|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 14, 2016 1:37:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 14, 2016 1:40:28 GMT -6
Local stadium optimism tempered by Inglewood San Diego leaders upbeat, but Chargers focused mostly on L.A. optionSan Diego leaders expressed optimism Wednesday that they can forge a stadium deal with the Chargers, but team ownership spent the day exploring its options in Inglewood. San Diego officials said at a City Hall news conference they're open to any local stadium solution the Chargers propose and that a deal can get done if the team cooperates. They said that they won’t consider increasing the $350 million public contribution they've offered and that any public vote would probably have to happen in November, not June.
Meanwhile, team owner Dean Spanos spoke at length with NFL officials on Wednesday about the possibility of sharing a new stadium Rams owner Stan Kroenke will build in Inglewood, according to NFL sources. A team spokesman said Spanos hadn’t made any decisions and was still "evaluating the franchise’s new options."
Mayor Kevin Faulconer had a positive phone conversation with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell regarding the stadium situation on Wednesday, according to a spokesman.“The mayor reiterated that the door is open in San Diego and Commissioner Goodell reaffirmed that the Chargers have two options to choose between,” said Faulconer spokesman Matt Awbrey. Faulconer said earlier at the City Hall news conference that he called Spanos Wednesday morning but couldn't reach him and had to leave a message. "I indicated I'm looking forward to the opportunity to get together to discuss things positively and collaboratively," the mayor said. Wednesday’s activities came in the wake of NFL owners rejecting on Tuesday a Chargers proposal to build a joint stadium with the Oakland Raiders in Carson, but offering the team a chance to share the new Inglewood stadium with the Rams as early as the upcoming season. The owners also gave the Chargers time to possibly work out a stadium deal in San Diego if that's an avenue the team chooses to pursue. Faulconer, who was joined at Wednesday’s news conference by City Attorney Jan Goldsmith and county Supervisor Ron Roberts, said the league's decision created new hope for San Diego. "Today is an opportunity for a fresh start," Faulconer said. "I sincerely believe we can create success for both the Chargers organization and the San Diego region. We owe it to this community to come together on a fair agreement." After the news conference, Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani declined to say whether the Chargers would resume negotiations, which ended in June after a few brief meetings. "I will just reiterate what Dean said (Tuesday) night: The Chargers have been approved by the NFL to relocate to Los Angeles, and now that the NFL meetings are over Dean is going to take a few days to evaluate the franchise's new options," Fabiani said. Fabiani told NFL Network later that relocation to Los Angeles remains the top possibility for the Chargers.He also said he’s been in touch with a New York attorney the city hired to help with stadium negotiations, and with San Diego officials other than Faulconer, according to City News Service. The NFL and the Rams spent time Wednesday hammering out the framework of a deal, which could include split ownership of the Inglewood stadium or having the Chargers be Kroenke’s tenant. Spanos and other Chargers officials met with league officials Wednesday morning in Houston, where the NFL meetings took place the day before, and participated in conference calls in the afternoon after Spanos flew home from Texas. The Chargers would work with investment banker JP Morgan on financing for an Inglewood deal, according to league sources.The Chargers have until January 2017 to opt for Inglewood. But that deadline could be extended to January 2018 if public financing for a new stadium is approved by San Diego voters this November or sometime earlier.The team is expected to make a decision whether to resume negotiating with San Diego much more quickly than that, according to NFL sources. The Rams have incentive to get a deal done with the Chargers because they can’t sell personal seat licenses until the second team is selected, a league source said.If the Chargers decide not to exercise their Inglewood option, the Raiders will be given a one-year window to decide whether to join the Rams there. Roberts and Goldsmith said Wednesday that it would be nearly impossible to negotiate a stadium agreement with the Chargers quickly enough for a June vote, calling