Skip to content

NFL acknowledges receipt of submissions from Oakland, St. Louis, San Diego

160879474-640x425 Getty Images

The three cities facing the potential loss of NFL franchises have made their final pitches for keeping their franchises in place with new stadiums. On Wednesday, the NFL acknowledged receipt of proposals from Oakland, St. Louis, and San Diego.

“We are able to confirm that we have received submissions from Oakland, St. Louis, and San Diego as requested,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. “All three submissions are generally consistent with our most recent discussions with public officials and task forces. We appreciate the leadership that public officials have demonstrated on behalf of the three cities. There is a great deal of information for the three teams and all of NFL ownership to review and consider. At this point, no applications for relocation of a franchise have been filed.”

Those applications — from the Raiders, Rams, and Chargers — haven’t been filed because the window for doing so doesn’t open until Monday. Come Monday, all three applications likely will be filed. And the process will culminate in a special ownership meeting in Houston on January 12 and 13.

It’s likely that the three teams will scoff at their respective city’s proposals.

The Raiders already have scoffed at Oakland’s. They just don’t want to play with us,” Raiders owner Mark Davis said Tuesday, via Matthew Artz of the Bay Area News Group. “I don’t know why. I don’t understand it.”

The Chargers already have scoffed at San Diego’s proposal for a public vote in 2016. The Rams will surely scoff at the idea that they’re being forced to stay in St. Louis despite securing the ability to terminate their lease, thanks to a refusal of the local authorities to comply with a term requiring the stadium to be among the best 25 percent of the league’s venues.

Permalink 65 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
65 Responses to “NFL acknowledges receipt of submissions from Oakland, St. Louis, San Diego”
  1. sindiegosage says: Dec 30, 2015 4:23 PM

    It’s doubtful that the Chargers will scoff at San Diego’s proposal because the Chargers refuse to acknowledge that the city of San Diego even exists.

  2. ravensfan56 says: Dec 30, 2015 4:25 PM

    Please don’t move any team to Los Angeles!

  3. youknowiknowitall says: Dec 30, 2015 4:26 PM

    Are they also able to confirm that they have this year’s PSI data to make public as part of their promised “transparency”.

  4. tommykramer9 says: Dec 30, 2015 4:27 PM

    Bunch of bottom feeding teams that should be happy their current city wants them. Moving to a new location doesn’t change a poor organization.

  5. gibbyfan says: Dec 30, 2015 4:28 PM

    I realize it’s the american way but I am still amazed at how there seems to be no limit to what the super rich can control –I’m a raider fan but the the idea of a city as poor as Oakland putting up a half billion of tax dollars to subsidize a billionaire so he can make even more than the hundreds of millions he is already making–well, it just seems wrong.

  6. djaehne says: Dec 30, 2015 4:35 PM

    Never fazed me a bit when Oilers left Houston. Glad we have the Texans, best of all though is not having Bud Adams demands every few years. Didn’t miss them and still never have. I did feel bad for Tennessee.

  7. djaehne says: Dec 30, 2015 4:38 PM

    Oh, and I guess the Patriots will have to reclaim the audio/video equipment stashed in those three stadium locker rooms.

  8. ebpatton says: Dec 30, 2015 4:40 PM

    There teams in L.A. The league can’t stop it.

  9. prijak1 says: Dec 30, 2015 4:40 PM

    Keep Raiders in Oakland ! If the NFL allows the Raiders to move to the LA market, the NFL won’t see any profit. 99% of Raider fans do not like to pay for anything . All the Raiders fans will vandalize the new stadium with graffiti and urine ! It’s the truth and It’s the demographic . All other NFL fans that spend thousands of dollars in tickets, merchandise and concessions will not spend a dime on the LA Raiders . Raiders fans will not pay for PSL’s or season seats . These fans want it all for free . Since the new stadium will be sophisticated the fans will not be able to hop the fence like they did at the colosseum or they still do at Dodger games . Hopefully NFL does their proper research , because I can already envision the Raiders in LA and the NFL complaining and asking why are there so many empty seats ? I remember when the Raiders played at the coliseum all the yellow jacket security would allow everyone in to the game for free. That was the only reason the seats would fill up. If the Raiders cannot sell out their own stadium in Oakland , it will be much worse in LA. The majority of Los Angeles fans cheer for other NFL teams and will not convert to the Raider fan base just because there here in LA

  10. raideralex99 says: Dec 30, 2015 4:45 PM

    All they need is one more team and they can have the LA Division.

