Skip to content

Spanos on L.A. proposals: Whatever owners decide, we’ll abide

Dean Spanos AP

NFL owners are in Houston for league meetings this week and the biggest topic on the agenda is sorting out the Los Angeles relocation bids submitted by the Rams, Chargers and Raiders.

The Chargers and Raiders have joined together for a bid involving a new stadium in Carson while the Rams have plans to build a stadium in Inglewood, but Cowboys owner Jerry Jones recently proposed having the Chargers and Rams share a building instead. The league’s committee on Los Angeles is considering the proposal and Chargers owner Dean Spanos, who has stood by his proposed partnership with Raiders owner Mark Davis throughout the process, said Monday that he’d abide by whatever the owners ultimately decide this week.

“We’ve been working on it for over a year and worked hard on it,” Spanos said, via Marty Caswell of the Mighty 1090. “Whatever the decision of the owners is, we’ll abide by it.”

Sam Farmer and Nathan Fenno of the Los Angeles Times reported Monday that “a consensus is building” to pair the Chargers and Rams at the Inglewood site and that the idea of the Raiders returning to L.A. is “not popular among many owners.” There’s a thought that the relocation process would generate money that would help the Raiders find a new stadium in Oakland or somewhere else, although that’s one of many questions that still needs to be answered as the league takes its latest step toward a return to Los Angeles.

Permalink 68 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
68 Responses to “Spanos on L.A. proposals: Whatever owners decide, we’ll abide”
  1. duanethomas33 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:48 PM

    Got it from a source at the NFL, that Chargers and Rams have the votes to move to L.A. It will be announced at the end of the meetings.

    That’s a fact.

  2. fleadog99 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:50 PM

    So, Oakland doesn’t even make a proposal to keep team? St. Louis does and the only issue was $100 mil. and NFL wants to help Oakland? WTH? Is it possible STL gets an expansion team?

  3. beavertonsteve says: Jan 11, 2016 5:50 PM

    The Dude abides.

  4. chargerz4life says: Jan 11, 2016 5:52 PM

    Too bad Spanos didn’t spend the energy he has on moving to actually staying in San Diego. GREEDY owner!! Don’t believe the BS about how many proposals they submitted to the city. The real number is zero.

  5. briang123 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:53 PM

    Spoke by a man that already knows what they are going to decide.

  6. Robb_Fett says: Jan 11, 2016 5:56 PM

    I hate what you are doing to the Charger homers that have supported and bled San Diego. All for the might dollar. Just like georgia frontiere and her wicked ways back in the early 90s. She lied, demanded a new stadium, threatened and made life hell for us Rams fans before she ripped them out. Spanos, you can suck it. EAD

  7. cuttyplease says: Jan 11, 2016 5:58 PM

    Raiders started in Oakland and played there 22 years and were on something like 130 consecutive sellouts before Al Davis up and left to LA after the 1982 season (without league approval). Played in LA with mediocre attendance for 13 years and built a fan base reputation of having very violent fans (this was NOT the case in Oakland before leaving).

    Then in 1995 the Raiders negotiated to go back to Oakland and got over $200 million from the City/County to renovate the Oakland Coliseum into a more modern NFL venue (which destroyed the baseball ambiance BTW).

    Now after 21 more years in Oakland (for a total of 43 years in the city), Davis again applies to move the team.

    It would be ridiculous if the NFL allowed/enabled the Raiders to move for the THIRD TIME in under 35 years.

    Oakland site is all set up to build a great stadium, the City/County just don’t have the werewithal to spend a bunch of public money just about 20 years after already spending a ton of public money.

    This time, the Raiders/NFL/investor? should put up the money and build themselves a great stadium, which they would then OWN rather than leasing from the City/County. The location is IDEAL and the property is prime Bay Area land in a great market.

    At the end of the day, moving the Raiders AGAIN, for a THIRD TIME in under 35 years would be ridiculous. Oakland/Bay Area/Norcal is ready and willing to support and sell out a revitalized Raiders franchise, the franchise and league just need to COMMIT to their home.

