What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Chargers To Los Angeles: The Foul Deed Is Done! (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
Old Thread.

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". :thanks: Of course that CBA thing doesn't sound like it's getting resolved shortly. Interesting information either way.
- Now, today:

L.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.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/07/chip-kelly-philadelphia-eagles-new-england-patriots-nfl

- 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:
• 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.
:lmao:

 
Hey Spanos, build a stadium with your own money like Kroenke is willing to do.

 
• 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.
:lmao:
No kidding. Spanos must have a warehouse full of dirt on the other owners who are supporting him.

Fred Rogan (local broadcaster) was on the radio the other day saying if the Chargers move to L.A. they should be completely rebranded - give up the name and everything. That'd be all I need to stop rooting for that franchise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still think it'll be Rams/Chargers.
Me too. I think the NFL wants to try to get Davis to sell the Raiders before making any future plans with that franchise. They think he is unstable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/raiders-owner-mark-davis-worth-2015-10

Earlier this week in ESPN the Magazine, Tim Keown published a revealing profile of Davis that offers a rare glimpse into the life and mind of one of the most fascinating owners in sports. From its first paragraph, the profile gives us a sense of just how eccentric Davis really is:

Most days start the same — behind the wheel of a white 1997 Dodge Caravan SE outfitted with a bubble-top Mark III conversion kit, a VHS player mounted to the roof inside and a r8hers personalized plate. Mark Davis pilots this machine from his East Bay home to the nearest P.F. Chang's, where he sits at the left end of the bar, same spot every time, puts his white fanny pack on the counter, orders an iced tea and unfolds the day's newspapers. Beside him on the bar, next to the papers, is his 2003 Nokia push-button phone with full texting capability. When someone calls and asks him where he is, he says, "I'm in my office," and sends a knowing nod to the bartenders. It gets 'em every time.

Davis is worth an estimated $500 million, so his tricked-out minivan and throwback cellphone are telling of the man's personality. It's possible to interpret Davis as someone wildly out of touch with reality, but it seems that more than anything he just loves football. Unlike his father, he handles almost no actual responsibilities, and when he does make decisions, he does so in curious fashion.

From the same ESPN piece:

During one dinner with a group that included his mother and Raiders general manager Reggie McKenzie, Davis inexplicably handed a piece of paper to McKenzie with the corners torn off.

"This is what I need you to get me," Davis said.

McKenzie, flummoxed, turned the tiny triangles over in his hands.

Seeing nothing, McKenzie gave up. "What is this?" he asked.

"Two corners," Davis said. "I need you to get me two corners."

The profile is filled with quirky moments like this, and depending on how you read it, some may look at Davis as a tragic figure, or a total lunatic. Regarding the bowl cut, Keown writes that Davis travels all the way from his home in northern California to Palm Springs just to get it cut at the same barber:

In perfect Davis family fashion, it's a middle finger to convention. Davis travels to Palm Desert to get it cut, just as he traveled to Chico from Oakland to visit a preferred barber long after he left college at Chico State. "I think he's had three barbers since college," [former Raiders WR Cliff] Branch says. "If he likes something, he stays loyal."

 
I still think it'll be Rams/Chargers.
Me too. I think the NFL wants to try to get Davis to sell the Raiders before making any future plans with that franchise. They think he is unstable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/raiders-owner-mark-davis-worth-2015-10

Earlier this week in ESPN the Magazine, Tim Keown published a revealing profile of Davis that offers a rare glimpse into the life and mind of one of the most fascinating owners in sports. From its first paragraph, the profile gives us a sense of just how eccentric Davis really is:

Most days start the same — behind the wheel of a white 1997 Dodge Caravan SE outfitted with a bubble-top Mark III conversion kit, a VHS player mounted to the roof inside and a r8hers personalized plate. Mark Davis pilots this machine from his East Bay home to the nearest P.F. Chang's, where he sits at the left end of the bar, same spot every time, puts his white fanny pack on the counter, orders an iced tea and unfolds the day's newspapers. Beside him on the bar, next to the papers, is his 2003 Nokia push-button phone with full texting capability. When someone calls and asks him where he is, he says, "I'm in my office," and sends a knowing nod to the bartenders. It gets 'em every time.