the November general election much more likely. Goldsmith said a downtown stadium, which the Chargers have previously lobbied for, would take longer and face more hurdles than the $1.1 billion facility the city and county proposed in Mission Valley on the Qualcomm Stadium site. But he and the mayor said San Diego officials are open to anything the Chargers suggest as long as it is legal and viable. "We're not here to throw cold water on any proposal," Goldsmith said. Goldsmith said San Diego is in a much stronger position than when Faulconer created a stadium task force one year ago. The city has completed a comprehensive environmental impact report, created designs for a stadium and proposed a financing plan. In addition, NFL owners gave the Chargers and Raiders an extra $100 million each toward stadium construction in their home markets. That's in addition to the $200 million the league typically contributes to stadium projects. An August proposal from the county and city, which would have needed cooperation from the Chargers and approval by a simple majority of city voters, included $350 million in public money — $200 million from the city and $150 million from the county. The remainder would have been $200 million from the league, $362.5 million from the Chargers and $187.5 million from seat licenses. When asked about possibly increasing the public contribution on Wednesday, Faulconer said no and stressed that the city and county "put a fair deal on the table" in August. "We've said this is our commitment," Faulconer said. "This is what we're willing to do." Faulconer repeatedly said Wednesday that he’s open to any stadium plan, but he declined to discuss how negotiations might be affected by other proposals such as an initiative spearheaded by attorney Cory Briggs that includes the possibility of a joint stadium/convention center downtown. He said clarity will come if the Chargers resume negotiations. "If we're able to sit down and forge a path forward, we can take a lot of the conjecture out of it — we can take a lot of the hypotheticals out of this," he said. There’s also been talk that the Chargers might launch their own initiative for a November stadium ballot measure. Faulconer said the NFL's decision on Tuesday was an opportunity to leave the past behind, possibly referring to acrimony last year between city and team officials The Rams are expected to play in the L.A. Coliseum until the Inglewood stadium is completed, probably in time for the 2019 season. The Chargers also would be able to play at the Coliseum if they opt for Inglewood before the 2016 NFL season begins this September. The prospect of the Chargers relocating to Los Angeles was met with a less than enthusiastic response, according to a SurveyUSA poll L.A. adults conducted on Wednesday.
When given the options of San Diego or Inglewood for the Chargers, 65 percent chose San Diego and 31 percent chose Inglewood.The poll also showed 47 percent support for the L.A. area having two NFL teams, compared to 44 percent for having only one team. When asked about their willingness to buy season tickets, 13 percent said they would do so for the Rams, 10 percent would buy them for the Raiders and 6 percent for the Chargers.www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jan/13/faulconer-roberts-chargers-inglewood-spanos/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 14, 2016 2:10:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 15, 2016 11:42:49 GMT -6
Which uniform should the Rams use? White or blue I really hope they bring back something similar to the old goat logos like this both home and away
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 15, 2016 11:46:22 GMT -6
Local stadium optimism tempered by Inglewood San Diego leaders upbeat, but Chargers focused mostly on L.A. optionSan Diego leaders expressed optimism Wednesday that they can forge a stadium deal with the Chargers, but team ownership spent the day exploring its options in Inglewood. San Diego officials said at a City Hall news conference they're open to any local stadium solution the Chargers propose and that a deal can get done if the team cooperates. They said that they won’t consider increasing the $350 million public contribution they've offered and that any public vote would probably have to happen in November, not June.
Meanwhile, team owner Dean Spanos spoke at length with NFL officials on Wednesday about the possibility of sharing a new stadium Rams owner Stan Kroenke will build in Inglewood, according to NFL sources. A team spokesman said Spanos hadn’t made any decisions and was still "evaluating the franchise’s new options."