  8. briang123 says: Jan 11, 2016 5:58 PM

    Spoken by a man who already knows exactly what they are going to decide.

  9. jimbo75025 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:01 PM

    The whole thing is horsecrap.

    Spanos doesn’t want to move to LA to play in a stadium owned by someone else (Kroenke) who would be the big winner. Spanos would lose out on parking, concessions, etc and Kroenke would essentially double his money by allowing a second tenant

    If Spanos is willing to pony up $500 million plus just to move to LA he would be better off floating it to SD that he will contribute that much to a stadium there provided he retains ownership of the stadium for all intents and purposes.

  10. jmoney74 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:06 PM

    Looks like it’s all but a done deal.

  11. honkeyt says: Jan 11, 2016 6:09 PM

    As a Raiders fan I can stomach a move back to L.A although I would rather stay in Oakland. People are saying this could benefit the Raiders and give them more financial help to build a stadium and keep the Raiders in Oakland, and I would absolutely love that! BUT on one of the popular Raider sites I read daily; there is a headline saying if the L.A move falls through the Raiders will look to San Antonio. That makes me want to puke.

  12. prijak1 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:10 PM

    Keep Raiders in Oakland or move them to San Antonio

  13. stampnhawk says: Jan 11, 2016 6:10 PM

    So, sounds like the St. Louis Raiders it is.

  14. kjdoyle58 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:11 PM

    I’ll give Mark Davis a call Thursday after I hit the 1.4 Billion dollar PowerBall.

  15. longsufferingkcfan says: Jan 11, 2016 6:12 PM

    cuttyplease says:

    Raiders started in Oakland and played there 22 years and were on something like 130 consecutive sellouts before Al Davis up and left to LA after the 1982 season (without league approval). Played in LA with mediocre attendance for 13 years and built a fan base reputation of having very violent fans (this was NOT the case in Oakland before leaving).

    Then in 1995 the Raiders negotiated to go back to Oakland and got over $200 million from the City/County to renovate the Oakland Coliseum into a more modern NFL venue (which destroyed the baseball ambiance BTW).

    Now after 21 more years in Oakland (for a total of 43 years in the city), Davis again applies to move the team.

    It would be ridiculous if the NFL allowed/enabled the Raiders to move for the THIRD TIME in under 35 years.

    Oakland site is all set up to build a great stadium, the City/County just don’t have the werewithal to spend a bunch of public money just about 20 years after already spending a ton of public money.

    This time, the Raiders/NFL/investor? should put up the money and build themselves a great stadium, which they would then OWN rather than leasing from the City/County. The location is IDEAL and the property is prime Bay Area land in a great market.

    At the end of the day, moving the Raiders AGAIN, for a THIRD TIME in under 35 years would be ridiculous. Oakland/Bay Area/Norcal is ready and willing to support and sell out a revitalized Raiders franchise, the franchise and league just need to COMMIT to their home.

    ________________________________________

    This is the most intelligent, rational, and grammatically correct argument a Raider fan has ever made. I am sincerely impressed and hope that Oakland can keep the Raiders.

  16. Wisconsin77 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:14 PM

    For heaven’s sake, are they seriously considering putting 4 NFL franchises in a state that can barely support 3, and has shown in the past that putting 4 in California is a recipe for failure?

  17. pastabelly says: Jan 11, 2016 6:14 PM

    jimbo75025 says:
    Jan 11, 2016 6:01 PM
    The whole thing is horsecrap.

    Spanos doesn’t want to move to LA to play in a stadium owned by someone else (Kroenke) who would be the big winner. Spanos would lose out on parking, concessions, etc and Kroenke would essentially double his money by allowing a second tenant
    ==================================
    Spanos wouldn’t be a tenant. He would pay in 1/2. The benefit to Kroenke is the development of the parcel outside the stadium. Spanos should not get any of that unless he puts up more cash for it.

    The NFL would probably prefer to be closer to LA in Inglewood along with being part of that development at Hollywood Park.

  18. joecancun says: Jan 11, 2016 6:17 PM

    Since I am not a smart man Jenny,
    perhaps someone can explain to me how it makes sense for anyone to pay $550 mil for the right to relocate.