Davis is worth an estimated $500 million, so his tricked-out minivan and throwback cellphone are telling of the man's personality. It's possible to interpret Davis as someone wildly out of touch with reality, but it seems that more than anything he just loves football. Unlike his father, he handles almost no actual responsibilities, and when he does make decisions, he does so in curious fashion.

...
Damnit, I kind of like the guy now. Of course I'm not a Raiders fan.

 
The Chargers have such little following in LA. Everyone I know wants the Rams or Raiders. Sad to see the Chargers inserting themselves into the LA market where they'll no doubt be the NFL version of the Clippers for the next couple decades. Whomever moves to LA with them will dominate this town.

 
Posted 03 February 2011 - 03:08 AM

The Chargers can break the stadium lease between Feb. 1 and April 30 each year, but must then pay the city a fee that gradually falls over time. This year's fee: $26 million.

The relative ease of leaving Qualcomm Stadium — simply writing a check — has bolstered concerns that the Chargers would be a top contender to move to Los Angeles, where two wealthy developers have laid out plans to build NFL stadiums. The Chargers, as it so happens, want a new stadium.

But in a recent story about the Los Angeles plans, which again highlighted the Chargers as a leading candidate, ESPN inaccurately described how the lease's termination fee would pay off debts from the 1997 renovations to Qualcomm Stadium.

Contrary to ESPN's report, the lease doesn't say the Chargers must pay off the city's remaining debt — $51 million. The Chargers must simply pay a fixed fee to end the contract.

http://www.voiceofsa...1cc4c03286.html

The stadium naming rights deal was announced February 1 - the same day the lease expired. The Chargers have until the end of April to break the lease.
- Is this still the case, that the Chargers can escape their contract every year if done before April 30th?

For some reason I thought there had been some arrangement reached more recently, like in the last year or so? What is the hurdle at this stage and when would they have to announce by, is it April 30th?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Davis went to Chico State. Drives a '97 mini-van conversion with a bubble top and VCR. And travels 500 miles to Palm Desert to get his hair cut. By a barber. And still rolls with a 2003 push-button Nokia.

This guy is awesome.

 
Here is some info from MMQB:

L.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.

• 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.

• 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.
* * *
 
What do the Chargers actually have to do to get out of their lease? Is there a cutoff date and what's the penalty?

I think Rivers' demand earlier this year that he be allowed to go free agent (IIRC) indicated that least he thought they were moving to L.A.

 
What do the Chargers actually have to do to get out of their lease? Is there a cutoff date and what's the penalty?

I think Rivers' demand earlier this year that he be allowed to go free agent (IIRC) indicated that least he thought they were moving to L.A.
Iirc correctly they can terminate it any year between January and april for like 25 million people bucks.

 
• 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.

• Neither site is close to having the 24 votes to approve one plan.
If either project is approved by the Committee on LAO then the votes will come through.

 
• 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.

• 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.
Unless St. Louis pays for the stadium themselves then Kroenke will likely keep the Rams in the old stadium, which would damage the NFL product. If Kroenke is willing to be difficult - and I believe he is - then the NFL has no choice but to go along with his 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.

• 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.
Unless St. Louis pays for the stadium themselves then Kroenke will likely keep the Rams in the old stadium, which would damage the NFL product. If Kroenke is willing to be difficult - and I believe he is - then the NFL has no choice but to go along with his plan.
Grubman was on a local radio station this morning saying that the new lease the Stadium Task Force is proposing in St. Louis is not as good as the current lease in the dome. Basically that too much money that would normally go into the owners pocket is going toward the building of the stadium. He also said that the NFL can vote to block a move, but they can't vote to make someone sign a lease. Note that he said they can vote to block a move, not that they can actually block a move.

 
Chargers know Sunday could be last game at the QAs he has, Philip Rivers will hop into his pickup truck Sunday morning. He'll drive, as he has, from Chargers Park to Mission Valley, cruising through various neighborhoods and finally downhill toward the only NFL stadium he's called home. He will see the usual tailgaters. He will park at the same spot.

It won't be lost on the quarterback, he said Wednesday.

This could be it.

The Chargers will play their final home game of the season Sunday. It is an atypical finale. When they host the Dolphins, it could be the final Chargers game before a San Diego crowd, as NFL owners will meet next month in Houston, possibly to decide whether or not the franchise's effort to relocate to Los Angeles will be approved for 2016.

In a 63-man locker room, the level of attachment players feel toward this city, its stadium, its fans can vary.

