Skip to content

Chargers could pursue one-year delay to prevent Inglewood partnership with Rams

Stan Kroenke, Roger Goodell AP

At a time when it appears that there’s plenty of momentum to finally resolve the L.A. situation, the possibility of another one-year delay has re-emerged.

Per a source with knowledge of the dynamics of the situation, the Chargers could resist a forced marriage with the Rams in Inglewood by employing nine votes to block the proposed Rams-Chargers partnership there. This would, as a practical matter, delay the L.A. relocation by at least another year, forcing the Chargers to stay in San Diego and, more importantly, forcing the Rams to stay in St. Louis.

With Rams owner Stan Kroenke recently burning his bridges there — and given that the NFL has declared the efforts of local politicians to subsidize a new stadium to be “unsatisfactory and inadequate” — a one-year stay in St. Louis would be impractical at this point for the Rams.

Which could give Chargers owner Dean Spanos the leverage necessary to, with the blessing of at least 23 other owners, swap the Raiders for the Rams in the proposal for a shared stadium in Carson. Which is possibly what Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis envisioned when they proposed their partnership a year ago, after Kroenke unveiled his plan to build a stadium in Inglewood.

If so, it was brilliant. Whether or not it will be effective will be determined as soon as Wednesday.

Permalink 75 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
75 Responses to “Chargers could pursue one-year delay to prevent Inglewood partnership with Rams”
  1. railcarcowboy says: Jan 12, 2016 12:40 PM

    Billionaire problems. Smh

  2. howiehandles says: Jan 12, 2016 12:42 PM

    If the Chargers decided to pull this stunt and stay a year in SD, Charger fans should be zero tickets. Screw them.

  3. sindiegosage says: Jan 12, 2016 12:43 PM

    Florio… Who is next in line to be the Commissioner after Goodell screws this up?

    This is the ONLY certainty in this whole ongoing circus.

  4. JSpicoli says: Jan 12, 2016 12:44 PM

    San Diego has no juice in the situation.

    Do it.

  5. robigd says: Jan 12, 2016 12:47 PM

    If the Rams & Chargers stay in their respective cities for another year it would be hilarious if nobody showed up to the games.

  6. immafubared says: Jan 12, 2016 12:47 PM

    Go figure this one?

  7. brenenostler says: Jan 12, 2016 12:47 PM

    But I thought Spanos was going to abide by whatever the owners decide??

  8. kjdoyle58 says: Jan 12, 2016 12:48 PM

    I think StanK would go rogue at that point. He’s building HIS stadium, not someone else’s.

  9. scrp2 says: Jan 12, 2016 12:49 PM

    Doesn’t make Carson any less of a toxic waste dump. Poisoning fans for years to come.

  10. baldbuc says: Jan 12, 2016 12:50 PM

    That would mean 3 teams in LA? Don’t think that will work.

  11. bonesawisready says: Jan 12, 2016 12:51 PM

    I still think the idea of two teams in the same division sharing a city and a stadium is a disaster waiting to happen.

  12. zvikes says: Jan 12, 2016 12:51 PM

    Didn’t the Chargers say that they could do Carlson alone if it came to that? What happened to that plan? Why not let the Rams and Chargers each built their own stadiums?

  13. 3menandablog says: Jan 12, 2016 12:53 PM

    Doesn’t it feel like a bad decision is going to be made?

    What a sh*t show.

  14. beavertonsteve says: Jan 12, 2016 12:53 PM

    “a one-year stay in St. Louis would be impractical at this point for the Rams.

    Which could give Chargers owner Dean Spanos the leverage necessary to, with the blessing of at least 23 other owners, swap the Raiders for the Rams in the proposal for a shared stadium in Carson. ”

    How in the world would swapping in the Raiders solve the issue you listed in the previous paragraph?

    Both sides have the votes to block a proposal without the Rams or Chargers included. Neither the Rams or Chargers are going to be left out of the LA solution.

  15. bam5239 says: Jan 12, 2016 12:53 PM

    Which is all well and good except the Inglewood deal is all but done. The Rams will move with or without the owner’s consent . It may also be hard to find the other 8 votes. NFL teams use leaving as leverage to get public money. This power play demonstrates that the NFL leadership isn’t cohesive enough to make a move. Giving leverage back to the public.

  16. Remember when PFT was about football? Now its just a bunch of whiney losers who cry about the Patriots says: Jan 12, 2016 12:54 PM

    Say there will be 3 teams in “L.A.”???