Mayor Kevin Faulconer had a positive phone conversation with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell regarding the stadium situation on Wednesday, according to a spokesman.“The mayor reiterated that the door is open in San Diego and Commissioner Goodell reaffirmed that the Chargers have two options to choose between,” said Faulconer spokesman Matt Awbrey. Faulconer said earlier at the City Hall news conference that he called Spanos Wednesday morning but couldn't reach him and had to leave a message. "I indicated I'm looking forward to the opportunity to get together to discuss things positively and collaboratively," the mayor said. Wednesday’s activities came in the wake of NFL owners rejecting on Tuesday a Chargers proposal to build a joint stadium with the Oakland Raiders in Carson, but offering the team a chance to share the new Inglewood stadium with the Rams as early as the upcoming season. The owners also gave the Chargers time to possibly work out a stadium deal in San Diego if that's an avenue the team chooses to pursue. Faulconer, who was joined at Wednesday’s news conference by City Attorney Jan Goldsmith and county Supervisor Ron Roberts, said the league's decision created new hope for San Diego. "Today is an opportunity for a fresh start," Faulconer said. "I sincerely believe we can create success for both the Chargers organization and the San Diego region. We owe it to this community to come together on a fair agreement." After the news conference, Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani declined to say whether the Chargers would resume negotiations, which ended in June after a few brief meetings. "I will just reiterate what Dean said (Tuesday) night: The Chargers have been approved by the NFL to relocate to Los Angeles, and now that the NFL meetings are over Dean is going to take a few days to evaluate the franchise's new options," Fabiani said. Fabiani told NFL Network later that relocation to Los Angeles remains the top possibility for the Chargers.He also said he’s been in touch with a New York attorney the city hired to help with stadium negotiations, and with San Diego officials other than Faulconer, according to City News Service. The NFL and the Rams spent time Wednesday hammering out the framework of a deal, which could include split ownership of the Inglewood stadium or having the Chargers be Kroenke’s tenant. Spanos and other Chargers officials met with league officials Wednesday morning in Houston, where the NFL meetings took place the day before, and participated in conference calls in the afternoon after Spanos flew home from Texas. The Chargers would work with investment banker JP Morgan on financing for an Inglewood deal, according to league sources.The Chargers have until January 2017 to opt for Inglewood. But that deadline could be extended to January 2018 if public financing for a new stadium is approved by San Diego voters this November or sometime earlier.The team is expected to make a decision whether to resume negotiating with San Diego much more quickly than that, according to NFL sources. The Rams have incentive to get a deal done with the Chargers because they can’t sell personal seat licenses until the second team is selected, a league source said.If the Chargers decide not to exercise their Inglewood option, the Raiders will be given a one-year window to decide whether to join the Rams there. Roberts and Goldsmith said Wednesday that it would be nearly impossible to negotiate a stadium agreement with the Chargers quickly enough for a June vote, calling the November general election much more likely. Goldsmith said a downtown stadium, which the Chargers have previously lobbied for, would take longer and face more hurdles than the $1.1 billion facility the city and county proposed in Mission Valley on the Qualcomm Stadium site. But he and the mayor said San Diego officials are open to anything the Chargers suggest as long as it is legal and viable. "We're not here to throw cold water on any proposal," Goldsmith said. Goldsmith said San Diego is in a much stronger position than when Faulconer created a stadium task force one year ago. The city has completed a comprehensive environmental impact report, created designs for a stadium and proposed a financing plan. In addition, NFL owners gave the Chargers and Raiders an extra $100 million each toward stadium construction in their home markets. That's in addition to the $200 million the league typically contributes to stadium projects. An August proposal from the county and city, which would have needed cooperation from the Chargers and approval by a simple majority of city voters, included $350 million in public money — $200 million from the city and $150 million from the county. The remainder would have been $200 million from the league, $362.5 million from the Chargers and $187.5 million from seat licenses. When asked about possibly increasing the public contribution on Wednesday, Faulconer said no and stressed that the city and county "put a fair deal on the table" in August. "We've said this is our commitment," Faulconer said. "This is what we're willing to do." Faulconer repeatedly said Wednesday that he’s open to any stadium plan, but he declined to discuss how negotiations might be affected by other proposals such as an initiative spearheaded by attorney Cory Briggs that includes the possibility of a joint stadium/convention center downtown. He said clarity will come if the Chargers resume negotiations. "If we're able to sit down and forge a path forward, we can take a lot of the conjecture out of it — we can take a lot of the hypotheticals out of this," he said. There’s also been talk that the Chargers might launch their own initiative for a November stadium ballot measure. Faulconer said the NFL's decision on Tuesday was an opportunity to leave the past behind, possibly referring to acrimony last year between city and team officials The Rams are expected to play in the L.A. Coliseum until the Inglewood stadium is completed, probably in time for the 2019 season. The Chargers also would be able to play at the Coliseum if they opt for Inglewood before the 2016 NFL season begins this September. The prospect of the Chargers relocating to Los Angeles was met with a less than enthusiastic response, according to a SurveyUSA poll L.A. adults conducted on Wednesday.
