2016 becomes the target for an L.A. move

When the Chargers announced earlier this week that they won’t be moving out of San Diego in 2015, the message was clear:  If the Chargers are willing to announce now that they won’t try to move to L.A. in 2015, no one will be moving to L.A. in 2015.

Per Adam Schefter of ESPN, Commissioner Roger Goodell made it known this week internally that no teams will be moving to Los Angeles in 2015.  It remains possible, if not likely, that someone will move to L.A. in 2016.

Sure, someone can still apply for relocation in early 2015. But good luck getting 24 owners to approve the move.

The Chargers, as we’ve previously explained, are better positioned than the Rams and Raiders to satisfy the terms of the NFL’s relocation policy, since the Chargers have been trying for 14 years to get a new stadium in San Diego.  The extra year also potentially helps the Rams and Raiders build a stronger case that they’ve tried diligently to resolve a bad stadium situation in their current location before trying to move to a new city.

It’s believed that up to two teams eventually will move to Los Angeles.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the powers-that-be in San Diego, Oakland, and/or St. Louis take full advantage of what could be their last opportunity to find a solution more viable than hoping that their team becomes the odd man out in a game of L.A. musical chairs.

54 responses to “2016 becomes the target for an L.A. move

  1. 2015 Headline: 2017 becomes the target for an L.A. move

    2016 Headline: 2018 becomes the target for an L.A. move

  2. It really shows how money has completely changed the game. Two teams left L.A. because they couldn’t generate local support and attendance. Now with TV and sponsorship deals through the roof, L.A. will get two more teams, simply because L.A. is a huge market.

  3. Maybe I’m thinking of this too simplistically, but I think that if the Chargers are able to effectuate the move to LA in 2016, the second team to move there would obviously be the Rams since you can’t have two teams from the same conference in the same stadium. At least I don’t think so anyway. Which means, I think, that if the Raiders are going to move, they will, indeed, move to San Antonio.

  4. And it’s also the year that STL will present a new stadium for the Rams and the NFL, making it hard for the Rams and Kroenke to move to LA.

  5. It should be Jacksonville which should have never been selected in the first place – only the intervention of Tagliaboo-boo screwed St Louis and Baltimore

  6. There is no “stadium situation”, only billionaires trying to extort the taxpayers of fund desperately needed for police, fire, emts, teachers etc.

    No welfare for these greedy billionaires!!!!!

  7. We have USC no need for an nfl team. I also adopted the Arizona Cardinals in 1996 when I was 9 yrs young.

    As a life long LA/OC native I could care less about a nfl team if I wanna see a team I can drive the hr and half to sd. Take the 1 hr flight to Phoenix or Oakland/San Jose (niners)

    Im not losing sleep over it. There are plenty of things to do in the fall/winter then to attend a nfl game. Like sit on my couch and watch several games every Sunday from sept-feb.

  8. The NFL’s most likely goal is to have an NFC team and an AFC team go to LA, because that would be great for TV ratings in the second largest market in the US. The sticking point is probably whether it’s going to be the Chargers or the Raiders as the AFC team. The Rams make too much sense as the NFC team, between the terms of their lease and their history in Los Angeles.

  9. “You just can’t leave things alone can ya nfl? If it ain’t broke leave it the he!! Alone!!!!!”

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

    Here’s the problem. It’s broke.

  10. I find it interesting the way the league manufactures the leverage for new publicly funded stadiums…

    The NFL is estimated to bring in $9.5 BILLION in revenue (per http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-12/if-the-nfl-were-a-real-business)

    So, let’s say about 10% of this is profit. (The NFL is a non-profit, but that’s not relevant for where I’m going with this.)

    Then that you are looking at $1 Billion available per year to distribute to the teams, or, how about this, BUILD A STADIUM.

  11. As a previous poster stated, no teams can move there without a stadium deal in place first.

    I see the Chargers and Rams being the obvious choices for Los Angeles. The Raiders should start playing their games in Santa Clara with the Niners. Stadiums are expensive, two teams is about the only way to get your money’s worth out of them.

  12. With all the California regulations and potential lawsuits, it will take years to get a stadium plan put together in Los Angeles. Since the NFL is passing on 2015, the AEG deal is dead. The only project ready to go is City of Industry and from what I read, no one wants to go there. I think the only way the NFL gets a stadium built is if they as a league buy the land and start the EIR process on their own, outside of any particular team.

    And on an Oakland note, I attended the latest public workshop for their coliseum project on Thursday night. Oakland has almost completed the EIR for their project. That’s not to say it will get built, but it will have gone through the gaunlet of California’s enivornmental red tape.

  13. Buffalo and St. Louis. They’ll actually be able to fill their buildings finally.

    ———————-

    You didn’t follow the Buffalo ownership story at all, did you?

  14. What really happened: Bad-dell desperately begged each of the three teams to move to LA, none agreed to move unless NFL agreed to fund a new stadium entirely, Bad-dell spins it to make it sound like he’s in control. Hey, he’s a PR ferrett, duh.

  15. London, Toronto, LA, what next Mexico City, or how about Honolulu? In LA they don’t care about long term loyalty to an NFL team. Get the support from the present cities where they are located. These teams are there because the fans actually want them.

  16. In late 2015 the minnesota vikings will begin installing the metal sheeting around their new stadium in downtown minneapolis, minnesota.

    but, according to story after story just 2 years ago they should be playing in los angeles by 2015.

  17. “But good luck getting 24 owners to approve the move?”

    It’s an automatic that the 6 NFC and AFC west teams say yes because it saves them flying troubles. Dallas will vote for it and the lower market teams will vote for it because their valuations increase. The only two that won’t are one of the two obvious LA bound teams and the Chargers.

