Skip to content

L.A. Committee considering Jerry Jones’ Rams-Chargers proposal

jerryjones AP

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has proposed a forced L.A. marriage of the Chargers and Rams. The other 31 owners could soon be voting on it.

Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports that the Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities is considering on Monday whether to add the Jones proposal to the agenda for the upcoming ownership meeting in Houston.

“The league needed a third option,” an unnamed executive told Acee. “Jerry’s plan is the only one with a chance to get 24 votes — if it gets on the ballot.”

While unfamiliar with the specific protocols to be followed by the league when it comes to considering the L.A. options, the owners can do whatever they want. Even if the six owners on the Committee unanimously reject the idea, there are still more than 24 other owners who can overrule them.

Putting the Chargers and Rams together is one thing. Picking a specific destination between Inglewood and Carson is another.

Regardless of which L.A.-area location wins, the Raiders likely will win, too. It’s expected that the relocation process will generate sufficient funds to help finance a new stadium for the Raiders, presumably in Oakland. But at this point, who knows?

Permalink 82 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
82 Responses to “L.A. Committee considering Jerry Jones’ Rams-Chargers proposal”
  1. bayousooner90 says: Jan 11, 2016 3:54 PM

    Move the Raiders to St Louis, then when the Rams and/ or Chargers decide to leave LA Oakland s a viable relocation alternative.

  2. 80sbroncofan says: Jan 11, 2016 3:54 PM

    So the city who did nothing for a new stadium gets to keep its team? That only makes sense in the NFL.

  3. beavertonsteve says: Jan 11, 2016 3:55 PM

    If a committee of 6 members reject the plan and 24 other teams vote for it… I’d say whoever formed that committee failed miserably.

  4. beavertonsteve says: Jan 11, 2016 3:57 PM

    So the city who did nothing for a new stadium gets to keep its team? That only makes sense in the NFL.
    ————-
    Well, Oakland is also the only city who’s owner has openly shown he would like to stay. So it does make some sense.

  5. jonathankrobinson424 says: Jan 11, 2016 3:59 PM

    ……it’s so obvious McNair and Jerry Jones don’t want another team in Texas. By trying to force a Rams / Chargers marriage, the NFL will work with the Raiders to stay in Oakland. It’s not going to work….The Rams will build their OWN stadium in LA…and the Raiders will relocate to San Antonio. That’s what McNair and Jones don’t want. Oh, and the Chargers?…the heck with them….make them go to St.Louis or build a stadium in Carson.

  6. punxrawk124 says: Jan 11, 2016 3:59 PM

    The Raiders are the only team that wants to stay in their current city so this makes the most sense

  7. esorick says: Jan 11, 2016 4:00 PM

    Tired of listening to people say. “So the city that did nothing gets to keep their team”. Yes and do you know why this will happen? Simple answers, the NFL is greedy and would never leave such a huge market all alone for the 49ers to enjoy. Or they might do nothing for the Raiders and let them lay in their slop that they created when they returned to the Bay Area.

  8. hawlbs says: Jan 11, 2016 4:01 PM

    Yet another reason to hate Jerry Jones. Like we needed another reason.

  9. imageflood says: Jan 11, 2016 4:02 PM

    80sbroncofan: “So the city who did nothing for a new stadium gets to keep its team? That only makes sense in the NFL.”

    I would say that it’s not the responsibility of any city government to use public funds for NFL stadiums. This compromise by Jerrah actually makes sense, though. Presumably opt for Kroenke’s Inglewood site, with proposed extra for NFL Network and events, shared by 2 teams, paid for with private $$. Rams and Chargers have historic ties/fan-bases in SoCal, and keeps Raiders a lock with fan-base in the Bay. Plus leaves St. Louis open for a relocation later… Jags?

  10. drunkraider says: Jan 11, 2016 4:03 PM

    This is the best idea i have seen yet, and teams wouldnt have to switch divisions or anything. both the Rams and Bolts want to leave their citys so let them.

    The Raiders have wanted to stay in Oakland so now this makes it possible.

  11. kahnsbushymustache says: Jan 11, 2016 4:04 PM

    London Raiders?