    Yes I get the new stadium money, but if you take what St. Louis and San Diego proposed, add in the owner’s share, the G4 financing from the NFL, if you just kept the 550 and put it into the new stadium in the same market aren’t you ahead by a couple hundred mil?

    Dunno, something doesn’t make sense.
    But again, stupid is as stupid does.

  19. paul82461 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:21 PM

    Bottom line is St. louis wants the Rams , the Chargers , well its the Chargers who knows what the owner wants, The Raiders need a new stadium, the city is broke. Didnt the Colts roll out of Baltimore without league approval or court action .

  20. sindiegosage says: Jan 11, 2016 6:29 PM

    The Raiders could stay in Oakland with the help of the NFL’s Golden Parachute and Oracle’s Larry Ellison.

    Unfortunately, it looks the the ultimate destination game for NFL fans everywhere has been stolen from San Diego.

  21. jmoney74 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:38 PM

    Wish all cities would just put up their hands and say, “NFL, you pay for your own crap”

  22. NinersRule says: Jan 11, 2016 6:39 PM

    “Whatever owners decide, we’ll abide”

    Translation: I know I have the necessary votes.

    Hard to fully blame him wanting to move what with the dysfunctional SD city council all these years, but everybody in SD always knew Spanos was always always about the money.

    The Chargers would always cheap-out when push came to shove on contracts and free agency.

    Being the Chargers GM always entailed taking the blame for why they wouldn’t sign anyone. I always admired AJ Smith’s patience to not even hint that it was Spanos’ pocketbook which hindered his ability to do his job.

  23. simon94022 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:47 PM

    are they seriously considering putting 4 NFL franchises in a state that can barely support 3, and has shown in the past that putting 4 in California is a recipe for failure?

    The NFL looks at markets, not state boundary lines. California is a gigantic state, with 3 distinct NFL-size markets: the LA/Orange County mega-market, the SF/Oakland/San Jose Bay Area, and San Diego. Fans in San Diego aren’t going to feel any better about losing their team just because it ends up in a different market within the same state.

    But if you want to take about the right number of teams per state, then note that California supports 5 major league baseball teams. The states that have more NFL teams than their populations can support would be Florida (3), and Missouri (currently 2 – at least until Wednesday).

  24. purpleguy says: Jan 11, 2016 6:51 PM

    The only team that should move is the Chargers. St Louis is making a legit effort to keep the Rams and Oakland has too much history (and can still make it work with NFL help). Not to mention that the Rams owner is a big arrogant weenie.

  25. rodd1 says: Jan 11, 2016 6:51 PM

    The Solution:
    1. Yorks sell 49ers to Larry Ellison on condition he move them back to The City … a new 49ers stadium next to AT&T Park and the new Warriors Arena would be perfect
    2. Yorks buy all or part of the Raiders from an obviously underfunded Mark Davis and move them to The Field of Jeans in Santa Clara
    3. Rams move to Stan Krownke’s ‘NFL Disneyland” in Inglewood
    4. Chargers get additional NFL financial support, funded by Rams relocation to LA fee, to build an new stadium in DT San Diego next to Petco Park
    5. St Louis is and always will be a baseball town
    6. San Antonio does not have the financial corporate clout to support an NFL team and the 23 yo Alamodome is not a viable NFL stadium … plus Jerry Jones and Bob McNair are not going to let a 3rd team encroach on their territory

  26. lightofkolob says: Jan 11, 2016 6:55 PM

    San Antonio Raiders

  27. spiffybiff says: Jan 11, 2016 7:03 PM

    Spanos would be a tenant and he doesn’t have the money to half either. Kroenke already bought the land and he holds the cards. He isn’t just going to let Spanos take half after the most difficult part (league approval) is done

    Here is what will happen….. Rams are gone. Raiders and chargers will use the re lo money to renovate with their cities. Then it is a game of chicken. If a team can’t get a deal done then they can either move to an Antonio or London or approach Kroenke about being a tenant. This will lead to a domino effect throughout the league like back in the 90s that didn’t end until the Texas were founded. By 2025 you will have 2 la teams 3 teams in Texas and 1 in London and maybe 1 in Mexico City

  28. upperdecker19 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:04 PM

    Translation: “If it’s free, it’s for me!!!”

