Skip to content

Owners could opt for brief delay to finalize L.A. plans

Unknown Getty Images

With four playoff games over and four more coming, the meat in the postseason sandwich becomes the L.A. Relocluster, a contest that is expected to be finalized on Wednesday in Houston.

Unless it isn’t.

There’s a chance — one source with intimate knowledge of the dynamics pegged it as a 25-30 percent proposition — that the owners will opt for a brief delay in finalizing anything in order to allow the details of what could become the preferred solution (whatever that solution may be) to become finalized. Then, after the six members of the Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities and the league office work together to iron out with the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders an outcome, the owners would reconvene to formally adopt that plan.

If that happens, the delay would be very short, a matter of just a few weeks at most. And it would happen only if it appears that a little time, elbow grease, and/or arm-twisting will be necessary to get the solution to at least 24 votes.

That solution could be the Rams and Chargers partnering up in Inglewood or Carson, with the Raiders getting enough money from the transaction to build a new stadium, presumably in Oakland.

The NFL’s assessment of the final proposals from St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland makes it clear that someone will be moving. The problem is that too many teams suddenly want to move to the same market, requiring the league to work delicately to find an answer that not just 24 but all 32 owners can get behind, with no hard feelings or favors owed or billionaires miffed at the man who presides over the sport.

Permalink 61 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
61 Responses to “Owners could opt for brief delay to finalize L.A. plans”
  1. pantherfan1973299 says: Jan 11, 2016 12:21 AM

    All this is just a reminder of a grim and boring offseason…ah, nfl i hate you and I will miss you.

  2. Ed says: Jan 11, 2016 12:25 AM

    What is the over/under for whatever teams move to LA to move out again? 8 years?

  3. stampnhawk says: Jan 11, 2016 12:26 AM

    Will be fascinating to see the the alignments made between franchises, and the politics involved to get this done. At least, it will come to the surface now.

    Can’t wait too long for teams to get their business plans moving for a new market that start playing in 8 months.

  4. jimbo75025 says: Jan 11, 2016 12:27 AM

    They are concerned about hard feelings?

    I’m pretty sure at least one city and possibly two are going to have very hard feelings towards the NFL when this is all over.

    Silliness all around. The league is not going to make extra fans by moving to LA-only lose a lot of fans in two other cities who will most likely cease to support the product entirely.

  5. chrisdacommish says: Jan 11, 2016 12:37 AM

    Cluster is right….. Chargers/Rams to LA…. Raiders stay in Oakland.

  6. kwardradio says: Jan 11, 2016 12:43 AM

    Good news…____, in addition to that game in the UK next year, you’re now the London Bollocks!

  7. realdealsteel says: Jan 11, 2016 12:47 AM

    This has been going on for how long and they still haven’t worked this out????

  8. baldbuc says: Jan 11, 2016 12:52 AM

    If you’re going to give the Raiders money to build a stadium in Oakland why not do the same for the Chargers in San Diego?

    Let the Rams be the LA team because they should have never left in the first place and to me will always be the LA Rams.

    As for as St. Louis goes, that’s what you get for lobbying and stealing another city’s team. What goes around comes around. If you’re a worthy city like Cleveland and Houston you will get an expansion team. That said don’t hold your breath.

  9. keeperoftherams says: Jan 11, 2016 12:58 AM

    This madness must end. Just vote on it already. Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, and St Louis markets need to know so we can move forward with this shenanigans.

  10. therealraider says: Jan 11, 2016 1:01 AM

    I just want to know when I can re-up my season tickets.

  11. 1964bclions says: Jan 11, 2016 1:18 AM

    I am a Raider Fan Grade 12 education with zero C.E.O. experience.

    Make me in charge of the NFL for 3 frickin minutes, and the Raiders are back in L.A.

    It is the Micro Economic Love Story… Supply and Demand.

    The Raiders have a massive, Rabid Fan Base In the LA Market.

    The Rams and Chargers DO NOT.