  12. dasmol says: Jan 11, 2016 4:04 PM

    With all of the off-field scandals, rule changes and hilariously poor officiating, the NFL has become a circus.

    I’m not even sure I’ll miss it, once it moves it’s big top to another town.

  13. rajbais says: Jan 11, 2016 4:05 PM

    Why does everything have to be favorable around Jerry Jones?

    Watch, the NFL will be the genie that tells “King Jerry” your wish is my command. Afterwards, create a 7-game national TV rule and then give everyone else a maximum of 3 games while the Cowboys get that 7-game maximum.

  14. araidersfan says: Jan 11, 2016 4:06 PM

    I always have mixed feeling about Jerry

    Can’t stand Jerry for the way he treated Tom Landry when he bought his team and for the way he has tried to force-feed an expansion of the number of play off teams.

    Really like Jerry for the way he makes me laugh without trying to be funny. And I’ll especially like him if his plan keeps the Raiders in Oakland or at least prevents Son-of-Al from repeating his father’s mistake of moving to Los Angeles.

  15. fttssm says: Jan 11, 2016 4:06 PM

    Can someone take my Bengals? I can’t handle the let downs any longer.

  16. chesswhileyouplaycheckers says: Jan 11, 2016 4:07 PM

    And the labyrinth of Machiavellian wheels continues to turn with, as always, all parties governed by the most important ownership principles: The Good of the Game.
    Roughly translated from ownerspeak to english it means: What’s in it for me and how can I best screw my competition?

  17. tomtravis76 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:09 PM

    If the Chargers move up north in the state, they should consider rebranding the franchise. They should start fresh in a new city. You can’t really move into a division rivals former city with all of that history and expect people to now just like you because you live there. The Eagles couldn’t move north up 95 and suddenly become the NY Eagles or south down 95 and become the Washington Eagles. Even though it’s only a couple hours between San Diego and LA it’s two different cities. Leave San Diego the Chargers history and name. If they ever get a team back ,it can be revived or added into the history of pro football in San Diego.

  18. sdcharger123 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:11 PM

    I’m just curious where the NFL thinks all these mysterious Chargers fans are in LA. Do they honestly think people from San Diego (easily the majority) are going to continue to support that team and drive to LA for the games after they leave?

  19. boltfan29 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:11 PM

    A Chargers/Rams LA team would shut the door on the NFL ever coming back to san diego… thanks, Dean.

  20. screenpass says: Jan 11, 2016 4:11 PM

    The Oakland Raiders fan base DESERVES a little bit of good news for a change. We’ve stood by this team through EVERYTHING. I sincerely hope that there is truth to this report.

  21. kevpft says: Jan 11, 2016 4:13 PM

    I can see Kroenke going against the NFL’s wishes if they tell him he can’t go to L.A., but it’s harder to imagine him defying an “order” to take the Chargers with him.

    It would be curious to see an outcome that would give all parties what they wanted, and yet not. Very much the genie granting the wish.

  22. zombiepatriot says: Jan 11, 2016 4:13 PM

    I’d like to see two stadiums built one in each location and then only having the single team as tenant. Something more like home field and then for whatever team to start to build a legacy. There should be a museum like in New England to go and celebrate the team.

  23. zombiepatriot says: Jan 11, 2016 4:14 PM

    @tomtravis76 the Chargers started as an L.A. team so some could look at it as they are returning home.

  24. scrp2 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:15 PM

    The Rams/Chargers in Inglewood has been the only solution for some time now.

    The reasons are:

    1. The concerns about the viability of the Carson site. Environmental concerns, cost overruns.

    2. Kroenke is bank rolling a stadium and it will be completed sooner rather than later. Construction is underway.

    3. Chargers by themselves cannot build a stadium or else they would have done it years ago. They need another team as a partner and/or massive amounts of taxpayer money

    4. Chargers have burned all bridges in San Diego and essentially would be a “homeless” team if denied Los Angeles.

    5. There would be no AFC/NFC restructuring neccessary as there would be with Chargers/Raiders in Carson

    6. Mark Davis genuinely wants the team to stay Oakland.

    The league’s only option is to have the Spanos family to stop complaining about not being equal partner with Kroenke’s Rams and just be grateful you get to play in a new stadium and increase team value.