  29. clemenza58 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:04 PM

    Spanos saying that the Chargers will abide by what the league decides is code for, “we are bandoning the Raiders at the alter.”

  30. pbeddoe says: Jan 11, 2016 7:04 PM

    Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, Raiders and Chargers are L.A. bound.

  31. 6250claimer says: Jan 11, 2016 7:08 PM

    So the Raiders get “prevented” from moving out of Oakland because the owners/league don’t want to “let” them.. then the league hands them a check with a boatload of zeroes to help fix the mausoleum or build a new yard in Oakland? How does that make a lick of sense? How would the other owners be persuaded to go along with this??

    It’s ridiculous that the Niners and Raiders don’t share Levi’s Stadium. Nothing but egos and lack of any business sense keeps it from happening. That’s what the solution should be if the Raiders aren’t allowed to move out of town.

  32. jlokc says: Jan 11, 2016 7:11 PM

    Seems to me the solution is Kroenke sweetens the deal for Spanos; Rams and Chargers share Inglewood; Raiders stay in Oakland with increased stadium subsidy; St. Louis gets expansion team (and a Super Bowl) when new stadium is ready in 2022, along with the London franchise.
    Jerry Jones will do all he can to keep a team out of San Antonio

  33. mjk2u says: Jan 11, 2016 7:12 PM

    I live in San Diego and it’s a great place to do that but let’s be honest….Without the visiting team fans that stadium would never fill up. 2 years ago the city was buying up empty seats in order to get the game televised. On the field Rivers had to silent count at home at least 3 or 4 times this year because the visiting team’s fans were too many and too loud. Bottom line is, we in San Diego had our chance and we did not do our part at the box office where it mattered. Now we will drive 2 hours if we stay fans of the team. Like it or not, this is what drove this whole issue. Just ask a fan who is complaining about them leaving then ask them how many games they attended…nuff said. Go LA Bolts

  34. omgiliveinaflyoverstate says: Jan 11, 2016 7:15 PM

    Hang tough Dean, way to stand your ground!

  35. villa41 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:15 PM

    This is the solution I and some others have been predicting for close to 8 months. It’s a win for all three teams.

    The Raiders belong in Oakland. It’s a hard working man’s type of city that fits the Raiders physical style of play. The great Oakland fan base was never replicated in the move to LA in the eighties and the team would have lost that great support again.

    Also, this line of reasoning that Oakland shouldn’t be rewarded for not coming up with a proposal is garbage. This isn’t about what the city, county, or politicians can or can’t do. It’s about a team with an incredible tradition in a city with one of the best fanbases in the NFL. Chances are the Raiders won’t need much help now from the city and county with the financial package from this LA settlement.

  36. Wisconsin77 says: Jan 11, 2016 7:28 PM

    simon94022 says:
    Jan 11, 2016 6:47 PM
    The NFL looks at markets, not state boundary lines. California is a gigantic state, with 3 distinct NFL-size markets:

    ———————————–

    Sorry, California has had 4 NFL teams before and it failed MISERABLY. You Prius driving Chi Latte drinkers can distribute the 3 NFL teams you already have amongst your “3 NFL Markets” any way you want (Here’s a hint: How about 1 per market?), but don’t waste an additional football team in that state.

    P.S. Please don’t compare Baseball markets to NFL markets ever again.

  37. daytontriangles says: Jan 11, 2016 7:35 PM

    And if the Owners decide that the Chargers need to stay in San Diego, what then?

    I don’t foresee much abiding under that scenario.

  38. thegame2love says: Jan 11, 2016 7:41 PM

    Congrats to LA for landing the Rams and Chargers. Good luck.

  39. buckyhamm says: Jan 11, 2016 8:09 PM

    Spanos is broke … I get it now. (asset rich, cash poor)

  40. radrntn says: Jan 11, 2016 8:21 PM

    every body needs to realize, Oakland would have sued any team, and the league if anybody moved to LA. In essence by the league by helping Oakland build a new stadium in Oakland, the league are just buying backs the rights to LA that Oakland already hasalready paid for.