    If Roger feels that loyal fans are NOT important, perhaps he should try doing business with out loyal fans.

  12. stoutfiles says: Jan 11, 2016 1:22 AM

    People keep feeling sorry for the Rams/Chargers fans, but why? They’re not going to get robbed by the NFL to build them another stadium. Why any city would build a stadium for a company run by billionaires that avoids taxes is beyond me.

  13. thetwilightsown says: Jan 11, 2016 1:32 AM

    Beloved Raiders: Stay in Oakland.
    We can watch from a distance as those two fight it out for “most indifferent crowd” – the Rams can eventually become the Anaheim Rams again and the Chargers can… Exist in the meaningless void that is “the Chargers.”

    No. Place. Like. Home.

  14. couchbasher says: Jan 11, 2016 1:34 AM

    NFL – you can have back the Cleveland Rams with Jimmy Haslam.

  15. stoooops says: Jan 11, 2016 1:48 AM

    Of course there will be a delay. Get this over with already! Just shoot me…

  16. jshawaii22 says: Jan 11, 2016 1:51 AM

    The idea that the “relocation fees” would help the Raiders build their new stadium and stay in Oakland while Kroenke gets his stadium and a tenant in LA… way too easy as it makes too much sense to work.

  17. bayousooner90 says: Jan 11, 2016 1:59 AM

    Anyone else see this LA Thing blowing Up in the faces of the NFL owners? LA has been without a team for decades and it still seems the only ones clamoring a team in the City of Angels are the owners, who are seeing big time dollar signs from TV and advertising. But what happens when the fans don’t support the team(s) and try to relocate again?
    Cuban may be right the egos of the NFL and its owners may cause league to collapse in the next 10-15 years.

  18. iamtomzo says: Jan 11, 2016 2:06 AM

    Sounds good to me – Raiders in Oakland forever!

  19. reptar310 says: Jan 11, 2016 2:19 AM

    Back when the Raiders and Rams were in LA they played in terrible stadiums. Almost every NFL team was getting a new (and in some cases 2nd) stadium since the Raiders/Rams had been in LA. The owners pushed the city for new stadiums. The City refused. The owners knew the NFL would never let a successful team making big money move, so the 2 owners made the decision to strip down the teams to bare bones and suck so fans wouldn’t want to see them. With bad teams and low attendance, it made it easy to move.

    Los Angeles stood up to the NFL and said no public money for billionaire owners to build stadiums and lost their two teams for that stand. St Louis bought a billionaire a new stadium in 1994 and look where that got them today. Only dumb and naive fans make fun of LA for losing their two teams, but LA did what no other city has had the guts to do since. LA knew the NFL would come crawling back eventually, still with no public money for a stadium.

    The Dodgers had a 20 year playoff drought, the Clippers were awful until lately, and the Kings never won anything until a couple years ago. The last place Lakers are still supported, and have a 3 year wait for season tickets. All of them were supported during bad times… The LA “only supports a winner” is a myth.

    Cities with failed NFL franchises who now have teams again:

    Cleveland Bulldogs, Rams, Browns
    Boston Redskins
    Chicago Cardinals
    Dallas Texans
    Oakland Raiders
    Baltimore Colts
    St Louis Cardinals
    Houston Oilers

    The Rams were in Los Angeles for 48 years. That is longer than 8 current franchises have existed.

  20. kicksave1980 says: Jan 11, 2016 2:55 AM

    I hope it isn’t delayed. As a huge St. Louis Rams fan, I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that I won’t have a team anymore. To put it off even longer is just cruel. Of course I’m holding out hope that they won’t leave, but either way, I’m ready to hear the news.

  21. DesertEagle76 says: Jan 11, 2016 4:12 AM

    Read: Nothing was available on Backpage.

  22. dickrummy says: Jan 11, 2016 4:52 AM

    No teams go to LA. Watch.

  23. mt10425 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:16 AM

    I really like ‘relocluster’.

