Posted January 15, 2016
NFL Returns To L.A.: Raiders' Future Far From Certain In Oakland After Vote
Raiders Owner Mark Davis confirmed that the team "will explore other relocation options" after the NFL did not vote for the club's attempt to move to L.A., according to Scott Bair of CSNBAYAREA.com. Davis "shot down the possibility of replacing the Rams in St. Louis." Other than that, he "seems open to ideas." San Diego has been mentioned in connection with the Raiders during conversations," but they "technically still have the Chargers." Davis would not "discuss that option further, or a previous flirtation in San Antonio or 'any other ifs, ands or buts.'" However, at no point during yesterday's owners meetings did Davis "say he preferred to stay in town." The Raiders "didn’t mention Oakland in a statement about the failure of the Raiders and Chargers joint stadium proposal in Carson that prevented relocation to the L.A. market" (CSNBAYAREA.com, 1/12). Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said that she "met with NFL executives last week to plead for more time to work with the Raiders." Last night, she said that the "'clock is running again' to find a responsible solution that does not dip into the city's coffers." Schaaf: "We have been given more time and that's what we asked the NFL for. I see this as an opportunity to get back on the starting line and get a deal that works" (L.A. TIMES, 1/13).
RAIDERS WANTED MORE FROM LEAGUE: CSNBAYAREA.com's Bair reported the Raiders withdrawing their relocation plan was "expected to produce a windfall, a worthy consolation prize to take home from these Houston meetings." While the Raiders "got something," it was not "nearly as much as they expected or wanted." As part of the relocation resolution, the NFL "will provide" $100M in additional funds to "build a stadium only in their current home market." That is a sum on top of the $200M loan "afforded as part of the G4 loan program that helps teams build stadiums." The Raiders only "get that money for a Bay Area stadium, and only get the money if a stadium agreement is reached by this time next year." A source said that the Raiders "hoped to get their relocation fee waived should they head to a different market -- Davis will explore other options -- but that was not part of the resolution." On top of all that, the Chargers "got the exact same deal" (CSNBAYAREA.com, 1/12).
TRUE FEELING COME OUT: NFL Network's Ian Rapoport reports yesterday's meeting was the "first time that owners had really said in a room aloud that some did not believe the Raiders under any circumstances should be able to be in Los Angeles" ("NFL HQ, NFL Network, 1/13). FS1's Peter Schrager noted the Raiders were the "third wheel on this thing from the very get-go, and they were treated like it" ("Fox Sports Live," FS1, 1/13). In S.F., Ann Killion writes this is another example of "reaping what you sow." Davis is "reaping all the bad blood generated by his late father, Al, who sued the league to move to L.A., wasn’t fully accepted there, pissed off all the other owners and then moved back to Oakland." It was clear that there "was very little sentiment to do any favors for Davis, the least wealthy of the three owners and the one who carries some tainted DNA." That left the Raiders in "exactly the same position as they have been for years" in Oakland. The Raiders also "supposedly will get favorable consideration if they come up with a relocation plan." Killion: "San Antonio? Don’t expect the Cowboys or the Texans to be on board for that. Mexico City? London? Become the NFL’s first floating team? Davis just lost a huge chunk of leverage" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 1/13).
WHERE WILL TEAM END UP? ESPN.com's Paul Gutierrez notes the NFL "would love it if the Raiders shared Levi’s Stadium" with the 49ers, but "that’s a tenant situation." Davis also "wants nothing to do with it." San Antonio will "beckon, as might Portland," and while many might say St. Louis or San Diego "could work, the NFL has declared those two cities not viable for an NFL team." Until the Raiders "break ground on an Oakland stadium, or somewhere nearby like Concord, Dublin or Vallejo, all rumored East Bay sites, nothing about staying in Oakland is settled" (ESPN.com, 1/13). In San Jose, Tim Kawakami notes there is "no new stadium in San Antonio, and Davis hasn't sounded overly interested in a move to Texas." It is also unlikely Texans Owner Bob McNair and Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones "would sign off on such a move, and they are two of the most powerful men in the league" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 1/13)
Posted January 15, 2016
Impact of Rams move from St. Louis to Los Angeles
“They, alone on that stage, knew what St. Louis Rams fans were feeling Tuesday night, because they had just endured a day in which the people they thought would have their backs had instead rejected them – dramatically, stunningly, but soundly”.
Q. The Chargers have been trying to get a new stadium for more than a decade, and the team has a strained relationship with city leadership.
“What they did is sort of split the baby”. It’s possible the team could remain in San Diego, but that would require reaching a deal for a new stadium that has proved elusive for years.
It came down to the two projects, and specifically how they were presented to owners on Tuesday.
Raiders owner Mark Davis was equally noncommittal about Oakland, which has a more troubling situation because the city isn’t even close to a proposal for a new stadium.
A posting about the move on the Los Angeles Times Facebook page has drawn enthusiastic responses, with some fans welcoming the return of rivalries such as the 49ers-Rams. You do have a football team in your corner.
The latter happened on Tuesday night following the announcement of the Rams packing up all their stuff and moving to Los Angeles. If the Chargers choose not to move to Inglewood, the Oakland Raiders will then have a one-year option to join the Rams at the stadium.
You don’t often seen Bravo and the National Football League cross but when they do it’s pure fireworks. If the option expires, the Oakland Raiders will have a chance to become the second team in the greater Los Angeles area. The Chargers were approved for relocation, but not the proposal they submitted in which they were partnered with the Raiders in Carson, but as a partner to the Rams in Inglewood. “The Rams are coming home!” Inglewood Mayor James Butts called the decision a “transformative” moment for his city. He said the city already got a major boost from the renovation of The Forum.
“I think it’s appropriate, and would be helpful, to have the right kind of “We’re back” campaign”, Carter said. He said the relocation process has been “excruciating for everyone”. The stadium would be part of an entertainment, retail and residential complex. Even so, Rams owners Stan Kroenke was able to amass enough support among his fellow owners to advance a new proposal that lined up St. Louis with San Diego. Whether the stadium will ultimately house two teams is yet to be determined. “I sincerely believe that we can create success for both the Chargers organization and the San Diego region”.
“The teams will have a choice of those options”. Spanos has said he had no interest in simply being a tenant in a stadium owned by Kroenke, and he made his feelings clear on the topic in a letter he sent last month to Goodell.
In an initial vote on Tuesday afternoon, 20 of the team owners voted in support of a Rams-Chargers plan, indicating that the majority of the league favored this option.
The city and county are offering $350 million to replace aging Qualcomm Stadium in Mission Valley.
*NFL Returns To L.A.: Raiders' Future Far From Certain In Oakland After Vote January 15, 2016
*Impact of Rams move from St. Louis to Los Angeles January 15, 2016