    The rams in Inglewood
    The Chargers in Carson
    The Raiders in Carson

    And no one thinks it is odd that 2 division rivals will share a stadium??? Its like the Eagles and Giants sharing a stadium. Or the Packers and Vikings sharing a stadium. Its just weird.

  17. cajunaise says: Jan 12, 2016 12:55 PM

    By the time they sort this all out, NFL fans in L.A. are going to be like, “Zzzz…huh? It’s finally decided? Eh, okay – whatever. I might buy a ticket someday.”

  18. deftspyder says: Jan 12, 2016 12:55 PM

    Whichever one of the scenarios keeps the raiders out of LA is the one I like.

  19. cheeksdamonkey says: Jan 12, 2016 12:56 PM

    Wake me up when it’s over! Then again please don’t!

  20. hippieway says: Jan 12, 2016 12:57 PM

    The Rams are going to LA and nobody is going to stop them. I hope the Raiders find the fortune they need for new digs in Oakland and as for the Chargers well that does appear to be a problem. It would be best if they could stay where they are. Personally I have questions about the amount of support that LA would give to two teams.

  21. granadafan says: Jan 12, 2016 12:58 PM

    My understanding is that the proposed projects in Inglewood (ugh) and Carson (double ugh) would be privately financed by the teams. That said, if the multi billionaires are threatening their respective cities by proposing privately built stadiums in LA, then they can finance their own stadiums in St Louis and San Diego. Stop forcing the taxpayers to give you free stadiums. Good on those cities for not caving in to the greed of the NFL for a financially ruining folly.

  22. Marshawn Lunch says: Jan 12, 2016 12:59 PM

    California has too many NFL teams as it is. I’d much rather see the NFL move the Rams to an untapped market. LA is a fickle beast. San Antonio is one option, but I think the NFL is crazy for not having a team in Portland, Oregon. Go look at a list of the 32 largest cities in the USA (by population). Fort Worth, Texas and Las Vegas, Nevada also are intriguing.

  23. goawayeverybody says: Jan 12, 2016 12:59 PM

    There’s no way this delay actually happens after the Rams and Chargers have completely burned the fans in their respective cities. Goodell would never be so incompetent as to allow this untenable situation to take place.

    Oh wait, it’s Roger Goodell. Never mind.

  24. metalman5150 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:00 PM

    If the owners were smart business men (which is almost a given that they are), then why wouldn’t they approve of this marriage and begin anew with their new community?

  25. azjam says: Jan 12, 2016 1:01 PM

    Rams and Chargers in Inglewood makes the most sense so it probably won’t happen.

  26. xsorethumbx says: Jan 12, 2016 1:01 PM

    why don’t the chargers just use their $550 million relocation towards their own stadium in San Diego?

    how do they have money for one and not the other?

  27. daytontriangles says: Jan 12, 2016 1:02 PM

    All the Chargers fans I know have already started to move on mentally.

    Having them back for another year would be like getting home from work in the evening and discovering your Tinder hook up from the previous night, the one you told to “lock the door on their way out”, was still sitting on your couch eating your chips.

  28. clickablecontent says: Jan 12, 2016 1:02 PM

    If Spanos pulled this card, wouldn’t Kroenke just make good on his promise to go rogue and build his own stadium to move into? That would, in turn, force the NFL and Chargers’ hand.

  29. Mister says: Jan 12, 2016 1:03 PM

    This is as plausible as the Spanos-Kroenke franchise swap you floated recently. How’s that working out?

  30. coltzfan166 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:05 PM

    Honestly, it seems like both owners would rather have their own stadium than share the other’s. Just let Spanos move to Carson and Silent Stan move to Inglewood

  31. dontbeemo says: Jan 12, 2016 1:05 PM

    The Rams and Raiders were both at one point in time the LA Rams or Raiders. The Chargers are and always have been from San Diego. Doesn’t it make sense to move back the two fromer LA teams and give big big chunk of the fees to the Chargers?

  32. isnotreality says: Jan 12, 2016 1:06 PM

    Heard there’s some ranch land available in Eastern Oregon for the Raiders?

  33. lanflfan says: Jan 12, 2016 1:07 PM

    So abiding be whatever decision the NFL makes apparently only applies if Mr. Spanos like that decision. Spanos is horrible owner and likely a horrible human being.