  11. bigdawg24 says: Dec 30, 2015 4:47 PM

    Missouri only needs one team, and they are the KANSAS CITY CHEFS. St Louis doesn’t support their football teams anyhow. They lost the Cardinals, and now the Rams want out of there. Anyone else see a trend here??

  12. jimnaizeeum says: Dec 30, 2015 4:48 PM

    This would be Oaklands 3rd move, like father like son.

  13. pbeddoe says: Dec 30, 2015 4:49 PM

    L.A. Raiders, it’s a done deal. Take that to the bank.

  14. Hitdog18 says: Dec 30, 2015 4:50 PM

    I am convinced no ine is moving to L.A

  15. logast says: Dec 30, 2015 4:51 PM

    Los Angeles cannot, and will not support an NFL franchise. Let alone two. Or three. I guess ignoring the past is all that matters (with the $$ of course).

  16. gwhite13 says: Dec 30, 2015 4:53 PM

    How many cities have an owner that does not blackmail the citizenry?

    Does your teams owner go it alone, and a happy fanbase gives full and happy support for not being hosed by PSL’s ?

    New England does.

  17. Raider Jon says: Dec 30, 2015 4:53 PM

    gibbyfan says:
    Dec 30, 2015 4:28 PM

    I realize it’s the american way but I am still amazed at how there seems to be no limit to what the super rich can control –I’m a raider fan but the the idea of a city as poor as Oakland putting up a half billion of tax dollars to subsidize a billionaire so he can make even more than the hundreds of millions he is already making–well, it just seems wrong.

    _____________________________

    Well, I would argue that the city is investing in itself and it’s population. Many jobs will be created in the area during construction. And running the stadium will also provide more jobs. Also, having a strong job market in any particular area increases property value. I’m not sure what the dollar to dollar return would be, and I understand that team owners will reap a large benefit, but many others will benefit also.

  18. immafubared says: Dec 30, 2015 4:57 PM

    Smart to move san di and oakland to la and share a stadiom

  19. fordbw says: Dec 30, 2015 5:00 PM

    Let all 3 teams move to Los Angeles. America’s biggest and best city deserves to have 3 NFL teams.

  20. rootpain says: Dec 30, 2015 5:01 PM

    Hopefully it’s true that the proposals are substantially the same. Nothing has been added to the game to improve fan enjoyment. So neither should there be any value increase to the owners coming on the backs of taxpayers. Let them move where they want and pay for it all themselves and if it succeeds, good for them and if not, good for them.

  21. rayslover727 says: Dec 30, 2015 5:03 PM

    What doesnt Mark Davis understand? We don’t want to pay for YOUR stadium. If you can’t/won’t build one with YOUR daddy’s money, sell the team.

    -Raider fan

  22. heybackatyou says: Dec 30, 2015 5:09 PM

    Someone should move to Santa Clara. They have a nice new stadium and there is no football team to speak of.

  23. harrisonhits2 says: Dec 30, 2015 5:16 PM

    I hope none of the cities give a single stinking dime to these disgustingly greedy owners.

  24. chillyball says: Dec 30, 2015 5:19 PM

    Rams, return to LA, and return to the Yellow and Blue that made Jim Everett look so cool.

  25. Wisconsin77 says: Dec 30, 2015 5:20 PM

    California has shown time and time again that it cannot support 4 NFL franchises. I am not sure why out of state franchises are even being considered.

  26. geraldcordova says: Dec 30, 2015 5:21 PM

    The Raiders should just stay in Oakland. The fan base is so loyal to that team. The Rams should just go back to LA because the attendance has been poor the last few years.

