Signs still point to L.A. resolution next week

AP

No one knows what it will be. But it likely will be something.

After more than 20 years with no team in Los Angeles, the NFL is closing on a solution to the situation. The solution could involve one team or two. It definitely won’t involve three. And it most definitely won’t involve none.

Via Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune, Patriots owner Robert Kraft (a member of the NFL’s six-person Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities) said after an eight-hour meeting on Wednesday regarding whether a resolution is expected next week in Houston, “That’s for sure.”

Added Chargers owner Dean Spanos, “It looks like we’ll get it done next week.”

It doesn’t mean the Chargers will be the team that is done in its current home. Spanos added that “no one knows for sure” what will happen as the NFL tries to get 24 teams behind one specific proposal.

That’s where this process will become potentially fascinating. As the vote gets closer to 24, each remaining holdout acquires significant power and influence, which can be traded for other considerations. The more badly the league hopes to close the deal, the more those last few votes are worth.

And what if the most obvious proposals — the Rams to Inglewood or the Chargers to Carson — can’t get to 24? At that point, the league may need to get creative. Especially if (as it appears) Rams owner Stan Kroenke is prepared to devote a large chunk of his personal fortune to get his way.

It’s poker, chess, checkers, and chicken, played by folks who are very accustomed to getting their own way. And they’ll say they’re trying to do what’s right for the league at a time when, in reality, plenty of people with a seat at the table will care only about what’s right for them.

41 responses to “Signs still point to L.A. resolution next week

  1. I’m not sure why the Rams and Chargers are the most obvious proposals. They have fall back plans – the Raiders don’t.

  2. Let’s start the guessing game on what each owner wants in exchange for their vote. I’ll go first. Redskins ask that any name change efforts will disappear.

  3. How do they expect them to support two teams in this day in age? Furthermore, no one wants the Chargers there. Good luck moving Raiders or Rams along w/ the Chargers.

  4. apreston48 says:
    Jan 6, 2016 8:54 PM
    Let’s start the guessing game on what each owner wants in exchange for their vote. I’ll go first. Redskins ask that any name change efforts will disappear.
    ____________________

    The colts ask that the Patriots lose first and fourth round draft picks…oh wait, guess they’ve already been paid off

  5. I think I have the proper resolution. Strip Cleveland of the Browns, they’re a giant tire fire of a team and city anyway, and send them to LA and rename them whatever. That way we eliminate the team name Browns, and no one ever has to talk about Clevekand rehearsing football again.

  6. Kroenke is a tool in the worst way. All the teams he owns are losers. LA will regret getting him as an owner. As Eric D has pointed out, LA should get a team but Kroenke is in it just for the money.

  7. “And they’ll say they’re trying to do what’s right for the league at a time when, in reality, plenty of people with a seat at the table will care only about what’s right for them.”

    Truth! Also applies to the current political climate.

    My hunch is Rams and Chargers in Inglewood. Raiders stay in Oakland.

    The tricky part is where the Rams and Chargers will play until 2018, when Kroenke’s stadium is built. Will St. Louis and San Diego want them to stay for 2 more years, knowing they’ll be leaving?

    The other thing I thought of today is … new stadiums need to be thought of as short-term investments with little-to-no payoff. 20 years after St. Louis gave the Rams a free stadium, the city still owes millions for the stadium and the Rams are leaving. The Lions played in the Silverdome for 25 years before moving to Ford Field.

    My parent’s house is older than both of those places put together.

  8. Enos Stanly’s report on why STL won’t work was so full of BS that I think it had to hurt his credibility in some level.

    If these owners are being honest w/themselves…Enos shouldn’t be considered…

  9. apreston48 says:
    Jan 6, 2016 8:54 PM
    Let’s start the guessing game on what each owner wants in exchange for their vote. I’ll go first. Redskins ask that any name change efforts will disappear.
    ____________________

    The Seahawks will ask that the Jim Mora year is stricken from the history books. And, allow, league wide, a second helmet for each teams infirm if they wish, as opposed to the one helmet rule.