Some have been here for weeks. Others, months. Wide receiver Dontrelle Inman, a second-year Charger, has gone from Jacksonville to Toronto to San Diego in his career; another move simply would be part of the business.

Then, there are players like Rivers. All 12 of his NFL seasons were here. San Diego is home.

"It could be emotional," Rivers, 34, said. "I mean, it really could be. Certainly, not knowing (if it's the last game) and not knowing after the game, either, but I think I'll soak in the drive over there a little bit more than the past 100-something times I've done it. I could get emotional thinking about it, riding down that hill for the last time to the stadium, the feeling you always have."

Rivers has memories at Qualcomm Stadium.

Some, naturally, are fonder than others.

He recounted Wednesday the 2008 playoff game against the Colts, what he considers "the most awesome, I think, the stadium has ever felt." Running back Darren Sproles scored on I-Left Swat 30 Iso, a 22-yard dash in overtime to advance the team to the divisional round.

The atmosphere then, he ventured, could rival anywhere else in the league. He also acknowledged other memories, many that fans remember, some of which predate his time on the team.

This year, much has been made of the home atmosphere. Steelers fans, Raiders fans, Bears fans — the list goes on. Visiting observers, at times, have outnumbered or overwhelmed in volume those present for the home team. That is not necessarily an indictment on San Diego fans; anyone who thinks the dynamic will be any better in Los Angeles may be in for a rude awakening.

Still, as possible swan songs go, the 2015 setting has not been ideal entering Sunday.

"When you win three games out of 13, we had a hand in that," Rivers said. "It doesn't put a damper on it for me how awesome it's been for over the past 12 years. ... Every interaction I've had with fans, both the ones at the game and around town — the little I'm around town this time of year — has all been positive. They're pulling for you. They appreciate you fighting and those kinds of things. I've felt that. ...

"I never have an expectation or feel like a fan owes us to be there whatsoever. But I'm appreciative of those fans. When I run into a season-ticket holder or just a fan who says, 'I've been coming to the games and been sitting in this row since '70-something,' you appreciate that. You can understand their feelings, too, should this be the last year. They aren't here, grinding like crazy to win every week to win a game. Yet they care, and it's been a part of their family traditions and things they've do. I've sensed that, the support from fans even though it's been a rough year."

Much has changed in one year.

Exactly a year ago from Wednesday, the Chargers announced they'd return to San Diego in 2015. Now, on Wednesday, the team held its first practice before the final scheduled San Diego game. There are no such promises of a 2016 return. Chairman of the Board Dean Spanos addressed the team twice before the season, including at the start of training camp, about the stadium situation. There were and are no answers or guarantees, but all are aware what Sunday could be.

Only one aspect of it is in their control.

"We all understand the possibilities," coach Mike McCoy said, "but our number one focus is winning. We want to finish the season strong, and it starts this weekend. We're trying to win this game. It's been a tough year for everybody. We want to have our last home game of the season be a good one."

Who knows? Maybe Sunday could be a false alarm.

Rivers will make his commute to Qualcomm. He'll be emotional before the game. Perhaps, he'll do something different afterward, as he soaks in the experience. Then, weeks later, owners decide the Chargers are staying put in 2016. Next August, come the preseason, he makes that same drive again.

Maybe.

But just in case, he respects the alternative. Sunday could be it.

"I don't have an expectation of where we're going to be next year, but yeah, this could be," Rivers said. "I think the only way to treat it is as if it is. ... Given the situation, you soak it in, should it be the last time."
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/dec/16/chargers-philip-rivers-san-diego-stadium/

 
So if both Raiders and Chargers move to Carson, does one get flipped to NFC West? Who gets flipped back?

 
If the Chargers go to LA, make the powder blues the official uniform, and bring back the old 1960s Horse and Lightning logo...

 
Well all 3 teams filed for relocation. Which team gets left out? Where will the teams play at that do move while the new stadiums are built? The collesium?

 
So if both Raiders and Chargers move to Carson, does one get flipped to NFC West? Who gets flipped back?
Why would the flip an AFC team that both stay in the west to the NFC? STL is already in the NFC west, if they stay or go.

Just curious, I know Seattle flipped with expansion.

 
So if both Raiders and Chargers move to Carson, does one get flipped to NFC West? Who gets flipped back?
Why would the flip an AFC team that both stay in the west to the NFC? STL is already in the NFC west, if they stay or go.