  24. stl45fan says: Jan 11, 2016 6:46 AM

    Management has a god-given right to Mis-Manage!

  25. thames2vvvvvvrebel89130 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:50 AM

    how xactly do the raiders get $500mm out of this to fund a new stadium?

  26. chipper41 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:10 AM

    The Chargers woukd fail in la. Dean doesn’t have the relocation money needed. This is a ploy for dean to extract money from kronke for giving up the la market. Deans option on Carson expires this April. It’s not a real option. Rams to la this year. Chargers may get funds towards a stadium as a concession. Raiders possibly to Rams stadium as a tennant a year from now. And usc definitely uses kronkes stadium to get out of awful colliseum.

  27. jayhawk6 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:52 AM

    The NFL could be way overplaying their hand. Do they really have a grasp on hunger for their games in LA is? ESPN, which pays the league $1B/year to broadcast MNF, is laying people off because viewers are turning away from cable, which is a primary revenue source for them. The cost to see a game in LA, regardless of the team/teams, may end up being the NFL’s highest.

    Roger Goodell’s recent sneering put down of stadium efforts in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland made him sound like Reince Priebus when Priebus was shaking down cities vying to host the 2016 GOP convention.

    It is one thing to put your best foot forward, however, it is quite another to go forward deaf and blind to anything but your own hype.

  28. ebpatton says: Jan 11, 2016 8:00 AM

    Three teams in L.A. The NFL can’t stop it. Capitalists don’t submit to binding arbitration in their disputes with one another. Arbitration is for little people. Owners go to federal court.

    And, in the case of NFL teams moving, we already know what the court thinks (h/t Al Davis).

  29. yooperman says: Jan 11, 2016 8:06 AM

    I say this, I said it before, I say it again, no one is moving to LA, the NFL tripled down on their bluff for tax dollars. They will delay until it is too late to move this year and table everything until 2017.

  30. cafetero1075 says: Jan 11, 2016 8:12 AM

    Why 2 teams. Ridicolous.

  31. savior72 says: Jan 11, 2016 8:48 AM

    Funny how the NFL decided to use the Rams economic assessment of St. Louis to determine that their plan is not sufficient instead of an independent no biased one.

  32. jimmyt says: Jan 11, 2016 8:51 AM

    At this point I really don’t care which two teams end up in LA, it will be fun watching them fail as the new 2 billion dollar stadium eventually sits half empty on game days.

  33. mogogo1 says: Jan 11, 2016 8:56 AM

    They’ve never had a plan to deal with location. It was all about blackmailing the current cities into building new stadiums. But Oakland and San Diego called their bluff and Kroenke is willing to turn a stadium down to get the Rams back to LA. It’s going to be fun watching Goodell deal with the mess he let happen.

  34. 80sbroncofan says: Jan 11, 2016 9:10 AM

    Charges and Rams in L.A? So the city that has secured the financing for its stadium plan loses its team while the city that has no plan gets to keep it? Only to the NFL does that make sense. If that happens good luck to any other team looking to get public money for future stadiums.

  35. jamaltimore says: Jan 11, 2016 9:12 AM

    nothing to worry about here. everyone has so much faith in Goddell’s leadership.

  36. rams645 says: Jan 11, 2016 10:04 AM

    Half the posts on hear complains no tax money, now people are complaining that St Luis isn’t going to get to keep their team and they want to offer tax money, make up your minds

  37. nickyfidget says: Jan 11, 2016 10:13 AM

    Stop Whining St. Louis LA deserves another chance
    The Rams are vanished, headed to the Sunny West Coast, and in The Mid West they are in the early throes of a hot-blooded tantrum. Some rather vitriolic analysis is coming over the transom as angry journalists and bitter team boosters accuse the Rams of treason and other high crimes.

    Stan Kroenke is being cast as some sort of football version of Ebineezer Scrooge – a sinister character who singlehandedly ruined Christmas for St Loser. The man with a team and no conscience.