  25. FinFan68 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:16 PM

    Regardless of which L.A.-area location wins, the Raiders likely will win, too. It’s expected that the relocation process will generate sufficient funds to help finance a new stadium for the Raiders, presumably in Oakland.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    That makes no sense at all and actually would undermine any efforts in the future for a team trying to get public funding.

  26. purplengold says: Jan 11, 2016 4:17 PM

    There will be nothing forced because of the NFL’s fragile anti-trust exemption.

  27. daytontriangles says: Jan 11, 2016 4:17 PM

    Or, here’s a thought…

    Move just one team to L.A. and see if the fickle fans even care before assuming that city can support two NFL teams.

  28. omgiliveinaflyoverstate says: Jan 11, 2016 4:21 PM

    Shotgun weddin’ huh Jerrah?

  29. radrntn says: Jan 11, 2016 4:21 PM

    thats a win/win/win for everybody….Raiders really want to be in Oakland, and still will have a lot of fans that will show up in LA when they play Chargers, and Rams there.

    Fact is I give Stan no more than 3 years before he sales the Rams to another investor in LA, and nets at least a billion in profit, and then buys the bronco’s.

  30. skunk ape says: Jan 11, 2016 4:22 PM

    ITT people who have no clue what they’re talking about.

  31. gojags says: Jan 11, 2016 4:22 PM

    Jerry the Villan not only for the Cowboys but for the Chargers and the Rams.

  32. barrymichaels61 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:24 PM

    Wow, Jerrah will decide this too, should worry more about his backup quarterback situation.

  33. radrntn says: Jan 11, 2016 4:24 PM

    also people are stating that the City of Oakland is not doing anything….I still think they would be willing to give the Raiders a land/lease deal at a dollar an acre on a 40 year deal, or something like that. In other words they are willing to work with the NFL, but they do not want to tax their citizens for the new venue….nobody can fault the city for that.

  34. stl45fan says: Jan 11, 2016 4:26 PM

    So StanK, who backstabbed Spanos already, has gotten Spanos to backstab Mark Davis? HUBRIS!!!

  35. whereyaat says: Jan 11, 2016 4:27 PM

    Jerry Jones is just siding with Dean Spanos, so his plan is unlikely to gain much traction.

    I say that because apparently:
    1. Spanos called Kroenke to see about sharing an LA stadium, i.e. splitting construction costs. Spanos may have mentioned the Inglewood property in this call.
    2. Kroenke said, “Let me think about it and get back to you.”
    3. Without telling Spanos, Kroenke promptly bought the Inglewood land, which was basically a silent way of telling Spanos to go pound sand. Kroenke later confirmed this sentiment by saying he didn’t want to share the Inglewood property.

    Heard this on ESPN about a week ago, it certainly explains a lot.

    Back to Jerry – it seems like he’s part of the “old guard” that appreciates Spanos, so that alliance would make sense.

  36. beavertonsteve says: Jan 11, 2016 4:35 PM

    2.5 Kroenke called his business partner and said “You know that land we’ve been secretly plotting to purchase?!!”

  37. olskool711 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:36 PM

    So you guys are telling me that someone who submitted a request to be able to pay 550 million for nothing but the “right” to set up business somewhere, actually doesn’t want to go there?

    They want to stay where they are at?

    OK, I’m on a sports talk message board. After 15 years I’m actually used to this logic.

  38. richdogg231 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:39 PM

    That’s great news for the Chargers. Now they just need to find some fans in L.A.

  39. richdogg231 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:41 PM

    So let me get this straight. Dean Spanos can’t afford to come up with his own 400-500 million to build a stadium in San Diego. But he CAN pay a 500 million relocation fee and 900 million for half a stadium?

  40. jmd0722 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:43 PM

    Jerry, why not let the Rams move to LA, and you have the chargers move to Dallas, would b a 2nd team and then you can use the Dome for both teams like New Jersey. Raiders need to be sold by Davis and kept in Oakland.

