Skip to content

Two L.A. Committee members suggested extra $100 million for St. Louis stadium

Getty Images

The ultimate reality show is in the process of launching a spin-off that could be nearly as compelling.

The NFL’s effort to return to Los Angeles quickly is careening toward a potentially ugly fight in January, as competing factions not only solidify but begin to engage in conduct that will make it even harder to persuade 24 owners to get behind any one proposal.

The latest example of dysfunction comes from the phantom $100 million from the NFL that the St. Louis Board of Alderman included in the stadium financing package that was approved on Friday. So how did that extra $100 million commitment — which the NFL has disavowed in writing — get into the package?

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the extra contribution was suggested to the St. Louis stadium task force by one of the six members of the league’s Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities. The source says that a second L.A. committee member echoed the commitment.

While unable to bind the league, the committee members indicated that the extra $100 million would come from the redistribution of relocation fees paid by the team(s) that move to L.A.

It’s unknown which committee members were involved in making the promise/suggestion/whatever to St. Louis regarding the extra $100 million. If neither Panthers owner Jerry Richardson nor Texans owner Bob McNair (who both are on the record as favoring a new St. Louis stadium for the Rams) were involved in the communications, it means that more than two of the six committee members currently believe that the Rams shouldn’t move to L.A. — and that the Chargers should.

Regardless of which members of the committee made the $100 million non-commitment, the committee is giving Rams owner Stan Kroenke plenty of ammunition for pushing back against the final recommendation of the committee — either in the meeting room or, eventually, in a courtroom.

Whether a courtroom can be avoided will depend in large on whether Commissioner Roger Goodell ultimately can broker a deal that leaves the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders happy. As of now, it’s becoming more and more clear that it will be difficult for Goodell to forge a final consensus that keeps the full scope of folks responsible for employing and paying him happy.

Permalink 23 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
23 Responses to “Two L.A. Committee members suggested extra $100 million for St. Louis stadium”
  1. 1974a says: Dec 19, 2015 11:32 PM

    St.Louis leaders pass the stadium bill there for the Rams should stay.

  2. ravensfan56 says: Dec 19, 2015 11:32 PM

    Keep the Rams in St. Louis, the Chargers in San Diego, and the Raiders in Oakland. Los Angeles does not deserve a team. No one there cares about football or sports. It’s a city filled with wannabes.

  3. flamethrower101 says: Dec 19, 2015 11:51 PM

    I shouldn’t be enjoying this dysfunction as much as I am, but after all the garbage time that’s come from the NFL office, Goodell, and the owners – from the complete courtroom failures of recent years, the officiating controversies, ownership refusing to fire Goodell, it’s nice to see them being ripped apart.

  4. billybone says: Dec 19, 2015 11:58 PM

    It seems like when you become as rich as some of these owners are, it’s not about the money but the power.

    Who moves to L.A. will be interesting but the saddest part is going to be seeing the fans of either Oakland, St. Louis, or San Diego get their team yanked from their home city. I just hope any effort from the citizens of the teams mentioned aren’t bent over backwards with new taxes and a financial burden just to ensure their team isn’t moved out of town.

    All three teams haven’t been that successful as of late. It’s not the fans fault. But the owners will and since it’s their team have the right to move on to greener pastures if they aren’t making money. BUT, sports are much more than just business to fans. It’s what can make a crappy week filled with stress turn into a good week when our home teams win.

    Not a fan of any of these teams but still hope for the best outcome for for all you fans of these three teams.

  5. ramitbaby says: Dec 20, 2015 12:10 AM

    As if Kroenke needed any more fuel behind his imminent lawsuit against the NFL.

  6. johnniemayes says: Dec 20, 2015 12:34 AM

    The Chargers and Raiders should go. It’ll tear the division apart but they have the worst stadiums in the league.

  7. ivanpavlov0000 says: Dec 20, 2015 1:12 AM

    Kroenke has already plunked down several million towards moving the Rams to LA. His commitment is clear. Apparently so is the commitment of his opposition.

    If it’s true that several (more than two) members of the LA relocation committee are opposed to moving the Rams then it’s probably more personal than business.

    So the first question is what did Kroenke do/say that ruffled so many feathers? The second question is Kroenke willing to back down? If no, will he take the league to court? (Newsflash … he’ll win if he does).

  8. thermalito says: Dec 20, 2015 2:45 AM

    I’ll say it again: Despite all their sabre rattleing the NFL is POWERLESS at preventing teams from moving to open markets. They can vote however they want but at the end of the day Stan Kroenke will rape them in anti-trust court if they try to block him from moving. He’ll not only get to move to LA and pay no relocation fees, the NFL will end up paying him to move there exactly as they did Al Davis.

  9. ace6279 says: Dec 20, 2015 4:41 AM

    This is getting completely wild. Has Dean Spanos and his friends gone nuts. You can’t behave like this in a fair and ethical process. Stan Kroenke should hammer these people in court if they don’t stop the nonsense. Hopefully enough owners will realize this conduct warrants a win for Stan Kroenke and the new Los Angeles Rams.

  10. aavengern7 says: Dec 20, 2015 6:04 AM

    The Lord works in mysterious ways! Maybe this get Goodell canned.