    I gather that they will not be throwing Stan a farewell soiree in St. Loser. In Ferguson , he is is about as popular as a White Cop waving a Gun.

    And you know what? I don’t care what these people say.

    I don’t care what Stan Kroenke did, or did not do, in St. Louis – though the record shows that he has owned this franchise for 5 seasons, and it has made the playoffs in none of those years.

    The first day of the rest Kroenke’s life began on a glorious Saturday morning at the LA Coliseum, in a jammed, Parking lot that’s a short Todd Gurley touchdown gallop from the rising stadium.

    Sorry, this is our party, we deserved it, and sore losers are not invited. We lost a football team 21 years ago, and no one felt sorry for Los Angeles. As we had our little revival meeting Saturday , we easily could disregard the caterwauling from the land of Police Brutality and Racism.

    St Louis defaulted on its team. Get over it. We hear that Ferguson is lovely this time of the year.

    As for the Rams and Kroenke, I care only about what happens from this day forward. The St. Louis Rams are dead. The LA Rams are alive.

    This city has been assailed for its alleged indifference for football. Kroenke has been condemned for his alleged indifference for the Rams.

    Today, we both start over.

    We will judge Kroenke and on how he handles this franchise, this city, and our trust, when the Rams kick off in 2016…

  38. jonathankrobinson424 says: Jan 11, 2016 10:23 AM

    …….the NFL can’t DO ANYTHING on a tight time schedule…..this is going be delayed for a few weeks & then they will announce they can’t make up their minds till the spring meeting. It will be a ongoing mess with delay, after dela , after delay. My question is this, where are the Rams and Chargers going to play in 2016?…you’ve alienated St. Louis and San Diego….they don’t want you anymore. (Oakland WILL always love the Raiders….there the only team I hope doesn’t move.)

  39. cheeksdamonkey says: Jan 11, 2016 10:33 AM

    Someone please make this stop!!!

  40. braceyourselffor12 says: Jan 11, 2016 10:36 AM

    jimmyt says:
    Jan 11, 2016 8:51 AM

    At this point I really don’t care which two teams end up in LA, it will be fun watching them fail as the new 2 billion dollar stadium eventually sits half empty on game days.

    —————————————————————

    You mean like the current Ram’s stadium in St. Louis?

  41. pancaketaco says: Jan 11, 2016 10:46 AM

    Just make a a decision and be done with it…

  42. taeh324 says: Jan 11, 2016 10:47 AM

    savior72 says:
    Jan 11, 2016 8:48 AM
    Funny how the NFL decided to use the Rams economic assessment of St. Louis to determine that their plan is not sufficient instead of an independent no biased one.

    _____________________

    Well it really isn’t the land that the proposed stadium would be build on is yet to even be purchased yet. It’s expected that the NFL and Kroenke would have to fund half of the stadium project. Also as in any taxpayer funded project there is many red tapes and hurdles to cross, who is excepted to pay for the inevitable cost overages.

    Those aren’t just independent biased assessments

  43. kicksave1980 says: Jan 11, 2016 11:33 AM

    Funny when people from LA bring up Ferguson like they’ve never heard of Watts, Compton, or Rodney King

  44. araidersfan says: Jan 11, 2016 11:41 AM

    I’m old enough to remember that my Raiders were consistently among the NFL elite teams before Al Davis’ horrible blunder of moving from Oakland to Los Angeles the first time. They continued that success for 4 more years in L.A. but they became mediocre after 1985 after going Hollywood and despite a few short successful runs have been mostly mediocre/bad ever since. In my opinion, any repeated move to La-la land would spoil the chances of a long-term resurgence for the Silver & Black.

    As for options, I’d strongly prefer that they stay in the Oakland area (even if it means sharing Levis for a time) but San Antonio would also be okay as would Portland. Whether or not Son-of-Al sells the team is immaterial to me as long as they’re nowhere near La-la land.