    It’s a win/win for everybody, and at the end of the day, common sense prevailed.

  41. NinersRule says: Jan 11, 2016 8:24 PM

    “we in San Diego had our chance and we did not do our part at the box office where it mattered”

    Nonsense. When the team is good the stadium is a sellout. They have been run so poorly and stupid over the years that people will occasionally sell their tix to other team’s travelling fans.

    As if visiting fans getting tix is a San Diego-only problem– did you catch the Skins-Packers this wknd where half the stands were Packer fans??!?!?

    And thats for a playoff game!

  42. BIG RED says: Jan 11, 2016 8:44 PM

    Chargers say they have ‘zero interest’ in Rams’ L.A. stadium plan

    Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports 7:09 p.m. EST January 11, 2016

    HOUSTON — The San Diego Chargers say they have “zero interest” in switching alliances at the 11th hour of the Los Angeles stadium derby and remain committed to join the Oakland Raiders with a new stadium in Carson, Calif.

    “On December 7, the Chargers made clear in writing that we had zero interest in the Inglewood project, and nothing has changed since then,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said Monday in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.

  43. skunk ape says: Jan 11, 2016 8:52 PM

    The owners are going to do what the owners are going to do. Get over it people. Your feelings don’t matter.

  44. jjfootball says: Jan 11, 2016 9:07 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!

  45. jjfootball says: Jan 11, 2016 9:11 PM

    JUST ANOTHER CASE OF THE NFL SCREWING THE RAIDERS, BUT THIS TIME IT WILL WORK OUT BECAUSE THE RAIDERS BELONG IN OAKLAND ANYWAY!

  46. jjfootball says: Jan 11, 2016 9:12 PM

    IF SPANOS BACKS OUT OF THE DEAL WITH MARK DAVIS, THEN HE IS A SCUMBAG LIKE THE REST!

  47. jjfootball says: Jan 11, 2016 9:17 PM

    THEY SAY THEY WANT RELOCATION TO BE A SUCCESS , THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN LA WANT THE RAIDERS FIRST, RAMS SECOND, AND CHARGERS NOT AT ALL! SO THE RAIDERS HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING SUCCESSFUL THEN THE RAMS, AND CHARGERS!

  48. barnlit5652 says: Jan 11, 2016 9:22 PM

    villa41 says:
    Jan 11, 2016 7:15 PM
    Also, this line of reasoning that Oakland shouldn’t be rewarded for not coming up with a proposal is garbage. This isn’t about what the city, county, or politicians can or can’t do. It’s about a team with an incredible tradition in a city with one of the best fanbases in the NFL. Chances are the Raiders won’t need much help now from the city and county with the financial package from this LA settlement.

    @villa41: The financial package coming from the LA settlement would be seen as hypocritical of the NFL. In other words, it’s the same bailout St. Louis was hoping to get for their Riverfront Stadium. Someone in ownership told them they could $100 million more from the NFL. But Roger Goodell backtracked and said that it wasn’t going to happen because it would be more than the $200 million that that the NFL normally gives according to policy. So why should Oakland be given extra money from the NFL to build a new stadium, and St. Louis and San Diego not be given the same opportunity? Doesn’t sound fair at all.

  49. mrthumbs says: Jan 11, 2016 9:24 PM

    Hopefully the Spanos’s move getting San Diego back to Classy. Nobody needs a loser like them in their town except LA, enjoy.

  50. mjc56 says: Jan 11, 2016 9:32 PM

    Hello Donald Sterling #2 LA

  51. villa41 says: Jan 11, 2016 9:49 PM

    barnlit5652 says:
    Jan 11, 2016 9:22 PM
    __________________________

    It’s called compromise. The Raiders need to come out of this with something to drop the Carson proposal and not try anything to screw up a deal between the Rams and Chargers.