  27. eljefedelmundo says: Dec 30, 2015 5:34 PM

    Krunky got $$$, Krunky gonna move.

    Done deal

  28. fanboyarmy says: Dec 30, 2015 5:35 PM

    The Raiders should just stay in Oakland. The fan base is so loyal to that team.
    _____________________________________
    That’s why the Raiders tarp half the stadium to cover empty seats.

  29. runningoutofboundsisforgringos says: Dec 30, 2015 5:41 PM

    I feel for those fans. I remember how we Vikings fans were tortured for years with this. I just resigned myself to “Oh, well, I guess I just won’t like football anymore.” As if

  30. billswillnevermove says: Dec 30, 2015 5:45 PM

    The Raiders should just be flushed down the toilet. Toronto and the Raiders are perfect together…..losers.

  31. araidersfan says: Dec 30, 2015 5:45 PM

    rayslover727 says:
    Dec 30, 2015 5:03 PM

    What doesnt Mark Davis understand? We don’t want to pay for YOUR stadium. If you can’t/won’t build one with YOUR daddy’s money, sell the team.

    =================================

    My sentiments exactly. But he’s living in his father’s deluded dream that somehow Los Angeles is a gold mine – despite the fact that during the first move to La-la land the Raiders had barely averaged over 40,000 per game after the team’s fortunes declined on the field.

  32. iloveagoodnap says: Dec 30, 2015 5:48 PM

    Raider Jon, you have a fair point- but my counter would be, all of those economic plus sides of a new stadium would still be present if the owners forked over more of their own money’s.

  33. radrntn says: Dec 30, 2015 5:57 PM

    Once again Stan would be smart to help Mark Davis stay in Oakland. The LA market I am sure is worth helping him build a stadium in Oakland, and eliminate the lawsuit that will follow if Oakland can not get enough money form Oakland. By listening to the interview with the mayor of Oakland yesterday, it sounds like there will be no public money for the raiders. Land maybe, but thats about it.

    If the league will contribute say 300 million, and Stan gives say 300 to 500 for the rights to LA which Oakland currently owns, and the Raiders come up with 300, and Oakland gives the land….everybody would be happy

  34. Raider Jon says: Dec 30, 2015 6:15 PM

    iloveagoodnap says:
    Dec 30, 2015 5:48 PM

    Raider Jon, you have a fair point- but my counter would be, all of those economic plus sides of a new stadium would still be present if the owners forked over more of their own money’s.

    ——————————————————–

    Good point. And on a social level, I do believe that Davis should be very altruistic to a community that has supported him for so long. Unfortunately, very few of the rich are willing to give back. Also, I’m sure Davis is getting pressure from the other owners to set a precedent that is in their best interest (themselves). It is a very complex issue. But the government officials can only control what they can control, and that is not Davis. If boosting the economy with a jobs bill that also gives Oakland a new stadium is financially feasible, then its a win-win-win situation (thank you micheal scott).

  35. bubba12662 says: Dec 30, 2015 6:20 PM

    Los Angeles Has Already Lost The Chargers, Rams, And Raiders Teams Once Already………What Guarantees That These Teams Will Make It Go In L.A. Again?

  36. upperdecker19 says: Dec 30, 2015 6:24 PM

    LA area resident.

    1 team – sure, we’re OK with that. Although most don’t care

    2 teams – dumb. We’re just not that interested

    3 teams – criminally dumb.

    Inglewood > Carson – they’ve already broken ground for crying out loud.

    1 team most likely supported, if we have to take one. 1. Rams 2. Raiders 3. Chargers

    The fact that there is a group of owners holding anything up for Spanos is downright stupidity. Just look at the way this guy treats his own players, coaches, and entire city. Stay there. We don’t want you. And no, 40% of your current fanbase isn’t in LA/Orange Counties…..it’s comprised of fans of other teams that aren’t yours!!! As it’s poorly managed and rightfully not supported 100% locally!