  45. guyjuneguyjune says: Jan 11, 2016 11:52 AM

    I can’t believe one scenario would be to give more NFL money to the Raiders so they can build their stadium! They would be stylin’ as they continue to play in the black hole until the their new stadium has been built! I’m not happy if this happens…but who cares. This is tantamount to rewarding Al’s legacy for bad behavior. Pathetic..if it happens.

  46. jvw1982 says: Jan 11, 2016 12:03 PM

    So instead of having one team in LA that no one will go to to they want two…Oakland should stay were it is and the other owners need to help them build a stadium if that’s what it takes, St Louis should stay were it is and SD should move to LA…..if two teams go to LA one will be ready to move within 3 yrs…..

  47. tomtravis76 says: Jan 11, 2016 12:28 PM

    Baltimore Colts a failure? Check the history. Irsay attempted every measure to get the city and state to pay for a brand new stadium for the Colts, they didn’t cave to his threats. Irsay galavanted around the country looking for the highest bidder, the mayor of Baltimore panicked but again the state said no. Irsay moved in the middle of the night. This then had the city and state spend nearly 2-3 Times what it would have cost to build a stadium for Irsay in trying to bring the NFL back to Baltimore. The Orioles won,because no chance Charm City wouldn’t do anything they wanted so they would stay.

    The Baltimore Colts didn’t fail. An alcoholic was given the rights to a franchise which was as much a part of the city and state as crabcakes and Francis Scott Key just to do what he wanted with it. The league and the owners are all greedy and don’t care about anything but money. They will throw any city out the door if another one says they can make them more money.

  48. americanfootballarchive says: Jan 11, 2016 12:30 PM

    Great solution, abandon 2 markets that have actual proposals on the table and are good football towns and give money to a city that hasn’t even tried and has the WORST average attendance in the NFL over the last 10 years.

  49. pemory says: Jan 11, 2016 12:42 PM

    reptar310:

    Arguably the best post I’ve ever seen on this site. Well done.
    *******************************************
    Back when the Raiders and Rams were in LA they played in terrible stadiums. Almost every NFL team was getting a new (and in some cases 2nd) stadium since the Raiders/Rams had been in LA. The owners pushed the city for new stadiums. The City refused. The owners knew the NFL would never let a successful team making big money move, so the 2 owners made the decision to strip down the teams to bare bones and suck so fans wouldn’t want to see them. With bad teams and low attendance, it made it easy to move.

    Los Angeles stood up to the NFL and said no public money for billionaire owners to build stadiums and lost their two teams for that stand. St Louis bought a billionaire a new stadium in 1994 and look where that got them today. Only dumb and naive fans make fun of LA for losing their two teams, but LA did what no other city has had the guts to do since. LA knew the NFL would come crawling back eventually, still with no public money for a stadium.

    The Dodgers had a 20 year playoff drought, the Clippers were awful until lately, and the Kings never won anything until a couple years ago. The last place Lakers are still supported, and have a 3 year wait for season tickets. All of them were supported during bad times… The LA “only supports a winner” is a myth.

    Cities with failed NFL franchises who now have teams again:

    Cleveland Bulldogs, Rams, Browns
    Boston Redskins
    Chicago Cardinals
    Dallas Texans
    Oakland Raiders
    Baltimore Colts
    St Louis Cardinals
    Houston Oilers

    The Rams were in Los Angeles for 48 years. That is longer than 8 current franchises have existed.

  50. immafubared says: Jan 11, 2016 12:54 PM

    and then again they could vote, or not vote or decide to not not vote on the not or yes vote whenever they decide to vote.

  51. buccan33rz1976 says: Jan 11, 2016 1:02 PM

    Nobody seems to consider 4 NFL teams in one state might be a bad idea? I think it has failure written all over it.

  52. rportkid says: Jan 11, 2016 1:22 PM

    Anything led by serial liar Goodell and his scumbag clowns is guaranteed to fail. May as well just get used to it until they’re all fired.