    And, if I’m Kroenke, I absolutely call their bluff. I build my stadium in Inglewood and move my team there a la the late, great Al Davis and make the NFL move me back. They couldn’t do it Al and I highly doubt they can do it to Stan. Goodell is a very poor commissioner (which is hardly news to anyone).

  34. coltzfan166 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:07 PM

    Oh and has the NFL found a solution for the temporary venue issue? Because last we heard, the LA Coliseum is the only legitimate venue willing to host an NFL team but the lease only allows one tenant other than the USC Trojans.

  35. coachbeck says: Jan 12, 2016 1:10 PM

    Spanos needs to get over himself and just roll with Kroenke in his project .

    LA wants the Rams anyway. Chargers aren’t wanted there

  36. Bob says: Jan 12, 2016 1:13 PM

    “The Chargers are and always have been from San Diego.”

    The Chargers were originally the Los Angeles Chargers and spent their first season in LA in 1960 before moving to San Diego in 1961.

  37. mogogo1 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:13 PM

    “If Spanos pulled this card, wouldn’t Kroenke just make good on his promise to go rogue and build his own stadium to move into? That would, in turn, force the NFL and Chargers’ hand.”

    Exactly. Isn’t it amazing how rich guys willing to spend their own money can totally outmaneuver the ones wanting everything handed to them? At the rate things are going the Rams will be celebrating 5 years back in LA and the Chargers will be playing in a different city every week like gypsies, still looking for a permanent home.

  38. richdogg231 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:13 PM

    Spanos should just take a big cash payout from Kroenke for the rights to the LA market. Use that money to invest in a stadium in a city where all your fans actually live! What good is a new stadium if no one in LA goes to the games?

  39. mt10425 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:15 PM

    Screw the Spanos family. If ever someone needed to be taken behind the woodshed to learn a lesson…

  40. hodog16 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:16 PM

    Chargers don’t want LA to get a team unless it includes them. They claim it will hurt their fan base, so they are against the possibility of the Rams and Raiders moving to LA and staying in SD.

  41. gobolts says: Jan 12, 2016 1:16 PM

    Chargers belong in SD, and that’s where they should stay.

    As a fan, I understand that the team has failed to put quality team together, but if that’s the reason for dismal ticket sales, how does moving the team to Los Angeles help the situation? Answer: It doesn’t.

  42. Grugenhagen says: Jan 12, 2016 1:20 PM

    dontbeemo says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:05 PM

    The Chargers are and always have been from San Diego.
    ————————————————————–

    Incorrect. The Chargers played their first season in Los Angeles.

  43. 44yrfaith says: Jan 12, 2016 1:24 PM

    I can see this not working..uncle jerry is gonna force feed this on spanos
    .

  44. gohawks2015 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:28 PM

    xsorethumbx says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:01 PM
    why don’t the chargers just use their $550 million relocation towards their own stadium in San Diego?

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

    Probably cash flow concerns. And the re-lo fee is paid over time not all in one chunk.

    That said, point taken.

  45. jmc8888 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:28 PM

    Or the opposite could happen. Rams get blocked…

    Chargers/Raiders try to play hardball and wait….

    Rams go screw this and pull an Al Davis and move.

    Then the Rams are in LA in 2016, and no way in the hell can the NFL remove them.

    That pretty much blows up the Chargers/Raiders situation.

    Raiders would be out, and the Chargers would have to go it alone with that stadium.

    Also the Rams would have a year to secure fans of the team because no one else would be there.

    Spanos shouldn’t play with fire, because this could blowback and burn him badly.

  46. logast says: Jan 12, 2016 1:28 PM

    Whatever happens, it isn’t going to work long term. If this picture was so rosy, why has there not been a team there for 20 plus years?

  47. spiffybiff says: Jan 12, 2016 1:32 PM

    The reason the raiders are getting the re lo fee is because they own the rights to la. They paid the nfl for that back in the early 80s. Spanos claims la is his second market be he is pulling that out of his behind

    Spanos needs to look at San Antonio and fast

  48. misteranderson41 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:37 PM

    if al davis owned the rams, he would have already moved by now…..

  49. ebpatton says: Jan 12, 2016 1:40 PM

    Kroenke has Wal-Mart money. He’ll do what he wants, and let the other owners know about it afterwards.

  50. newsletterczar says: Jan 12, 2016 1:47 PM

    Are the other owners (business partners) out to screw the Raiders after all the years of having to deal with Al? I know the owners appreciate having Roger get blamed for everything but this is heading towards the courts (and so is the Titans ownership issue) on it’s present course and then only the lawyers get rich. Now is a good time to have a new commissioner with a law degree.