  41. briang123 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:46 PM

    fttssm says: Jan 11, 2016 4:06 PM

    Can someone take my Bengals? I can’t handle the let downs any longer.
    __________________________________
    Let’s not forget that in 1996, there were serious discussions to move the Eagles to Los Angeles and the Bengals to Philly, leaving Cincy without a team.

  42. brintfatre says: Jan 11, 2016 4:50 PM

    Because Jones has such a good track record on ideas?

  43. Mister says: Jan 11, 2016 4:56 PM

    I like how people are saying that this proposal helps “everyone win.” The people of San Diego and St. Louis might take some issue with that.

  44. bayousooner90 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:56 PM

    barrymichaels61 says:
    Jan 11, 2016 4:24 PM
    Wow, Jerrah will decide this too, should worry more about his backup quarterback situation.
    ___________________________________
    He has the backup qb situation taken care of, Johnny Manziel will save the day.

  45. immafubared says: Jan 11, 2016 4:57 PM

    This is a done deal already who’s kidding. these billionaires want that LA advertising dollar. San Diego and ST Loiua

  46. corky2141 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:58 PM

    Just a theory here, and it is a little far fetched, but what if the thought is to send Sts. louis & deigo to LA & use their relocation fees to help fund the Oakland stadium issue. Fixes all 3 teams current issues while keeping M Davis in his preferred city, while moving the others to theirs.
    To recoup the money spent/ lost in Oakland the league expands, with expansion fees even higher than the relocation fees, back to/into sts. louis & antonio. That gets the league to 34 teams, which also helps expand the season to 18 games. Then to balance it out, 2 teams end up in UK/London, the conferences realign to 3 divisions & the hog gets too fat & goes to slaughter.

  47. jimmysee says: Jan 11, 2016 5:04 PM

    Oakland is a city with a future. Hope the Raiders stay to be part of that.

  48. richabbs says: Jan 11, 2016 5:08 PM

    zombiepatriot says:
    Jan 11, 2016 4:13 PM
    I’d like to see two stadiums built one in each location and then only having the single team as tenant. Something more like home field and then for whatever team to start to build a legacy. There should be a museum like in New England to go and celebrate the team.
    __________________________________________

    This will never happen. The NFL wants to sell luxury boxes at one stadium to corporations in the area. In today’s economy, most corporations in the LA area will not buy luxury boxes and support two different stadiums, but they might be willing to buy a box at one stadium, if it housed two separate teams (i.e., like they do in New Jersey).

  49. powpow042 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:13 PM

    So the city that does absolutely NOTHING to keep their team will keep their team?

    Goodell is really running this league into the ground.

  50. mmack66 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:21 PM

    skunk ape says:
    Jan 11, 2016 4:22 PM

    ITT people who have no clue what they’re talking about.
    ————————————–

    It’s not just in this thread. It like that in most of them.

  51. headwoundharry says: Jan 11, 2016 5:23 PM

    Jesus, send the Raiders to Mexico City. They already operate on a burrito economy!

  52. ebhaynz says: Jan 11, 2016 5:29 PM

    From everything I’ve read this seems like the most likely scenario:

    1. Oakland will stay, a stadium deal is almost certain.
    2. Rams are moving to L.A. – the owner has always wanted it this way.
    3. The Chargers are moving to L.A. – the stadium is old and S.D. won’t pay for a new one.

  53. ebhaynz says: Jan 11, 2016 5:32 PM

    Quote: “So let me get this straight. Dean Spanos can’t afford to come up with his own 400-500 million to build a stadium in San Diego. But he CAN pay a 500 million relocation fee and 900 million for half a stadium?”

    Every NFL owner is CHOCK FULL of BILLIONS of dollars. Those stupid 105 commercials during just one NFL game means they’re rich beyond measure.

    Spanos, like the other 31 owners just wants even more money. Hard to believe isn’t it?

  54. jkautz11 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:36 PM

    I honestly don’t care how they get it done. But I like the idea of the Chargers/Rams sharing a stadium. They can both stay in their respective divisions (AFC West/NFC West), and they’ll both get what they want by moving. Rams would be closer to their divisional opponents too.

    Not to mention, the SD fanbase is sad. Every Charger home game felt like an away game. The Rams owner hates St.Louis. So it’s a match made in heaven for those clowns.