When given the options of San Diego or Inglewood for the Chargers, 65 percent chose San Diego and 31 percent chose Inglewood.The poll also showed 47 percent support for the L.A. area having two NFL teams, compared to 44 percent for having only one team. When asked about their willingness to buy season tickets, 13 percent said they would do so for the Rams, 10 percent would buy them for the Raiders and 6 percent for the Chargers.www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jan/13/faulconer-roberts-chargers-inglewood-spanos/ with the new 100 million from the nfl that should be in addition to the $200 million g4. so thats $300m from the league plus 350 from the city, thats $650m. Realistically the team should be able to cover the the remaining 250 or so for a fixed roof or 64,000 seater open air stadium (similar to Gillette or Baltimore)
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 15, 2016 21:56:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 15, 2016 22:18:20 GMT -6
As for San Diego,
You need a LOT more than $250. You'd only be up to $900M.
San Diego's proposal was this. The were going to build an open air 67,500 seat stadium for $1.1B(I'd go with 65,000). The city however was lying like St. Louis about the cost. Jeb York the 49ers owner grilled the hell out of the mayor on this and told him he was $200M too light in his estimates. The team under the proposal was going to be responsible for overruns just like in St. Louis.
Overall the proposal went like this. 350M split in half by the city/county. $362.5M from the team, $187.5M from PSL's, $200M from the NFL. So the extra $100M from the league covers half of the cost overruns. San Diego is going to need to come up on it's offer!
There was talk of that today for the 1st time. Article from ESPN.
espn.go.com/blog/san-diego-chargers/post/_/id/14774/while-dean-spanos-mulls-his-options-chargers-falling-behind-in-l-a (read the last sentence)
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 15, 2016 22:33:56 GMT -6
Today at the Rams intro press conference it sounded like the Chargers will be going to LA soon and they are just lining up the financing from JP Morgan. As for other news -It's 100% official, the Rams will play at the LA Coliseum next season. Tickets go an sale 10am Monday morning, prices will be similar to last year in St. Louis. -Vinny Bongsignore says if the Chargers leave the Raiders are VERY interested in San Diego and may even accept a Qualcomm Stadium renovation -Fred Roggin had a ton of stuff on his show yesterday for the 1st 2 hours on how all this went down. thebeast980.com/audio/the-fred-roggin-show/ His best show EVER. Too much info for me to summarize. The show starts with a the song I told you so. LOL He was the only guy in the media who was right. The national media was played by the Chargers/Fabani -Main points. The mayor of Carson was p!ssed. He had him on. The Chargers/Raiders never communicated with him. He felt used by this whole thing. - You know where all a lot of the gang stuff in the media came from in the last month about the Raiders? A lot of it was from Fabani the Raiders supposed partner. He didn't talk about why Fabani did it but here is why I think he did it. If Inglewood was going to win he wanted to make sure the Chargers were team 2. If Carson won he wanted to destroy the Raiders brand because the Chargers don't have many fans in LA. Roggin suggest the NFL didn't get it completely right! He says the Chargers will be in trouble if they come to LA and should stay in San Diego. He compares Spanos to Donald Sterling. Says it will be a complete disaster if the Chargers move to LA and the Raiders go to San Diego. Raiders fans will make the drive to San Diego, San Diego will also go with the Raiders and Spanos will be screwed. Says the correct choice in LA is Rams/Raiders, doesn't think it will happen and Chargers will come soon. Feels bad for Raiders fans. -The Raiders knew last week they weren't going to be able to come to LA. They could see the direction this was heading.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 15, 2016 22:37:07 GMT -6
Owners were “blown away” by differences between Inglewood and Carson So why did the NFL’s owners choose to reject the 5-1 recommendation of the Committee on L.A. Opportunities and embrace Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood project over the Chargers-Raiders proposal in Carson? It came down to the two projects, and specifically how they were presented to owners on Tuesday. As one person who witnessed the presentations told PFT, the owners were “blown away” by Kroenke’s proposal, which was presented to ownership by Rams COO Kevin Demoff.
“Stan’s proposal was like watching Star Wars,” the source said, adding that the Carson proposal “was like watching a home movie from the ’70s.”
“Surely, you’re exaggerating,” I said to the source.
“I’m not exaggerating,” the source replied.