    Raiders – Davis needs to at least sell a portion to Ellerby. The guy’s made of cash and would really make that team what it should be. Not a fan, but the NFL is fun when the Raiders are respectable….

  37. cinzano08 says: Dec 30, 2015 6:30 PM

    Greed will rule the day as it always does. Reneged on 16 mil for concussion studies but spends 10 mil on football psi.

  38. Wisconsin77 says: Dec 30, 2015 6:53 PM

    Wisconsin77 says:
    Dec 30, 2015 5:20 PM
    California has shown time and time again that it cannot support 4 NFL franchises. I am not sure why out of state franchises are even being considered.

    —————————————————–

    Those voting me down care to explain why? No state deserves 4 franchises, ESPECIALLY California. Heck, it can barely sustain 3 and we want to put another one in the state? Is this for real? lol

  39. nickyfidget says: Dec 30, 2015 7:03 PM

    LA will NOT support the Chargers!!!!

    LA WILL support the RAMS!!!

    LA Rams 2016 it will be The 50th season as the LA Rams and mark the 70th anniversary since their move to the West Coast!!!

    Welcome Home!!!

  40. beavertonsteve says: Dec 30, 2015 7:04 PM

    The St Louis plan has $100 MM is propped up with $100 MM in imaginary G4 money and intentionally circumvents the a vote by the taxpayers (because they vote it down)

    The San Diego plan only includes the actual $200 MM in G4 money and intentionally includes a vote by the taxpayers. It also includes a survey showing very strong voter support for approving the plan. I kinda wish San Diego would have crossed through the $200 MM G4 in their plan and just written in $300 MM by hand.

  41. PriorKnowledge says: Dec 30, 2015 7:33 PM

    The tea leaves I am reading say:

    * Rams are definitely NOT moving.
    * Chargers are definitely moving.
    * Raiders are maybe moving.

  42. bayousooner90 says: Dec 30, 2015 7:43 PM

    LA will lose whatever team its gets within 15 years.

  43. jjfootball says: Dec 30, 2015 8:57 PM

    First off how do you morons even know how much money Mark Davis has? I would be willing to bet that he is not a billionaire!

  44. DrinkingTheDeliciousTearsOfTheHaters says: Dec 30, 2015 9:32 PM

    Should just combine these 3 crappy franchises into 1, move them all to LA and rename the team the Sodom and Gomorrah DumpsterFires.

  45. ebdug says: Dec 30, 2015 9:50 PM

    The NFL is adamant about relocating but the proper course of action is to expand, putting new teams in L.A,. in San Antone. in the midwest. That way, they retain their current fan base and enlarge it with new fans.

    It’s a TV game nowadays, anyway, and viewers could care less what a stadium looks like as long as the turf is right.

  46. ymca2014 says: Dec 30, 2015 9:54 PM

    Rams will move back to LA. They’ll choose some moonless night and start the convoy at 2 AM. 🚛🌚

  47. jmoney74 says: Dec 30, 2015 10:14 PM

    La #2 market and some stupid fans think there can be no nfl support here. Dumb. It has been decades… Two teams can be supported here.

  48. mrneto72 says: Dec 30, 2015 10:27 PM

    aidersfan says:Dec 30, 2015 5:45 PM

    rayslover727 says:
    Dec 30, 2015 5:03 PM

    What doesnt Mark Davis understand? We don’t want to pay for YOUR stadium. If you can’t/won’t build one with YOUR daddy’s money, sell the team.

    =================================

    My sentiments exactly. But he’s living in his father’s deluded dream that somehow Los Angeles is a gold mine – despite the fact that during the first move to La-la land the Raiders had barely averaged over 40,000 per game after the team’s fortunes declined on the field.

    *******************************************************
     you guys have to remember, when the Raiders left in 95, there was no social media, no fantasy football , football was not as big as it is now, the coliseum sucked, can u guys imagine all the Hollywood stars I those seats now???