  53. radrntn says: Jan 11, 2016 1:37 PM

    Personally I want the Raiders in Oakland. I hope that is the case. The added bonus is if the Rams, and Chargers both go to LA, we would have two more home games each time we play there. Better yet they could realign teams and make a new AFC or NFC Cal West division for the Raiders, Niners, Rams, and Chargers, and Raiders would have home games all the time. After all it’s a Raider Nation.

    Go Raiders, Go Reggie!

  54. chargerz4life says: Jan 11, 2016 1:52 PM

    Why would the NFL reward the community (Oakland) with help to build the stadium from the relocation fee. They are the only city that did not come up with any plan to keep them?? Although I do think the Raiders should stay in Oakland just as much as I want my Chargers to stay right here in San Diego. Rams are the only team that makes sense with their history and fan base in LA. NFL, start with one team and see if it works, split the relocation fee with the 2 remaining teams to help in their own markets. Not that difficult of a solution when you take the GREED out!!

  55. mark0226 says: Jan 11, 2016 2:03 PM

    The problem with Rams/Chargers to LA and Raiders stay in Oakland is that you disenfranchise two markets (SD & STL) with no NFL and create two markets with two teams (LA & Bay Area). You’re destroying two markets to create one. If you move the Raiders only, you gain a market while keeping all others intact.

  56. madmaxx87 says: Jan 11, 2016 2:13 PM

    OK, so lemme get this straight…The Rams and the Chargers – who’s cities played ball to some extent with the NFL about their franchises – presumably get the right to move to L.A. and pay billions of dollars, while the Raiders – who told the NFL to kiss off – gets a new stadium paid for by the NFL and get to stay in Oakland? You must be kidding!

    I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but if I were the mayor in another city and the owner threatened to move because he didn’t get a new stadium, I would sue the crap out of the NFL and the owner. My premise would be, “how can you finance a taxpayer-funded stadium for one owner in one city, while telling another city to pound sand?” That has lawsuit written all over it.

  57. dogsweat9 says: Jan 11, 2016 3:05 PM

    The Raiders are staying in Nor Ca, L.A. gets what it deserves, The Chargers, stop poaching the Raiders, you are not Nor Ca or Oakland, the state needs to be divided, L.A is the biggest joke when it comes to the NFL.

    Nobody likes L.A., not even the people that live in that sissified sewer.

    Take Ice Chest and your wanna bees with you, the Raiders are Oakland.

  58. joerockt says: Jan 11, 2016 3:05 PM

    On what planet does it make sense to give that cesspool called Oakland the relocation fees to build a stadium, when you have America’s Finest City in need? Would you travel to Oakland or SD for a Superbowl? Thought so.

  59. vipod4ever says: Jan 11, 2016 3:21 PM

    According to Taxpayers Protection Alliance, In the last two decades , 29 of the NFL’s 31 stadiums have received public funds for construction or renovation. Taxpayers across the country have spent nearly $7 billion on stadiums for a league that surpassed $10 billion in revenue last season.

    Believe the greedy NFL fat-cats can give back to Oakland, STL and SD, while allowing Kroenke to overindulge in Inglewood with an expansion franchise.

  60. barnlit5652 says: Jan 11, 2016 3:42 PM

    I am actually surprised the NFL is proposing two teams in LA instead of just moving one for now. Whatever new stadium is chosen will be built to house two teams, but filling the remaining vacancy so soon is surprising. Putting two teams in LA immediately erases leverage the NFL has had on other cities threatening to move their teams to LA. Sure, they could very soon create new leverage with London, Toronto and Mexico City, but then you’re talking building huge fan base from the ground up. St. Louis & San Diego will most likely be the new threats for leverage against cities but they won’t be nearly as terrifying as the threat that LA had.

  61. dasmol says: Jan 11, 2016 4:13 PM

    San Diego won’t work as future leverage. The NFL has burned that bridge.

Leave a Reply

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