    As for St.Louis, someone (i.e., Jerry Richardson and/or Bob McNair) told them without authorization and without NFL approval $100 million would be available. The $100 million was never a part of the equation. Also, the St. Louis convention authority should have upgraded the EJD as the arbitrator ruled in 2013.

    Oakland made the same mistake in the early 80’s. The coliseum was supposed to be updated and money had been set aside for that purpose for years. The Raiders had 13 years of sellouts at the time. However, the new mayor at the time allocated the stadium funds to expand the Oakland airport (guess who the airport is named after). That’s the real reason why Al Davis left Oakland.

    Moral of the story – those that ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

  52. stevent92 says: Jan 11, 2016 10:03 PM

    Any team coached by Jeff Fisher eventually moves (ala Houston Oilers).

    See ya later Rams.

  53. Knute's Knuggets says: Jan 11, 2016 10:05 PM

    And if the owners rebuke you, you’ll have to abide with what the SD fans decide . . . which is hopefully “bite me”.

  54. mypoint02 says: Jan 11, 2016 10:18 PM

    This will be much easier for everyone to accept once they start treating it like the business decision it is. Teams have a right to move. Fans have a right to voice their disapproval by refusing to purchase game tickets ever again. Spanos and the Chargers don’t deserve it anyways.

  55. bayousooner90 says: Jan 11, 2016 10:41 PM

    The end of the quote “as long as the Chargers get to move to LA”

  56. madmaxx87 says: Jan 11, 2016 10:48 PM

    San Diego makes a pitch to build a stadium. The NFL doesn’t like the offer, and the Chargers move to L.A.

    St. Louis makes an even better pitch to build a stadium. The NFL doesn’t like the offer, and the Rams move to L.A.

    Oakland makes ZERO pitch to build a new stadium, and tells the NFL to pound sand. The NFL has the owners fork over money to build Mark Davis a new stadium in Oakland.

    Man, you gotta love the modern-day NFL!

  57. JSpicoli says: Jan 11, 2016 11:18 PM

    Make the NFL pay to keep the Raiders where they belong. Payback for the years of unfair press and hyperbole that was thrown our way.

    Local media bashing the team and it’s fans, let alone national media doing same, has stripped us to the “Core” and tested our franchise. People were actually scared to go to Raider game over Candlestick. (Now many do know the gang members and stank eye is in 49er-land). Talk about bullying! But it was always cool to bash the Raiders, right Mort? Right Lil Shefter? Right Sapp? Right Chris Carter?

    And, fortunately we have more core than any other team in the NFL, we found a QB and we already have a home, we just need a teardown. Thanks NFL! Last laugh.

  58. putthatkoolaiddown says: Jan 11, 2016 11:52 PM

    joecancun says:
    Jan 11, 2016 6:17 PM

    Since I am not a smart man Jenny,
    perhaps someone can explain to me how it makes sense for anyone to pay $550 mil for the right to relocate.

    Yes I get the new stadium money, but if you take what St. Louis and San Diego proposed, add in the owner’s share, the G4 financing from the NFL, if you just kept the 550 and put it into the new stadium in the same market aren’t you ahead by a couple hundred mil?

    Dunno, something doesn’t make sense.
    But again, stupid is as stupid does.

    You neglected to factor in the “real” money. All three teams that want to move are low-valued franchises…all just under a billion in value. But after the Clippers went for over 2 Billion, all those owners are expecting to increase the value of their teams by more than double.

    That situation is why they are all offering to pay for the stadiums, as well. If they spend a billion on a stadium, but they get the expected increase in franchise value, the stadium is free, and they control every dollar in the revenue stream.

  59. sportnorcal says: Jan 12, 2016 12:39 AM

    Still cant believe we are going from no teams in LA to two? Why aren’t those other cities and states without a team making a stink?

    LA has already failed twice and lost teams.

  60. Walt Gekko says: Jan 12, 2016 12:44 AM

    What I still think is going to wind up having to happen to settle this mess is this:

    Dean Spanos and Stan Kronke are going to have to agree to a deal where they would swap franchises, with the Chargers moving to Inglewood while the Rams stay where they currently are in St. Louis.