  51. dasmol says: Jan 12, 2016 1:56 PM

    Another year in SD after burning the fans?

    Good luck with that.

  52. cgsuddeath says: Jan 12, 2016 2:07 PM

    This from a guy who is too cheap to pay his players and has lost just about all the talented players on the team.If I was Kroenke I would say screw it and move in my own stadium and tell Spanos to go screw him self

  53. TheDPR says: Jan 12, 2016 2:08 PM

    What is Spanos’s problem with Inglewood? Why is he so bent on Carson? He should consider himself lucky to be in the NFL at all with the way he’s run that team.

  54. citnetter says: Jan 12, 2016 2:20 PM

    This is simply a money grab by the Chargers to get the best, most profitable deal as possible on the shared stadium situation. They have the NFL and Rams by the you-know-what’s and are using that leverage. Smart move when the ultimate fate has already been determined.

  55. wtes71 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:26 PM

    Rams should stay in St Louis. They have a stadium to play in and city is willing to build new one. There a reason they left LA in the first place. The first couple years will be great but in 20 years from now they will be looking to move again.

  56. ramokowski says: Jan 12, 2016 2:32 PM

    Spanos is suffering from a major bout of Napoleon complex. He’s not as rich as Kroenke and in LA, Rams and Raiders are more popular than Chargers. Spanos will lose ALL leverage if he doesn’t compromise. The “If I can’t have LA, no one can” tantrum ain’t going to work.

  57. prijak1 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:51 PM

    Dean Spnos is an idiot ! He should have left to LA 5 years ago! Let him rot in San Diego

  58. vanmorrissey says: Jan 12, 2016 2:58 PM

    To say this would have been a genius move by Spanos would be the antithesis of what he actually is. He lucked in to this position pure and simple and if this is the outcome, then the Chargers should have absolutely zero local fan support.

  59. eriquoz says: Jan 12, 2016 3:00 PM

    If the owners do not come to an agreement and delay this process until next year then Stan Kroenke will move without consent from the league and Spanos will loose ALL leverage!

  60. raiddawgz says: Jan 12, 2016 3:09 PM

    Raiders to LA! There are plenty of Raider fans in So Cal that would love the Raiders back in LA where they previously won their Super Bowls. Raiders and Rams should be back in LA just like in the old days then use the relocation fee to help the Chargers build a stadium in SD where they belong. Keeps everyone happy with the exception of a few scared KC fans living in LA.

  61. ivanpavlov0000 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:14 PM

    This implies that Kroenke would move the Rams to Carson. That’s a non-starter. The Rams stadium is just one piece of Kroenke’s development plan in Inglewood. He’s not going to move his team to a location where it doesn’t support his development interests.

  62. jgedgar70 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:23 PM

    Like I’ve said before – if these owners ran their businesses like they did their football teams, they would all be fry cooks at Wendy’s.

  63. dogsweat9 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:30 PM

    The Rams and Raiders are masterfully using L.A. to get the best deal in their cities.

    The owners know L.A. is a dead football market, and a city that destroys franchises.

    The Chargers will be dumb enough to move to L.A.

    Why?

    Because San Diego is a glorified L.A.- and the Chargers play all their Home Games on the Road, L.A. will be even worse.

  64. NinersRule says: Jan 12, 2016 3:31 PM

    The situation explained:

    –Raiders are just playing this game in order to get a new stadium in Oakland.

    –Spanos has always intended to move to LA if some city offered him a stadium.

    –Nothing will stop Kroenke from moving the Rams back to LA.

  65. ravensfan56 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:43 PM

    “I despise the whole concept of an NFL team in Los Angeles. The team will be hated everywhere outside of Los Angeles. Spanos and/or Kroenke’s actions are criminal. I see nothing but gloom and doom for this franchise. I wish the team high winds and muddy fields; I wish them empty roads to and from the ballpark; I wish them cold hot dogs. I wish them nothing but bad.”

  66. orivar says: Jan 12, 2016 3:53 PM

    Chargers just snitched on themselves. They can fund their own stadium. If I lived in SD I would be going to city council meetings throwing a for.

  67. trollaikman8 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:57 PM

    Nice of Roger Goodell making time to meet with Michael Cera.