  11. internetcommenter7 says: Dec 20, 2015 6:22 AM

    I so hope knoenke announces that he’s moving his team to LA regardless of the league’s wishes and that, furthermore, he will not pay a dime to the league in relocation fees. I can’t think of a group more deserving of a slap in the face and a fight they can’t win than goddell, Mara/tisch, johnson, irsay, biscotti, Rooney , Richardson, and McNair.

  12. sfm073 says: Dec 20, 2015 8:06 AM

    It’s obviously clear that St. Louis is the only city of the 3 to put a legitimate plan together and add in that Kronke has not worked with the city in anyway to keep the team in the city. If the NFL leaves a city that is willing to build 2 stadiums in 25 years then they’ll never have credibility again.

  13. rootpain says: Dec 20, 2015 8:36 AM

    Well that is the best news I have read in a long time. The possibility that a significant number of owners are potentially fed up with Goodell is great. It doesn’t matter to me why he gets fired, as long as he is fired. He is not qualified for the job.

  14. koufaxmitzvah says: Dec 20, 2015 8:49 AM

    As a born Angeleno and someone who hates the billionaire corporate attitude of the NFL, I really want all of this to blow up in the NFL’s face.

    Soccer has more fans than football does in Los Angeles.

    I repeat….. Professional football is losing the allegiance of Southern Californians who now prefer football.

    As in, Futball > Football

    Suck on that one, Rog.

  15. ReligionIsForIdiots says: Dec 20, 2015 9:11 AM

    LA will be lucky to get 40,000 people into that stadium the second the team there has a .500 year or worse.

  16. cafetero1075 says: Dec 20, 2015 9:24 AM

    I think only 1 team should go, the Rams or Raiders. NFL makes billions, they can afford to build their own stadium.

  17. pinkmist4 says: Dec 20, 2015 9:28 AM

    Aren’t relo fees payable to the various owners? How do they give any of that money to a city?

  18. bluez32 says: Dec 20, 2015 9:55 AM

    As a lifelong die hard Browns fan who marched in the streets in 95 to keep our franchise I feel for you all . will the greed ever end ?

  19. schraged1 says: Dec 20, 2015 9:59 AM

    It is obvious that Stan Kroenke and the leadership in St. Louis are not going to come to any kind of agreement. So does the NFL leave St. Louis again? or move another team & owner in? Frankly I would rather the Raiders stay in Oakland, Spanos and Kroenke swap franchises moving the Rams to L.A. and Spanos taking the Chargers to San Antonio or some where else (come up with a new name and color scheme).

  20. lodwarblog says: Dec 20, 2015 10:48 AM

    Know who needs to go? The NFL. One way or the other one, two or three current cities get screwed. Not because LA has in the past shown a major commitment to it’s sports teams otherwise they would have not had so many franchises move – the LA Angels, the Rams, Oakland… while all the cities involved are doing everything they can to keep their teams.

    Whatever decision is made (other than no one moves and LA gets no team) millions of fans will get screwed over. In California the markets for Oakland and San Diego would suffer – although there are other teams nearby. Take the Rams out of the STL and you leave a 150+ mile wide hole in the realm of fans who might just give up on the NFL entirely. After all the messes Goodell has presided over this is the one which could most harm the NFL in the long run all over LA TV revenues.

    What other market has lost two football teams, a baseball team and I’m pretty sure I am missing something …. and is still considered this important?

    It’s all about money. Not the fans. Not the players. Not the teams…the owners greedy pockets. Anyone who loses their team to a move should abandon the NFL entirely and find a college team to root for. At least they won’t pull extortion moves and take off on a whim.

  21. DesertEagle76 says: Dec 20, 2015 11:09 AM

    I would like to know how the NFL thinks the Raiders-Chargers partnership would be more successful than the Rams in returning to LA.

    First, there is no plan for an interim venue aside from the Coliseum as of next season, and because of USC and scheduling complexities only one team would be suitable to play in LA for the next couple of seasons while the new stadium is built in either case. I suspect if nothing is set in stone within the next couple of months, things may be already too late for the 2016 season.

    Second, is the Carson stadium plan as concrete as the plan in Inglewood? Whereas Inglewood may have the FAA to deal with at the moment, the project is shovel-ready. Carson on the other hand is a bunch of hearsay regarding finances, EIRs, site cleanups and anything conclusive from either the Chargers or Raiders.

    Third, have the NFL owners considered which division realignment plan to proceed with if they somehow greenlight the Raiders-Chargers in Carson? Right now none of which makes sense and breaking a division that has existed since the AFL’s beginning is already a tough pill to swallow.

    The reason why only moving the Rams to LA would make sense is that there are no contingency plans required except for an interim stadium, and I’m certain USC would work with the Rams as opposed to anyone else.

    And just in case nobody bothered to look at Google Maps, St. Louis is geographically closer to Indianapolis, Nashville, and Houston as opposed to Seattle, Phoenix, and San Francisco, or even Jacksonville for that Matter.

  22. The Almighty Cabbage says: Dec 20, 2015 11:44 AM

    “Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the extra contribution was suggested to the St. Louis stadium task force by one of the six members of the league’s Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities.”

    Well, I suppose “Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities” does sound a little bit better than “National Football League Extortion Division.”

  23. BIG RED says: Dec 21, 2015 1:35 PM

    “And just in case nobody bothered to look at Google Maps, St. Louis is geographically closer to Indianapolis, Nashville, and Houston”

    Fun fact: When realignment occurred in 2002, the Rams actually requested to be placed in that division. They were ignored.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!