  55. punxrawk124 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:53 PM

    Let me try one more time and explain a fact to people.
    No team, not even Kroenke’s Rams are moving without league approval.
    The loopholes that Al Davis exploited have been closed.
    Why is this so hard to understand?
    Jerry’s plan makes the most sense. The Raiders unlike the Rams and Chargers have not burned any bridges and can easily stay in Oakland without having to mend any hurt feelings.

  56. kwardradio says: Jan 11, 2016 5:53 PM

    NFL games are like tourist attractions, might as well move them to international tourist type cities as the NFL has been trying. London, Honolulu both seem like good candidates. San Antonio, not really. I do like the Jerry proposal, as others have mentioned because it pretty much retains the status quo for now, except Rams move to California, and we give that a shot… if it doesn’t catch on, they can move in a few years.

    Wembley can hold 90K. Aloha Stadium holds 50k. Those seem to be around the ideal min/max capacity stadiums for potential teams.

  57. adelphos33 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:54 PM

    LA Rams
    LA Chargers
    Oakland Raiders
    San Francisco 49ers

    It all makes sense

  58. kwardradio says: Jan 11, 2016 5:56 PM

    Chargers are in a great tourist city, except they’re not integrated into the tourist experience well. By comparison, the Padres ballpark is in the heart of downtown on the water, near the huge convention center. And it’s awesome.

  59. raiderlyfe510 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:06 PM

    If you want long term success in Los Angeles then the Rams’ location is the best choice. Carson is the absolute worst choice. Something born out of desperation from desperate franchises doesn’t stand much of a chance.

  60. radrntn says: Jan 11, 2016 6:07 PM

    Mister says:
    Jan 11, 2016 4:56 PM
    I like how people are saying that this proposal helps “everyone win.” The people of San Diego and St. Louis might take some issue with that.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    I should say it’s a win/win/win for the owners, and the league….face it as fans we don’t have a choice, or the only choice we have is do we attend, watch, support, etc….I know for me personally the last time the Raiders left Oakland for LA, i was still a Raiders fan…..but prefer them to be in Oakland. Rams fan probably think the Rams should be in LA…for all I know St Louis fans think the Cardinals should be in St. Louis.

  61. saviorshoemaker says: Jan 11, 2016 6:13 PM

    Jerry Jones does what’s in the interest of Jerry Jones. How about them Mexico City Vaqueros!

  62. aaaegs says: Jan 11, 2016 6:25 PM

    Maybe Jerry wants Rams to move so he can finally stay out the Illinois strip clubs.

  63. aaaegs says: Jan 11, 2016 6:26 PM

    Plus 4-12 Cowboys is nice.

  64. granadafan says: Jan 11, 2016 6:27 PM

    Let the multi billionaires of multi billion dollar teams in a league worth multi billions pay for their own stadiums. I’m sure I speak for every rational and normal thinking taxpayer when I say that we won’t give you one single red cent.

  65. bobsnygiants says: Jan 11, 2016 7:05 PM

    don’t trust Jerry.

  66. dogsweat9 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:08 PM

    Oakland Raiders.

    L.A. only sissifies everything.

    Enough of the fake wanna bee rap videos and movies about how L.A. wants the Raiders, they don’t , nobody cared, and Hollow-wood turned the Raiders into nothing.

    They lost their identity in L.A.

    Oakland is a real city, with personality and authentic people.

    Take your lame wanna bee Gang Rappers back to their caves and stay out of the Raiders real home, Oakland.

    L.A. gets the Chargers and Rams, go rap about them, and attend their games, which nobody will.

    Too busy worshipping themselves.

    Adios L.A. Raiders and Ice Chest.

    Go home.

    Oakland Raiders.

    Period.

  67. monkeesfan says: Jan 11, 2016 7:12 PM

    No new stadium will ever be built – the economics won’t allow it, the nonexistence of a viable fanbase in LA won’t allow it. That at least some owners reportedly want to “delay” a team move to LA is a face-saving sign they realize it can’t work

    The only credible option the league has is to keep the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams where they presently are and start working to help them finance renovations to their present stadiums, much as the Dolphins are working to renovate Joe Robbie Stadium.