Just curious, I know Seattle flipped with expansion.
I'm guessing the thought is that they'd want a team from each conference in LA (like the Jets/Giants in the east)

ETA - for TV purposes. Two AFC teams in the LA market would probably not make Fox happy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So if both Raiders and Chargers move to Carson, does one get flipped to NFC West? Who gets flipped back?
Why would the flip an AFC team that both stay in the west to the NFC? STL is already in the NFC west, if they stay or go.

Just curious, I know Seattle flipped with expansion.
I'm guessing the thought is that they'd want a team from each conference in LA (like the Jets/Giants in the east)

ETA - for TV purposes. Two AFC teams in the LA market would probably not make Fox happy.
Well, not only that but other TV logistics.Say the Chargers are home so it's a late game and the Raiders are in Denver. The choices would be to flip the Raiders game to Fox or start it at 11 AM mountain.

Plus how would you feel if you were the Broncos or Chiefs and half the division got to play an "away" division game and never leave home?

 
So if both Raiders and Chargers move to Carson, does one get flipped to NFC West? Who gets flipped back?
Why would the flip an AFC team that both stay in the west to the NFC? STL is already in the NFC west, if they stay or go.

Just curious, I know Seattle flipped with expansion.
I'm guessing the thought is that they'd want a team from each conference in LA (like the Jets/Giants in the east)

ETA - for TV purposes. Two AFC teams in the LA market would probably not make Fox happy.
They could flip Seattle back to the AFC West (where they were originally). :shrug: I imagine they'd prefer to keep the traditional AFC West rivalries in tact though.

 
So if both Raiders and Chargers move to Carson, does one get flipped to NFC West? Who gets flipped back?
Why would the flip an AFC team that both stay in the west to the NFC? STL is already in the NFC west, if they stay or go.

Just curious, I know Seattle flipped with expansion.
I'm guessing the thought is that they'd want a team from each conference in LA (like the Jets/Giants in the east)

ETA - for TV purposes. Two AFC teams in the LA market would probably not make Fox happy.
They could flip Seattle back to the AFC West (where they were originally). :shrug: I imagine they'd prefer to keep the traditional AFC West rivalries in tact though.
This is partly why I don't see 2 AFC teams moving into the same stadium. It presents some Conference issues.

 
Yeah, they aren't going to NOT make the move because one or the other would have to change conferences.

I would hate to see the Chargers or Raiders move divisions, but should either team stay in a horrible stadium because people like the history?

No, the answer is no. Either team will move if push comes to shove, and will build new rivalries.

 
Ian Rapoport Verified account ‏@RapSheet

The @NFL announces that all three teams — the #Rams, #Chargers, and #Raiders — have submitted applications to relocate to LA.
The team left out is going to be sore. Who is it? If the league is smart they will leave the Raiders in Oakland and move SD and STL to LA. If SD and STL can be firends long enough they would make a great tandem in LA.
Why would the league be smart to do that, and why would the Rams and Chargers make a 'great' tandem?

 
Ian Rapoport Verified account ‏@RapSheet

The @NFL announces that all three teams — the #Rams, #Chargers, and #Raiders — have submitted applications to relocate to LA.
The team left out is going to be sore. Who is it? If the league is smart they will leave the Raiders in Oakland and move SD and STL to LA. If SD and STL can be firends long enough they would make a great tandem in LA.
Why would the league be smart to do that, and why would the Rams and Chargers make a 'great' tandem?
2 "original" Los Angeles teams coming home.

 
Ian Rapoport Verified account ‏@RapSheet

The @NFL announces that all three teams — the #Rams, #Chargers, and #Raiders — have submitted applications to relocate to LA.
The team left out is going to be sore. Who is it? If the league is smart they will leave the Raiders in Oakland and move SD and STL to LA. If SD and STL can be firends long enough they would make a great tandem in LA.
Why would the league be smart to do that, and why would the Rams and Chargers make a 'great' tandem?
2 "original" Los Angeles teams coming home.
Makes too much sense to not let happen. Especially with this.

 
Casting Couch said:
massraider said:
dirtyjay said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ian Rapoport Verified account ‏@RapSheet

The @NFL announces that all three teams — the #Rams, #Chargers, and #Raiders — have submitted applications to relocate to LA.
The team left out is going to be sore. Who is it? If the league is smart they will leave the Raiders in Oakland and move SD and STL to LA. If SD and STL can be firends long enough they would make a great tandem in LA.
Why would the league be smart to do that, and why would the Rams and Chargers make a 'great' tandem?
2 "original" Los Angeles teams coming home.
Cool old logo.