  68. chrisk61 says: Jan 12, 2016 4:05 PM

    let’s assume the owners back the committee recommendation, and chargers & raiders go to carson.

    that leaves rams in need of disposition. I doubt they stay in StL. maybe as another commenter posted kroenke goes rogue, channels his inner al davis and goes ahead & builds a stadium for the rams in Inglewood. or maybe he goes to either SD or oak. or wasn’t san Antonio an option..for the raiders…many months ago ?

  69. dasmol says: Jan 12, 2016 4:14 PM

    “Because San Diego is a glorified L.A.”

    What does that even mean?

    A delay keeping the chargers in SD would be very bad for the league. There couldn’t be enough visiting fans to make the attendance seem respectable after burning the home crowd.

  70. lanflfan says: Jan 12, 2016 4:20 PM

    dogsweat9 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 3:30 PM

    The Rams and Raiders are masterfully using L.A. to get the best deal in their cities.

    The owners know L.A. is a dead football market, and a city that destroys franchises.

    The Chargers will be dumb enough to move to L.A.

    Why?

    Because San Diego is a glorified L.A.- and the Chargers play all their Home Games on the Road, L.A. will be even worse.
    ___________________________________

    Do you even know the history of football in LA?

    Where was the first Super Bowl played?

    The Raiders left because…of Al Davis. Al wanted to move back to Oakland and did, NFL be damned. He sued the league and won. No matter how questionable his decisions were at times, especially in his last few years, he never wavered in his devotion to his team. I think his son shares that devotion, and personally I hope the Raiders stay in Oakland. However, there is strong support for the Raiders in LA; even stronger support for wearing Raiders gear by the denizens.

    The Rams left because their owner, the vile Seahag, who became an owner when her husband who owned the team left it to her rather than his children. For a current example, see Tom Benson and the Saints ownership situation. The Seahag then proceeded to strip the team of useful parts and shed expenses in order to fund her annual migration to Europe facelifts. When LA was tired of her behavior, and her screaming of a taxpayer built stadium, they ceased attending games. When revenue stopped coming in, the Seahag cast her siren song far and wide and put St Louis under her spell. The city paid her a devil’s dowry for the Rams. Now, the devil has come a callin’.

    The myth of LA being a poor sports town is perpetuated by inane talk heads in the media and both jealous and uninformed fans around the country. LA supports its teams whose owners support the city. If you doubt that, look what happened just before the demon McAsshat was expelled from the Dodgers and what has happened since Guggenheim took control. Same too the Clippers, who suffered for years under Don Sterling’s penny pinching ways. The Lakers are a continual draw even though they stink, and will for the next year or so. UCLA and USC draw packed houses for football and basketball. The Kings and Ducks draw also draw well, despite LA hardly being a typical hockey town. But don’t let facts get in the way of your perpetuating a myth.

  71. buckyhamm says: Jan 12, 2016 5:05 PM

    Whatever works best for the Spanos’
    s/

  72. jaxhotspur11 says: Jan 12, 2016 5:37 PM

    Bob Odenkirk will play Stan Kroenke in the movie. Conan O’Brien gets the role of Goodell.

  73. lapantherfan86 says: Jan 12, 2016 6:15 PM

    ravensfan56 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 3:43 PM

    I despise the whole concept of an NFL team in Los Angeles. The team will be hated everywhere outside of Los Angeles. Spanos and/or Kroenke’s actions are criminal. I see nothing but gloom and doom for this franchise. I wish the team high winds and muddy fields; I wish them empty roads to and from the ballpark; I wish them cold hot dogs. I wish them nothing but bad.

    —–

    Why don’t you just relax and worry about your own terrible team?

  74. omeimontis says: Jan 13, 2016 4:32 AM

    The Chargers cannot block the Ram’s move to LA. The league just approved it. The Rams do not need the Chargers to be tenants at its proposed new stadium at Inglewood. The NFL is not going to approve the Chargers + Raiders move to Carson because that would put 3 teams total and 2 AFC West teams in one market. So, it is up to the Chargers whether they want to be a tenant and one of two teams in LA or be the only team in San Diego with a new stadium of its own.

  75. vikingferd says: Jan 13, 2016 10:07 AM

    This would only delay the Charger from moving. They have ZERO leverage to demand anything from the NFL or the Rams. The Rams are still going. I just drove by the Inglewood site and the trucks are unloading the heavy machinery to start work on Monday!! If Spanos doesn’t move to LA next season, the only place he’ll be able to play in front of any fans is in Tijuana, Mexico. Maybe that El Chapo character will build him a stadium there.

Leave a Reply

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