  68. johnster67 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:23 PM

    Make one of the teams the LA Liberals and make them wear pink with Rainbows and tutus.

  69. sdcharger123 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:36 PM

    Too bad that Fabiani just submitted a statement to USA Today that there is no Chargers/Rams option. It’s either Raiders/Chargers in Carson, or Inglewood with Rams only. No budging. Carson or nothing. Sorry Jerry.

  70. usa98j30t4 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:50 PM

    Jones should mind his own business.

    Try to get your team in the playoffs you scum bag.

  71. jehunden says: Jan 11, 2016 8:04 PM

    Inglewood or Carson (both teams should use the same stadium) They could make it a very spiffy stadium. Both teams could be home the same week whenever a Thursday – Sunday venue occurs. Otherwise the stadium could be filled just about every week. Whatever cost to be paid by the teams easily split. This should reduce any layout by the tax payers.

  72. jehunden says: Jan 11, 2016 8:07 PM

    Carson probably cheaper land. Inglewood heavier traffic problems.

  73. larams29 says: Jan 11, 2016 8:26 PM

    The Los Angeles Rams has such a nice sound to it. The team should bring back the Royal Blue/Yellow Gold colors from the years in LA. They can leave behind the Navy/Gold St Louis colors. The Chargers can go to the throwback powder blue and white colors from the AFL days.

  74. raiderlyfe510 says: Jan 11, 2016 8:26 PM

    There is no other venue with a higher propensity for violence than a LOS ANGELES Raiders game.

  75. vipod4ever says: Jan 11, 2016 9:03 PM

    Never judge a book by it’s hair style = Mark Davis may have just played the best hand of poker.

    He did something that 29 out of 32 cities could not…may have the NFL pay for a stadium.

  76. jjfootball says: Jan 11, 2016 9:05 PM

    THEY SAY THE OWNERS DON’T LIKE THE RAIDERS, THAT MY FRIENDS, IS CORRUPTION! IT’S THE SAME REASON NFL GAME OFFICIALS SCREW THE RAIDERS IN THEIR GAMES, WHICH AMOUNTS TO FIXING THE OUTCOME OF GAMES. SO THAT MAKES THE NFL 31 TEAMS, AND 1 TEAM THEY WILL KEEP FROM HAVING SUCCESS IF POSSIBLE!

  77. justanotherfan101 says: Jan 11, 2016 9:29 PM

    The Carson site is a former landfill leaking methane gas and oozing groundwater fouled with industrial solvents. The plan is to cover the area with high density plastic to keep the gas from leaking into the air and drill extraction wells to pump out the contaminated liquids. Monitors are to be installed to make sure the leaking gas doesn’t reach hazardous levels. This sounds more like a lawsuit waiting to happen and a PR nightmare than a place for an NFL stadium.

  78. justanotherfan101 says: Jan 11, 2016 9:45 PM

    Wells and monitors at the Carson site would remain in place permanently and be out of site of most football fans. The right construction design is supposed to minimize risks from fires and earthquakes.

  79. manbunequalsstreetcred says: Jan 11, 2016 10:18 PM

    Enos already signed away marketing rights for Rams to Jerrah’s marketing Co…”Legends.” That why Jerrah is pushing hard.

    The way Stan treated STL (bs lies and last weeks smear campaign)…he deserves nothing. LA deserves better. Like Spanos. Davis May be a boob but he Raiders have marketing power.

    Besides….a charger/raider proposal would be equal 50/50. No such thing w/Enos

  80. JSpicoli says: Jan 11, 2016 11:01 PM

    The Raiders are last in line and they don’t want to move. Easy decision.

    But two teams? LA can’t support that over night.

  81. ron69 says: Jan 12, 2016 12:14 AM

    If Florida has 3 teams, why Texas can’t? Jerry Jones doesn’t want another competitor, it’s obvious to me

  82. wooho01 says: Jan 12, 2016 5:54 AM

    Enough of this nonsense. Move the Rams to Portland, the Raiders to Boise and the Chargers to Spokane and call it good.

Leave a Reply

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