That’s a bit of a slap at Disney CEO Bob Iger, who made the presentation on behalf of the Chargers and Raiders (and whose company made the latest Star Wars movie). But, as the source explained it, Iger’s hands were tied by a project that the ownership, once it saw it, immediately concluded it simply didn’t compare to Inglewood. So why did Iger get involved? The thinking is that Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, who strongly was opposed to allowing Kroenke to move to Inglewood, pursued Iger as a Hail Mary play, using Iger’s desire to becoming a minority owner of a team after his Disney career ends to lure him to the table. It wasn’t enough, not after Kroenke pulled the sheet off his NFL city for owners who, beyond the L.A. Committee, hadn’t seen the full details before Tuesday. Once they did — and once the ballots were made secret — it became a no-brainer. profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/13/owners-were-blown-away-by-differences-between-inglewood-and-carson/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 15, 2016 22:40:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 16, 2016 7:49:43 GMT -6
i think the NFL has a long logo and color approval process, i think its at least one season
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 16, 2016 23:23:00 GMT -6
^^ That's what guys on the LA Rams board were saying too. Even if they waived that the Rams were going to do it this way to make the most $.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 16, 2016 23:29:32 GMT -6
In Losing the Rams, St. Louis WinsDon’t cry for St. Louis, sports fans. The departure of the Rams to Los Angeles, whence they came two decades ago, is something for the city’s residents to cheer, not bemoan. St. Louis got lucky. Sure, fans of professional football in St. Louis are going to miss the Rams. Though they have been bad in recent years, they had some great seasons in St. Louis. From 1998 to 2003, Kurt Warner — one of the greatest undrafted players in N.F.L. history — set the city on its ear, winning two Most Valuable Player Awards as the Rams’ quarterback and leading the team to a Super Bowl victory after the 1999 season. But the economics underpinning the recent deal St. Louis and the State of Missouri tried to put together to keep the Rams would have been financially ruinous. Let’s not be coy about this: St. Louis, a city of fewer than 320,000 people, with a shrinking tax base, simply couldn’t afford to help finance the $1 billion stadium that the Rams’ billionaire owner, E. Stanley Kroenke, was seeking. Its mistake was in trying.Stadium financing has always been a struggle for St. Louis. In 1995, hoping to attract an N.F.L. franchise, the city, the state and the county built what was essentially a spec stadium, originally called the Trans World Dome. (The naming rights later shifted to Edward Jones, the financial services company.) The stadium was paid for entirely with public funds, with the three entities agreeing to repay $258 million in bonds. The city’s share of that was $6 million a year, which it expected to generate from so-called game-day taxes — that is, taxes on everything sold inside the stadium during a game. In recent years, those game-day taxes have consistently fallen short, amounting to around $4.8 million a year, according to Andrew Arkills, a financial analyst who dissected the numbers for stadium opponents. The difference was being paid out of the city’s coffers, meaning that those were tax dollars not going to the police or teachers or city services. In 2002, angered by the prospect of large public subsidies for a new baseball stadium being planned for the Cardinals, the voters in the city and the far wealthier and more populous county passed referendums that required voter approval to use taxpayer funds for a St. Louis sports stadium. But professional sports owners are constantly agitating for bigger, better, more profitable stadiums, and that was hardly going to change with the passage of a mere referendum or two. Indeed, the essential professional sports business model is to push governments to use public subsidies to cover as much of the cost as possible. As with any big company, threatening to leave for another city is a time-honored way for sports franchises to extract such money. (Although, unlike the case with General Electric, which on Wednesday announced its relocation to Boston, there is little evidence that professional sports franchises offer lasting economic benefits. They do, however, add value in terms of civic pride and in-person entertainment.) You can argue until you’re blue in the face that billionaires shouldn’t seek public handouts to build sports stadiums. But using other people’s money is precisely why they’re billionaires. (Kroenke, I should note, is a somewhat different case; his considerable net worth is bolstered by his marriage to a Walmart heiress.) Kroenke and the Rams had a clause in their lease allowing them to leave for another city if the Edward Jones Dome dropped below the top tier of N.F.L. arenas. This clause gave them the leverage to demand public assistance for a planned new stadium, as new arenas like “Jerry’s World,” Jerry Jones’s $1.15 billion AT&T Stadium for the Dallas Cowboys, dwarfed the dome, financially and aesthetically. Kroenke also had the threat of Los Angeles, which