  49. ace6279 says: Dec 30, 2015 10:41 PM

    Rams will move to LA in 2016 and the Chargers will be told to go back and try to work a deal with the city for another year or two. If it doesn’t work out they can always move in with the Rams when the inglewood stadium is finished. The Raiders can get help from the league to build a modest stadium in oakland or move to the 49er stadium. 2 teams in the north 2 teams in the south. Perfect for everyone. There is no money to be made in St.louis. If their economy comes back strong someday maybe an expansion opportunity will come.

  50. mongo3401 says: Dec 30, 2015 10:53 PM

    Oh my. The delusional fans of St Louis are going to moan that there is no plan like their plan. Who in the world builds a stadium on the banks of the second most polluted river on the planet? St Louis. Who in the world builds a stadium with no team as a tenant? St Louis (EJD) Who in the world spend millions on a stadium task force for a city where the owner of the team does not want to be there? St Louis Who in the world not only wants to build a stadium on the banks of a polluted river but along with that having it look upon one of the most impoverished areas in this country(? E. St Louis). St Louis
    Who in the world still owes 10s of millions on a stadium that was deemed unfit by am arbitrator and still spends millions on plans for another stadium when they KNOW the owner wants to move? Right again, St Louis. It’s one of the most impoverished cities in this country and they are pushing for a stadium that the team does not want. I rest my case. Stan Kroenke to LA

  51. prijak1 says: Dec 30, 2015 10:58 PM

    The Raiders need to stay in Oakland and continue to play in that dump that Al Davis left LA for!
    Or
    The Raiders should go to San Antonio where they are willing to build them a new stadium. Also they can share the same colors with the Spurs. San Antonio is begging the Raiders to move there and the Raiders should move there. We don’t want the Riaders in LA “Stop the Violence”

  52. alwaysaz says: Dec 30, 2015 11:08 PM

    Wisconsin77 says:
    Dec 30, 2015 5:20 PM
    California has shown time and time again that it cannot support 4 NFL franchises. I am not sure why out of state franchises are even being considered.

    —————————————————–

    Those voting me down care to explain why? No state deserves 4 franchises, ESPECIALLY California. Heck, it can barely sustain 3 and we want to put another one in the state? Is this for real? lol

    ———————————–

    Oakland Raiders
    St. Louis Rams
    San Diego Chargers

    That’s 3 possible, not 4 that California could be hosting come 2016. Where is this mystery 4th team? That could be the reason for the down-voting.

  53. raiderssf says: Dec 30, 2015 11:32 PM

    Let’s clear something up. Oakland has some poor areas, but the majority of Oakland’s housing prices are going through the roof -like the rest of the Bay Area. Also, Oakland places in the top 5 when it comes down to the highest rent for a one bedroom appartment in the nation. Oakland does have some budget issues, but it’s nothing out of the ordinary when compared to other cities.

    The malaise from he city of Oakland and county of Alameda with this deal is due to the fact that they were burned in the 1995 deal that brought the Raiders back. They are being diligent and extra cautious of a new deal which should be commended.

    BTW, Oakland already cleared up all the California environmental red tape for the site. They just need to figure out the most important part, the financials.

  54. sdflash2006 says: Dec 30, 2015 11:38 PM

    In the space of a few months in 1994, both the Raiders and Rams decided that the money was better elsewhere and abandoned the LA/Anaheim market. For 20 years the NFL’s owners used LA as a stooge to extract lucrative new stadium deals from their existing cities. Over the years NFL insiders would occasionally float an “NFL is returning” story to LA football writers, who knew better, but couldn’t help themselves and published the nonsense anyway. What was lost in all of this noise was that the NFL could have easily awarded an expansion franchise to any one of a number of billionaires and brought football back to LA at any point. But that would have meant the TV
    money would have to be divided up 33 ways instead of 32 and that was unacceptable. Then one day recently the earth shifted and like magic the gates of heaven suddenly opened and not one, not two but three teams could suddenly return to LA! Of course all haste must be shown, no expense spared and everybody must hail the conquering empire as it deigns to return to LA. And by the way, there will be no talk of the last 20 years because it never happened. So I say let’s all dance to the new tune and do what the nice NFL man tells us to do. Oakland, San Diego and St.Louis are clearly seeing what happens when you don’t do what you are told.