  10. LA Rams and LA Raiders make sense… chargers should stay in san diego.. St louis can get a new team later.. St Louis Red Birds

  11. Rams will be the only team this year to move. Chargers and raiders will be told to continue to work with their cities. In the next year or 2 one of them will move to la and become a tenant of Kroenke. The other will either get their stadium or move to San Antonio or London or maybe Mexico City

  12. It should be Rams in Inglewood, and that’s it. Why kill 2 fan bases for a town that is barely craving 1 team?

    If the Chargers share LA, then you Oakland without having any chance of getting a new stadium. The Raiders are the obvious choice to be the second team, but I don’t think it’s a good idea either.

    It sucks that all 3 fan bases have had to deal with a poker game played by ruthless A-holes.

  13. Just shows how money greedy each owner is. None of them care about the league, only themselves. It should be interesting.

  14. Why would you leave out the Raiders when mentioning the Chargers move to Carson? Are you really that misinformed to not know the proposal calls for BOTH the Raiders and Chargers to go to Carson? Or are you just being a hater? To my knowledge, there is NO CURRENT PROPOSAL calling for Chargers to move to Carson, only one calling for TWO TEAMS, the Raiders AND Chargers. Pathetic.

  15. apreston48 says:
    Jan 6, 2016 8:54 PM
    Let’s start the guessing game on what each owner wants in exchange for their vote. I’ll go first. Redskins ask that any name change efforts will disappear.

    – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – — – – –

    The Raiders will say since we own the rights to LA help pay for our new venue in Oakland and we won’t sue you, along with the NFL.

  16. Why is it never mentioned that two of these three teams have already tried and failed to build a fan base in LA. And how is a city that never seemed interested in one NFL team going to support multiple NFL teams?

  17. They should move all three. The NFL isn’t about attendance. Its about TV. Three LA teams means more ratings.

  18. Chargers are not wanted in Los Angeles, they will not be welcomed, this is Raider town, I can imagine if the chargers move to LA and play the Raiders lol, 80k raider fans to 1k charger fansfans, the best choice IMO is the Rams and Raiders

  19. I’ve become numb to the whole thing. Move, stay, whatever. The metro populations of San Diego, Oakland and St. Louis is 12.27 million people. The owners are amazingly arrogant to think that they can screw over those population centers and have their be no repercussions. It’d be great if we would all just stop watching and buying their products.

  20. Also, no idea why it wouldn’t be on track, as crazy fast as the time line seems.

    No matter how much prep work behind the scenes is done in advance, once the annoucement is made to get a season ticket base, setup advertising contracts, promotional contracts and all the small, boring logistics in setting up a franchise in a new city, in a new, temporary stadium takes a fair bit of time. Let alone moving from the old town. The new team has to use the LA market as a free agent attraction in a few weeks etc etc.

    Also, the league needs to be able to set a schedule in about 3 or 4 months.

  21. And the Chargers screwed how many teams in the final week of the season? They are closer to exceeding the seven votes against than gaining 24 in favor.

  22. The result of greedy billionaires wanting taxpayer handouts to build their stadiums, and then want to keep all the profits
    that their teams make.

  23. Chargers to me are a no brainer for a variety of reasons:

    1. Put a team in LA that is not the Chargers, and the Chargers are basically done. 50% of their tickets are sold to people in LA. Even then they still struggle to fill that stadium in SD. This would be the end, they would collapse.

    2. Chargers moving to LA would not mean much, other than 1hr drive to Carson. So, the current “fanbase” if I can say that, would still be within driving range.

    Simply put, any team you put in LA that is not the chargers will absolutely kill the Chargers finances.

  24. Anything other than the Rams in LA will unleash a torrent of legal moves. Stan is ready to roll. The other two aren’t yet.

Leave a Reply

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