is the nation’s second-largest television market and has lacked a team since the Rams and the Raiders left 21 years ago. It is also a city that any number of N.F.L. owners have threatened to leave for in their (mostly successful) efforts to extract public financing for new stadiums. Kroenke’s threat was different, though: A real estate developer as well as a professional sports owner, he had bought a large tract of land in the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood. At the same time, the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders, both of which were also unhappy with their stadiums, were publicly eyeing Los Angeles. The contortions St. Louis and the State of Missouri put themselves through to keep the Rams would be comical if they weren’t so sad. The city went to court and got a ruling that voided the law calling for voters to have a say in the granting of public subsidies, which infuriated taxpayers. The county, rather than calling for a vote of its citizens, dropped out. The governor, Jay Nixon, a Democrat, put together a task force to save the Rams. The city, which originally put up $70 million, ultimately agreed to pay nearly $150 million — money it didn’t really have. Remember that game-day tax? Instead of using it to pay off the bonds on the dome — $100 million is still owed — it cravenly agreed to turn it all over to the Rams. The state cut a naming-rights deal with National Car Rental for $158 million — money it was going to turn over to the team. Jerry Jones, who wanted the Rams back in Los Angeles, sniffed that $158 million wouldn’t buy a lobby in Los Angeles. The N.F.L. claims that St. Louis always had a real shot at retaining the Rams, a claim that’s hard to believe. Kroenke had devised plans to build not just a stadium in Inglewood but a huge N.F.L. complex, which would include retail, hotels, the whole bit. It was a real estate play as much as a football stadium play. And in their application to the N.F.L. to relocate to Inglewood, the Rams sneered at the St. Louis proposal. “The public contribution is only $355 million — less than the $400 million” the Rams had been promised, it said. “All of the costs of stadium operations and Capital Expenditures funding have been shifted” to the Rams for the next 30 years. “The rent and operating structure are 20 times what the Rams pay now.” The heart bleeds. www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/sports/football/st-louis-should-be-glad-it-lost-the-rams.html?_r=0
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 17, 2016 0:14:07 GMT -6
A behind-the-scenes look at a Rams' proposal the NFL couldn't refuseThe National Football League's return to Los Angeles began behind closed doors — with a coin flip. The St. Louis Rams won the right to go first, and their owner and a top executive made their pitch in a hotel ballroom, outlining plans for a multibillion-dollar stadium in Inglewood. Next came the backers of the Carson stadium proposal — the owners of the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders. Recruited to oversee that project was Disney Chairman and CEO Robert Iger, who spoke of his love for the NFL and his branding expertise and reminded the 32 owners that, as head of ESPN's parent company, he had paid them all plenty of money over the years.
After Iger left, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones pushed back his swivel chair and stood to address the room.
"He said he paid us. Last time I checked, that money is coming from Disney shareholders, not him," Jones said, touching off laughter.
The moment of levity was a bad omen for the Carson project.For 11 hours on Tuesday, the owners of America's most profitable sports league — with $10 billion a year in revenue — were cloistered in a suburban hotel, just a half-hour from the small airport and their parked private jets. Their mission: to pick the teams and stadium that would bring professional football back to L.A. after a 21-year hiatus. Since the Rams and Raiders left Southern California following the 1994 season, multiple sites have been proposed for the NFL's return. They included downtown L.A., Anaheim, Irvine, the City of Industry. The Rose Bowl, the Coliseum and even Chavez Ravine. Every proposal failed. Things changed when Rams owner Stan Kroenke bought 60 acres of land next to the former Hollywood Park racetrack and last year announced he planned to build a stadium. He didn't commit to returning the Rams to L.A. from St. Louis. But the implications were clear. Six weeks later, a competing proposal emerged: The Chargers and Raiders wanted to construct a stadium on the site of a former landfill in Carson. In between the two proposals, the NFL created a committee of six owners to evaluate stadium options in L.A. and oversee any possible relocation. NFL owners met repeatedly to hear proposals on the two L.A. projects as well as those in the three home markets trying to keep their teams. San Diego and St. Louis eventually assembled stadium proposals that included hundreds of millions of dollars in public financing, although San Diego's hinged on a public vote later this year. By the time they gathered in Houston on Tuesday, the owners were impatient for a deal. Four of the six owners on the L.A. committee had teams in the playoffs and another was in the midst of a coaching search. The league set aside two days for the meeting, but most of the owners wanted to resolve it in one. Nevertheless, the league had reserved hotel space in Dallas for the following week just in case. The details of the dramatic daylong session were pieced together from interviews with multiple owners, team executives and league officials, most speaking on the condition that they not be identified when describing confidential negotiations. The Rams opened their presentation with 30 renderings showing the sleek, low-slung stadium and surrounding development they wanted to build in Inglewood. Kevin Demoff, the chief operating officer, said this would be much more than a stadium for one or two teams; the campus could house other NFL business ventures, such as NFL Network and NFL.com. Kroenke also spoke about his passion for the multibillion-dollar project. The team's pitch closed with excerpts from two stories by Times columnist Bill Plaschke pleading for the Rams to return to L.A. The Carson backers began with brief comments by Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis. Then Iger talked about how he grew to appreciate the stadium's location. In a corner of the ballroom, league staff had installed a computer and printer to generate paper ballots of new resolutions. When it came time to begin voting, the owners had to resolve an important matter: Would it be a secret ballot? Ordinarily, secret ballots are reserved for the most sensitive votes that owners cast — the selection of a new commissioner and the site of a Super Bowl. By a show of hands, they voted, 19-13, to keep this one secret. The mood was tense even though a consensus had been building among the owners in recent weeks for a hybrid option: pairing the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood and leaving the Raiders in Oakland. The room was mostly quiet; many owners communicated by text message. Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, a member of the L.A. committee who supported Carson and orchestrated Iger's involvement in the project, said little throughout the day. At one point, Iger ventured down from the fourth-floor ballroom to the third floor, where more than 200 media members were stationed, to get a cup of coffee. Dozens of reporters swarmed him. Someone jokingly asked, "Don't you wish there was coffee on the fourth floor?" Before the full membership voted, the L.A. committee recommended the Carson project by a 5-1 margin. In the end, the endorsement did not affect the outcome. Momentum was building for Inglewood. After two ballots, Inglewood was only three votes short of the 24 needed for approval. Owners saw a path toward a resolution — no one in the room wanted to stand in the way of a project clearly preferred by the majority of owners. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell ushered the three owners seeking relocation into a private negotiation that lasted about an hour. Sensing the end was near, Jones had beer and wine delivered to the ballroom for the remaining 29 owners. The tension seemed to have ebbed. By the time Goodell and the three owners returned to the ballroom, the Raiders had agreed to withdraw their bid to move to L.A. What would prove to be the final vote was taken on a proposal to pair the Rams and a team to be determined in Inglewood. It passed by a 30-2 margin. The two owners who opposed the compromise remain a mystery. The agreement — which gave the Chargers a one-year option to join the Rams in L.A. and the Raiders an identical right if the Chargers decline — was an option league staff had discussed for at least six months. The resolution's 939 words barred the Rams from selling personal seat licenses, suites or naming rights to the Inglewood stadium until February 2017 unless a second team joins them beforehand. Minutes after the final vote, Goodell stood at a lectern before rows of reporters and a forest of television cameras. His eyes were tired, his voice weary. "It was a difficult decision for ownership," Goodell said. "But we also realized that this was our opportunity." www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... #nt=outfit
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 17, 2016 10:34:55 GMT -6
As for San Diego, You need a LOT more than $250. You'd only be up to $900M. San Diego's proposal was this. The were going to build an open air 67,500 seat stadium for $1.1B(I'd go with 65,000). The city however was lying like St. Louis about the cost. Jeb York the 49ers owner grilled the hell out of the mayor on this and told him he was $200M too light in his estimates. The team under the proposal was going to be responsible for overruns just like in St. Louis. Overall the proposal went like this. 350M split in half by the city/county. $362.5M from the team, $187.5M from PSL's, $200M from the NFL. So the extra $100M from the league covers half of the cost overruns. San Diego is going to need to come up on it's offer! There was talk of that today for the 1st time. Article from ESPN. espn.go.com/blog/san-diego-chargers/post/_/id/14774/while-dean-spanos-mulls-his-options-chargers-falling-behind-in-l-a (read the last sentence) I know the nfl acts like a stadium cant be built for under a billion but an outdoor stadium should be able to be built for much less. the nfl is insane with what they ask for.
|
|