  55. pantherpro says: Dec 30, 2015 11:46 PM

    Does LA really want Raider trash?

  56. itsgettingchippy says: Dec 31, 2015 2:12 AM

    At this point I am officially done with the Chargers. Even if by some chance they remain in S.D. I will not support them. I have my NFC team that I have always rooted for and my 2nd favorite AFC team has now become my #1 AFC team. Thank you so much Spanos for making it so easy to say goodbye to your organization.

  57. natelan says: Dec 31, 2015 4:48 AM

    Hey Spanos family… Acknowledge THIS!

    Go SAN DIEGO Chargers!

    If you go, leave us the colors and unis… We’ll wear Powder Blues for every home game, like nature intended.

  58. mbayraiderfan says: Dec 31, 2015 5:42 AM

    The first half of these comments were just ridiculous….. Do people even know what they’re talking about? Mark Davis isn’t a billionaire. Raiders fans will pay for seats. The team is trending up in a bought way. A lot of ignorance.

  59. fanboyarmy says: Dec 31, 2015 9:51 AM

    Most NFL owners are worth a billion or more. Al Davis was worth considerably less than that ($500M). Mark Davis has never had a job and it is unknown how much his father left to him as their relationship was chilly to say the least.

  60. justanotherfan101 says: Dec 31, 2015 2:19 PM

    Has any NFL team been refused the right to relocate? In 1982 the Raiders moved to LA, even though the NFL refused them permission to make the move. The Raiders then won the right to relocate in a court case. In 1995 the LA Rams filed suit when the league initially blocked their move to St Louis, which caused the league to back down and allow the move. If these three teams decide to move, no one can stop them but themselves. What will the league do if it has all three teams suing them?

  61. skobolt says: Dec 31, 2015 4:03 PM

    I can care less what city has a NFL team. I am a fan of the red zone, no commercials, no over priced seats, food and beer, and exciting finishes.

  62. Wisconsin77 says: Dec 31, 2015 4:24 PM

    alwaysaz says:
    Dec 30, 2015 11:08 PM
    Oakland Raiders
    St. Louis Rams
    San Diego Chargers
    That’s 3 possible, not 4 that California could be hosting come 2016. Where is this mystery 4th team? That could be the reason for the down-voting.

    —————————————

    You miss the point of my post. This is why you coffee drinking Prius drivers can’t support 4 NFL teams. Right now California has THREE NFL teams: 49rs, Raiders, and the Chargers. I couldn’t care less how you distribute those teams amongst your water starving cities. What I am against is bringing into the state another NFL franchise, like the St. Louis Rams. 4 NFL franchises in a single state, especially if that state is California, is just plain ludicrous.

  63. natelan says: Dec 31, 2015 11:52 PM

    Most NFL owners are only billionaires because of the value of their NFL franchise. Most do not have that much liquid cash; they would have to sell a portion of the team in order to have actual cash to spend, and they would be foolish to do that since franchise values continue to rise every year and especially if they think they can get a municipality to foot the bill for a new stadium.

  64. prijak1 says: Jan 1, 2016 3:12 PM

    Just keep the Raiders in Oakland. Los Angeles doesn’t need any
    MOre trash

  65. justanotherfan101 says: Jan 1, 2016 9:30 PM

    California has a population of about 39 million people and currently has 3 NFL teams. Before the Rams moved out in 1995 it had 4 NFL teams and a population of about 32 million. The states of Kansas, Louisiana, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Missouri currently have 7 NFL teams and a combined population of about 36 million, about 3 million less than California. The LA metropolitan area has a population of about 19 million people, more than any other state except Texas with 27 million and Florida with about 20 million. The point is, if NFL teams want to move to California or the LA area, there is a very large population base to support them. If the owners want to pay billions of their own money to build stadiums, why stop them. It would be great if the 2024 Olympic games were in LA and they had 2 new state of the art stadiums to support them.

Leave a Reply

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