  18. bonnovi says:
    You didn’t follow the Buffalo ownership story at all, did you?
    ______________________

    Owners own teams to make money, not lose it. buffalol is bleeding money.

  19. Lets see. The league wants a return to L.A. Owners have commented that it is time, and they also want a team in L.A.
    Yet you say “good luck getting 24 owners to approve”? Doesn’t make sense.
    If a team wants to move in 2016, then they better file the paperwork request in 2015

  20. Come on LA-Haters. Wouldn’t you like an LA team to come to your stadium so you could chant “Beat LA”. The teams left here because of the ancient stadium we had (built for the 1932 olympics) that nobody felt safe in.

  21. Florio has gone the Leonard Tose route.

    The LA Metro area (basically a straight line from San Luis Obispo to Bakersfield to Las Vegas and then south to the Mexican border, including San Diego) is a massive area, capable of supporting 4 or more NFL teams. That area is about 22 million people, basically Ohio and Pennsylvania together, who happend to have 4 teams. The problem is that 20 years of no football, means that there are millions of fans of other teams here in LA, and they are not going to abandon that allegiance. Raider fans are the most visable, but they can also take a long weekend and go to Oakland for a game (and can feel much safer than in the LA in 1994).

    Instead of playing in London, teams should rotate through LA. We’d love to see the Raiders, Packers, Bears, Steelers, Cowboys, Giants, Vikings, Browns, Patriots, Dolphins, Rams, etc., but I’ve already told you this before. Screw London, play LA.

  22. I love when business and politics mix, No one wants a team but a billionaire will force tax payers pay for a stadium even though multiple teams have failed there.

  23. 2016? That gives the NFL 10 years to get ready for the LA to wherever discussion in 2026. It will only take 5 years for everybody to realize the LA plan doesn’t work, but that crowd will fight on for another 5 years after that.

    In fact, why don’t we just call this team the team that is destined for somewhere else.

  24. Time for Dan Snyder to go rogue, defy Goodell, hire the Mayflower vans and move his dreadful Snyderskins to LA. Unlike Modell in Cleveland, Skins fans would praise Snyder for getting out of DC.

  25. The Raiders cant even put a competitive team on the or even give their fans a good atmosphere to watch the games. They are the lowest value team in the NFL, when the Houston Texans cost 1 billion dollars more than the Raiders. Why stop them 13 million people in La says it’s a given people will go to games, why hate the move for selfish reasons it’s just a name, same team with more revenue. They need to move to LA to be competitive it’s clearly not working in Oakland, but this sites comments have so many people hating LA. I hope a team does move, it means more money for the other teams to spend on these high salary players, specially Qb. Why hate cause a team wants to move to make more money? Businesses want to make money. These fans aint loyal..

  26. Read: The Chargers, Rams, and Raiders each for years have tried to hold their cities hostage by requiring them to build new stadiums on the tax payers dime, complete with luxury boxes for the rich.

    Good on San Diego, St. Louis, and Oakland tax payers for not caving in!

  27. xcflqb7 says:

    It should be Jacksonville which should have never been selected in the first place – only the intervention of Tagliaboo-boo screwed St Louis and Baltimore
    ———————————————-
    Actually it should be Houston. The NFL gift wrapped the 32nd expansion team for L.A. (they even told Bob McNair not to bother to put a bid in since it was a done deal), but no ownership group in L.A. Could get their act together so McNair win the bid.

  28. LA doesn’t seem to mind not having a NFL team there. Beside the NFL wouldn’t be able to use the threat of moving a team there to upgrade stadiums in current NFL towns.

  29. There must be a secret stadium deal that no one is making public. No team is going to play in the Coliseum. The Rose Bowl would only be temporary until a new stadium is finished, and Anaheim is baseball only right now. We keep waiting to hear the details of the “new stadium deal”.

  30. I couldn’t imagine living in Orange county and having to drive to support a team playing at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. Traffic is brutal there!

  31. Exactly. Plus why would the Chargers want to move from beautiful San Diego back to LA? As soon as they move, 4 or 5 teams will be heading to SD. The downtown plan is a complete disaster waiting for the unprepared (plus they will be dealing with, err extorted by, #9, 14, 1, 8 and the rest of the 15 nuts on the LACC), it’s football without a tailgate. And forget about Monday or Thursday night. Hollywood Park and the Rams would make the most sense, but Inglewood can’t afford it. We in Pasadena could accept 1 or 2 games a year max at the Rose Bowl.

    Dogsweat says:
    Dec 20, 2014 4:47 PM
    The Chargers not moving to L.A. leaves the door wide open for the Raiders.

  32. @xcflq67

    What does Jacksonville have to do with this? St Louis received a relocated team, and now the Rams may move back to LA. It’s not like the hypothetical ‘STL expansion team’ would’ve been anymore stable than the current Rams are…. You Jax haters are so delusional, so much for being reasonable….

    #hatersgonnahate

  33. Jags can’t go anywhere. Their lease is tighter than a UFC rear naked chokehold. The only thing they can do is continue to play 3 or more games in London to keep within their lease. Jags should have never been a team in the first place. It should have been Baltimore or St. Louis. Baltimore has been a proven success story from the stadium to the fan support despite the off-field diversions. Baltimore didn’t have any trouble getting some state money for stadium improvements last year to keep it on par and it is nearly just as old New video boards, new food items, new TVs throughout the stadium. New lighting & sound.
    Rams bought land. If they don’t get a stadium, they’ll file in 2015 for 2016. St. Louis is a baseball city, unlike KC which is the exact opposite.
    Raiders are going somewhere. Chargers won’t go without a stadium plan in place. Advantage Chargers. LA won’t support a losing team.

Leave a Reply

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