    As part of this, while only the Chargers would actually physically change locations, the teams would technically change places as the current Chargers would become the Los Angeles Rams and move to the NFC West while the current Rams would become the St. Louis Chargers and move to the AFC West. In addition, the NFL might have to sweeten the pot for Spanos both monetarily and also perhaps by agreeing to give Spanos the #1 overall pick in the 2017 and ’18 drafts in addition to where they would actually pick those years (there would be 33 picks in the first round those years).

    As for the Raiders, they could either join the old Chargers/new Rams in Inglewood or stay in Northern California, but perhaps have the NFL work with them on a new stadium, perhaps an hour or so south of where they currently are in San Jose. If they did that, perhaps such could be done as a new stadium for both the Raiders and San Jose State football.

    That might be the compromise the NFL has to do to make this work.

  61. thames2vvvvvvrebel89130 says: Jan 12, 2016 12:47 AM

    chargers and rams to l.a. and the raiders to st.louis solves all the problems

  62. Walt Gekko says: Jan 12, 2016 1:00 AM

    madmaxx87 says:
    Jan 11, 2016 10:48 PM
    San Diego makes a pitch to build a stadium. The NFL doesn’t like the offer, and the Chargers move to L.A.

    St. Louis makes an even better pitch to build a stadium. The NFL doesn’t like the offer, and the Rams move to L.A.

    Oakland makes ZERO pitch to build a new stadium, and tells the NFL to pound sand. The NFL has the owners fork over money to build Mark Davis a new stadium in Oakland.

    Man, you gotta love the modern-day NFL!

    ———————————————————-
    Part of the problem I believe is there is no suitable land to build a new stadium on in the Bay Area other than where the current stadium is (though such could be done in a way where “Mt. Davis” that was added in 1996 is kept and incorporated into a new stadium). It’s too bad Candlestick Park was not kept for a few years as the A’s and Raiders could have used it as a temporary facility until a new stadium where the current O.co Coliseum is was built.

    For such to happen now in Oakland, the Raiders likely would have to work a deal with the University of California to play for 2-3 years in their stadium while the NFL would likely have to work with Major League Baseball and the Giants on a deal that would have the teams sharing A T & T Stadium (Giants home stadium) for 2-3 years OR a deal with the 49ers where the A’s use Levi’s stadium for baseball for 2-3 years.

    That is the problem.

  63. barnlit5652 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:03 AM

    @villa41: Actually the moral of that story should be: That extra $100 million or $200 million should be offered to the two home markets as well. It isn’t fair to have home market cities draw up plans and create budgets for stadium proposals, then deem those proposals unsuitable because it puts the teams at financial risk. Then shortly after that, kick in extra money for only one team to lighten their risk. In other words, if the home market cities knew extra money from the NFL was available, it would have allowed them to go back to the table and revise their proposals based on more money loaned. It isn’t fair to withhold knowledge of this extra money from the G4 Loan from the home markets even if it must be approved by NFL ownership.

  64. ibchr says: Jan 12, 2016 1:49 AM

    San Diego is no longer interested in any team owned by a member of the Spanos family.

  65. radrntn says: Jan 12, 2016 2:00 AM

    Maybe the truth is the Raiders said that they really want to stay in Oakland, while the Rams and chargers really want to move….so why not help Oakland then.

  66. raiderlyfe510 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:01 AM

    Spanos and Mark Davis in the LA Market??? Spanos can’t even succeed being the only NFL team in Southern California, and Mark Davis has proven he can’t handle the Los Angeles scene with his vices and the binges he’s been on down there. The Chargers and Raiders paired in Los Angeles is definitely he worst plan for long term success down there.

  67. ebhaynz says: Jan 12, 2016 5:27 AM

    I think this might accelerate the decline of the NFL. It’s already been in decline for me the last 2-3 years as I can’t stand the 43 commercials every stinkin’ hour!

  68. manbunequalsstreetcred says: Jan 12, 2016 6:46 AM

    A partnership w/Enos Stanly is no partnership at all. Enos screws Spanos once before. How can a league force a partnership between Dean and Enos Stanly knowing it really turns into indentured servatutde.

Leave a Reply

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