment.

[Hacksaw]

"They may pose a risk to human health and/or the environment"

Carson That would be doing LA right.

Through my completely nonobjective and biased filter, I am convinced that the Rams are and have been the choice for some time... The hang up is making Spanose happy. They haven't figured out how to do that yet so "they haven't made a decision". Gotta be.