 
So a city that hasn't supported an nfl team before will now get two?

Makes sense to me that either the Raiders or chargers would move there but California doesn't really need another franchise.

 
Casting Couch said:
massraider said:
dirtyjay said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ian Rapoport Verified account ‏@RapSheet

The @NFL announces that all three teams the #Rams, #Chargers, and #Raiders have submitted applications to relocate to LA.
The team left out is going to be sore. Who is it? If the league is smart they will leave the Raiders in Oakland and move SD and STL to LA. If SD and STL can be firends long enough they would make a great tandem in LA.
Why would the league be smart to do that, and why would the Rams and Chargers make a 'great' tandem?
2 "original" Los Angeles teams coming home.
Well accept for the rams starting off in cleveland.

 
Growing momentum for Chargers/Rams. :popcorn: let's do this already!!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At this point the thing that seems to make the most sense to me is for the Rams/Chargers to couple up on a stadium. The Rams then taking the out of pocket money saved and basically handing it over to the Raiders to help finance a new stadium up in Oakland (or greater Bay/Delta area location) with some sort of ownership stake in the stadium development. Seems like a pretty close to everyone wins (except the cities of SD and St Louis) scenario as you are going to get in this.

 
There's pretty much no way they do Raiders and Rams again right? Chargers are a definite to go to LA.

 
There's pretty much no way they do Raiders and Rams again right? Chargers are a definite to go to LA.
The rumor mill seems very much stacked against the Raiders as the odd team out and it likely would have been a done deal already if the Rams and Chargers already had a joint venture. There is still a lot of dislike of the Raider organization among owners, distrust that Davis has the acumen to lead a successful team in an important LA market that is not easy to navigate and lack of funds in the Raider organization.

 
NFL consensus builds for a Rams-Chargers stadium project in InglewoodOn the brink of a vote that could return the NFL to Los Angeles, a consensus is building within the league for the St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers to share a stadium in Inglewood.

Multiple league officials and owners not involved with the Inglewood project, or the competing proposal in Carson, say there is momentum to pair the two franchises in what one owner describes as a "transformational" project backed by the Rams.

...

The idea of putting the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood has been floated for months and was formally proposed last week by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones in a one-page letter to Goodell.

There's a belief among some owners and league executives that Spanos would be willing to make a deal with Rams owner Stan Kroenke to share Inglewood if it were a 50-50 partnership that wouldn't put the Chargers at an economic disadvantage.

...
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html

 
Ian Rapoport Verified account ‏@RapSheet

The @NFL announces that all three teams — the #Rams, #Chargers, and #Raiders — have submitted applications to relocate to LA.
The team left out is going to be sore. Who is it? If the league is smart they will leave the Raiders in Oakland and move SD and STL to LA. If SD and STL can be firends long enough they would make a great tandem in LA.
Why would the league be smart to do that, and why would the Rams and Chargers make a 'great' tandem?
Because it makes the most sense to move the smaller market teams to the bigger city than the team in the bigger market, financially that is why Jerry Jones likes the idea I bet, it would mean more money for the league to divide. I'm not certain but I would guess the Raiders make more marketing to the Bay Area than SD does in SD and STL does in STL. Fewer people could mean less money, move them to LA and more people means more money.

NFL consensus builds for a Rams-Chargers stadium project in InglewoodOn the brink of a vote that could return the NFL to Los Angeles, a consensus is building within the league for the St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers to share a stadium in Inglewood.

Multiple league officials and owners not involved with the Inglewood project, or the competing proposal in Carson, say there is momentum to pair the two franchises in what one owner describes as a "transformational" project backed by the Rams.

...

The idea of putting the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood has been floated for months and was formally proposed last week by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones in a one-page letter to Goodell.

There's a belief among some owners and league executives that Spanos would be willing to make a deal with Rams owner Stan Kroenke to share Inglewood if it were a 50-50 partnership that wouldn't put the Chargers at an economic disadvantage.

...
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html
 
Sounds like it's the Rams/Chargers. Are they going to keep their team names/colours?

For a brief second I wondered if this would affect divisions (Rams moving West) before realizing how perfect it makes it.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top