SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Old Thread.
- I really hope for Chargers fans this doesn't happen, as it seems to me they are great fans with a great city who don't deserve this. But it may be time to leave the St. Louis thread behind...
- Now, today:Posted 03 February 2011 - 12:11 AM
J.T. the Brick opened his national radio show tonight with, "If the CBA gets settled quickly, the Chargers would be moving to Los Angeles." According to "sources in the know". Of course that CBA thing doesn't sound like it's getting resolved shortly. Interesting information either way.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/07/chip-kelly-philadelphia-eagles-new-england-patriots-nflL.A. Update: Carson surges ahead
In the wake of last week’s NFL meeting on the future of football in Los Angeles, and with the resolution of this soap opera five weeks away (let us pray), a few things I learned from people involved in the story:
• The Carson proposal—with either the Chargers and Raiders together, or the Chargers alone—seems to have more momentum than Stan Kroenke’s plan to move the Rams to a complex in Inglewood. Part of the sentiment for Carson is simple: The owners want to support the Spanos family and the Chargers, feeling they have done everything they can to make a new stadium work in San Diego for years.
• The six-owner Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities (perhaps the NFL could name a Vice President of Committee Name Improvement) is likely to end up either 4-2 or 5-1 in favor of the Carson project, a source with knowledge of the committee’s feelings told me. One asterisk there: The committee is likely to side with Carson as long as the new St. Louis stadium is rock-solid when it comes time to vote. If any of the six believe the St. Louis proposal is flawed, they could switch to Kroenke and Inglewood.
• DOES L.A. WANT THE NFL? The MMQB spoke to more than 100 Angelenos to gauge the city’s desire for pro football
• Neither site is close to having the 24 votes to approve one plan.
• No one knows the outcome. The reason, essentially, is that there are still a few important factors up in the air. St. Louis aldermen are scheduled to vote this month to approve funding for a new stadium for the Rams; if they do, how can the NFL abandon a city that has twice in the past 20 years committed to build a downtown stadium for the league? One other recent headache: The Federal Aviation Administration believes the Inglewood stadium would interfere with radar for plane traffic at Los Angeles International Airport. Could that be fixed? The league is confident Kroenke’s plan could be amended to address that.
• Robert Iger, the Disney CEO, has been a boon to the Carson project since he joined forces with the Chargers/Raiders last month. “He feels like a partner to people like Roger Goodell and Bob Kraft,” said one source. Why shouldn’t he? Disney is the parent of ESPN. ESPN has enriched the NFL with rights fees, signed off by Iger, for years. Snagging Iger was the right move.
• One ownership source said he thinks Spanos, if he were in the Carson project alone with Iger, would probably have 24 votes to win the project now. Some owners view the Raiders as a drag on the Carson project, feeling the team brings little to the table. And some owners still seem to carry some enmity for the late Al Davis.
• As for the league’s ability to finalize the plan for Los Angeles at a series of meetings in Houston on Jan. 12-13, that’s no lock. It’s probable, but not certain.
• And as for Rams owner Stan Kroenke, should his dream of the Inglewood project die: No one knows what he’ll do. I hear he’s not interested in becoming the owner to move to London. But every other piece of speculation—that he sells the Rams, that he keeps the Rams in a stadium he doesn’t like, that he waits out the Bowlen family and buys the Broncos—is talk-show fodder. My best guess is he’d hang on to the team and become the biggest franchise free-agent in the coming few years. I keep hearing he doesn’t like the new St. Louis stadium project. It could be an ugly shotgun marriage, or Kroenke refusing to go to the altar.
• RELOCATION RANTS: Fans in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland give the NFL an earful over the prospect of their teams moving to L.A.
• Last point: The one thing I heard a lot in the last few days is about what’s best for the Chargers, and best for the Raiders, and—to a much lesser degree—what’s best for the Rams. I haven’t heard many people asking: What would be best for Los Angeles? Roger Goodell is on record, multiple times, saying the league will only go back to Los Angeles after the 21-year hiatus with what makes the most sense for Los Angeles and the NFL. Is solving bad stadium situations for the Chargers and Raiders the best thing for Los Angeles? Is a two-team plan best for a market where you’re reintroducing a sport that’s very expensive for fans? NFL owners will be voting on a lot when they vote on L.A., with ramifications that will reverberate for years.
- I really hope for Chargers fans this doesn't happen, as it seems to me they are great fans with a great city who don't deserve this. But it may be time to leave the St. Louis thread behind...
Last edited by a moderator: