L.A. deal between Rams, Chargers could be brokered


With Chargers owner Dean Spanos definitely having the nine votes needed to keep Rams owner Stan Kroenke out of L.A. and Kroenke likely having the nine votes needed to keep Spanos out of L.A., the future of the NFL in Los Angeles could hinge on the ability of Spanos and Kroenke to work something out.

Via Kevin Acee of U-T San Diego from the quarterly league meetings in New York, some owners believe a deal can be struck between Kroenke and Spanos regarding which team(s) will move to L.A.

Some owners actively oppose Kroenke’s desire to move the Rams, believing that Spanos has tried long enough to get a new stadium in San Diego, and that St. Louis is on the verge of crafting a viable stadium proposal to keep the Rams. But if at least nine owners feel strongly enough about Kroenke getting the L.A. market to vote against the Chargers, the situation will remain at impasse, with both teams in limbo.

A brokered deal would hinge, as many such arrangements do, on money and/or other considerations. With each owner able to block the other from moving, one owner needs to persuade the other owner to drop his opposition. In addition, then, to the relocation fee that would be paid to the league generally, the owner who moves to L.A. may have to make a large, separate payment to the one who doesn’t.

Likewise, the arrangement could include other terms. For example, if Spanos accepts that the Chargers will stay in San Diego and the Rams will move to L.A., the league could agree that only one team would be in L.A. Likewise, the league could agree to devote extra resources to the construction of a stadium in St. Louis to persuade Kroenke to stay there.

It’s becoming more and more clear that something will happen, sooner than later. While a one-year delay is possible (and some think Kroenke is pushing that angle because he believes it raises his chances of prevailing), Acee reports that Steelers owner Art Rooney II said Tuesday, “I think we have a chance of getting something voted on by January.”

Lost in the shuffle are the Raiders. Officially partnered with the Chargers for a proposed stadium project in Carson, the Raiders have become an afterthought in the Rams-Chargers impasse. Some assume that, if Kroenke prevails, it means the Raiders and Chargers will move to L.A. and share a venue. Others believe that the Chargers could be the only team in the Carson facility.

There’s also a chance that the Rams and Chargers will agree to resolve their differences with by sharing a stadium at Kroenke’s Hollywood Park location. That would leave the Raiders in Oakland, or elsewhere.

Whatever happens, Raiders owner Mark Davis (pictured, with Spanos) seems satisfied — or at least oblivious.

“I’m a happy camper,” Davis said, via Acee. “Everything is going to work out.”

Yes, it will. And there’s a good chance that, however it works out, Davis will be left out of Los Angeles.

86 responses to “L.A. deal between Rams, Chargers could be brokered

  1. Doesn’t the NFL have bigger things to worry about than LA? Like the quality of play, or officials not knowing the rules? Whoever moves to LA will just move out in 20 years like EVERY TEAM WHO HAS EVER PLAYED IN LA!!!!

  2. So tired of this LA talk.

    On a side note- as a Bills fan I’m happy they’re no longer part of the discussion, however- can they make a deal that sends Rex packing to LA?

  3. Davis does not have the money to move, Stan does. Spanos has been screwing the pooch for a long time. Forget about the name of the team that moves to LA but remember, Kroenke has the money to do it, Spanos don’t. Besides, Carson no matter how you look at it, is a sh,.thole. Fans will be sueing for years after being exposed to toxic waste everyone is trying to hide

    Same for St Louis. Building a stadium on the banks of the second most polluted river on the planet? LOL. Only a resident of St Louis can support that. The downtown Lou is another sh:thole. I have been to third world countries that are nicer then St Louis

  4. Dean Spanos is positioning the Chargers to get a large cut of the relocation fees claiming the Rams are coming into our fan base and reducing our revenues. Then if the NFL only allows one team in LA the Rams, SD and Oakland can still use the fear of relocating as the second team to join the Rams in order to drive a new stadium. Financially, this makes the most sense.

  5. Why don’t they just start two new teams? Why screw San Diego and Saint Louis? They could build through free agency tomorrow, play in the Rose Bowl until they get a new stadium built. One AFC the other NFC.

  6. It makes the most sense for the Rams to stay where they are as they have the most viable stadium plan going in their home market. But Kroenke does whatever he wants and he’s going to get away with it.

  7. I have a hunch as life long raider fan he really means it when he wants to stay in Oakland..of course he wants new stadium but he looks at what happend to the 49ers new stadium how everyones complaining and giving away there tickets since they left SF…EITHER WAY i am serious i love my Raiders LA or Oakland but i prefer Oakland but i will remain a Raider for life

  8. One team in LA is too much. Two is completely absurd.

    No one is from LA. Whatever team goes there is doomed to fail.

    Why not just make that the city neutral site for all Thursday night games or something like that?

  9. So this is THE Mark Davis, the legendary freaky billionaire manbaby that no one whom lays eyes upon can ever take seriously again?

    I’m looking at the picture, he seems like a regular enough guy. What’s the big deal with his physical appearance?

  10. Why not combine the two teams as one team? They wouldn’t have a home but just play in whatever stadium is available for them to play home games on a given Sunday. They may be playing for a post-season in December other than playing for a draft position . That’ll leave one team available to create that Goodell obsessively wants in London. I’m tired of hearing about all of these issues. They’ve been hanging around for a few years.

  11. raiders should stay in oakland, Charges should stay in sandiego but the Rams were LA’s team and should go back. Then perhaps the hawks the beat them on the road. 😉

  12. Why put 2 teams in the same city using the same Stadium? If you live in L.A. how do you know which team to like? I say let the Rams move back they still have a fan base.

  13. I’ve always wondered what would happen if a team just moves without NFL approval. Say the NFL tells the Rams they cannot go and instead the Rams sigh a deal and just move the entire operation next winter. What would the NFL do? Kick the Rams out? Forfeit all their games? Drop the NFL down to 31 teams at the expense of the LA market? I think all 3 teams have more power than the NFL lets on.

  14. The one thing you learn from history is….
    people never learn from history!
    The irony is that the NFL has never done well in LA. Even more ironic is the fact that these exact same three teams proposing to move there now have called LA home before and all left with their tails between their legs.
    The problem is, these owners and team reps are not from LA and so they don’t understand LA (or any of Southern California for that matter).
    There are several reasons why Pro Football has failed in Los Angeles, despite being thought of (somewhat mistakenly) as the “second biggest market”:
    1) Southern California is, first and foremost, the world’s largest “baseball town”. No NFL team has ever been as popular or successful as the Dodgers or the Angels. It is similar to St.Louis MO in this regard — football is culturally considered a “secondary” sport even though there are no doubt some rabid fans.
    2) For those who are football fanatics, most Southern Californians have great loyalty to one of the two college teams (USC & UCLA) that have played locally for the past 100 years or so. These are true “home teams” — not transplants like the Cleveland Rams and Oakland Raiders were, and would be if they came to LA again.
    3) NFL diehards would rather watch the NFL on TV than waste an entire day trying to get to a gridlocked stadium for a three-hour game. Traffic on the freeways is horrible, Sunday afternoons are the worst already, and because LA is so sprawled out, most fans would not be within 50 miles of the stadium — regardless of where it is located. They would have to leave their homes by 9am to arrive within an hour or two of game time (assuming a 1pm start). The game would end around 4:30pm, it would take them an hour just to get to their cars, then a three-hour ride home on freeways that already resemble parking lots at that time of day. That is a twelve hour day — with seven or eight of those hours being pure misery sitting in auto traffic or a throng of people exiting the stadium. Is it to hard to understand why most Southern Californians would pass up this chance?
    4) Many Southern Californians are NFL fans but they can get all the big games on the average weekend even with just broadcast TV. With DirecTV they can get them all. Because of SoCal’s diversity, and the fact that so many came from other parts of the country, it is actually better for fans here NOT to have a local NFL team.
    Not sure whether any of these teams will be stupid enough to make the move, but I can assure you that if they do, they will become another one of many who eventually left.

  15. All this is fine and dandy but if Kroenke is willing to put up his own money and build a stadium, the league can’t stop him from moving. They tried to this with Al Davis decades ago and lost the court case. Does the NFL like losing court cases?

  16. The cleveland browns could use a change of scenery…but maybe if they built a dome they would forget for 60 minutes that they weren’t still inside the smelly cesspool.

  17. What does it matter? At least one of them will wind up in Mexico City, Havana, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, Beijing, or Tokyo.

    The hogs are at the trough.

  18. I really doubt a football owner is “oblivious” — more like not bothering to tell a reporter anything about a potential billion dollar deal. No?

    Mark Davis doesn’t have the status to directly negotiate with Spanos, Kroenke and the owners active in this situation.

  19. Maybe they could just call the Chargers

    The San Diego Chargers from Orange County…

    and consider it close enough to L.A. Chargers

    kinda like how they did with the Angels.

  20. ive said it 100 times the NFL should just build Oaklands stadium at this point.

    Theyre clearly all about money, why not have a foothold in the california economy and build a stadium and surrounding attractions. Would pay for itself after a few years and would bring in a bunch of money. Its a win-win, Raiders get a new stadium and the NFL gets all the money the stadium generates.

    Maybe im naive but they should do it in LA too and move whatever team they want into em. Im sure they can still sucker a relocation fee outta someone.

  21. I suggest you take a look at the NFL’s own study on team popularity and territory. LA is officially Raider country according to their findings. It is what it is, can’t change facts. From the business standpoint of filling a stadium, the Raiders have the advantage. Another fact. Yeah, that matters. Nice slanted article though. Don’t act like you know. You don’t!!

  22. Los Angeles is a trap city for any NFL team. Aint nobody gonna pay for expensive tickets for non-playoff teams.

    Get used to half empty stadium or home field advantage

  23. Mark Davis is in “what’s in it for me” mode. The state of California and city of Oakland aren’t going to be rolling over for any sports franchises. First, the state is close to broke. Second, with respect to LA, the state knows that a franchise in LA is worth over $1 billion more in LA than it is in St Louis. The state and the taxpayers should not be funding stadiums which enrich private individuals in two ways.

    It is also hard to believe that either Davis or Spanos wants to pay the NFL relocation fee to the other owners. At the end of the day, Kroenke has financing and land at Hollywood Park. It might not be the ideal solution and the NFL might be better off with a downtown stadium between the Staples Center and Koreatown, but it’s the best alternative to that and would get the league back in LA with an owner who has the capital to make it work there.

  24. Just move to LA, Stan. The NFL is powerless to stop you. See you in court, Roger. Dean Spanos’s nine votes mean nothing… at all.

  25. Return to the proper time line…..

    Send the Ram’s to L.A.
    Send the Cardinals to St. Louis
    Send the Jags to Arizona

    All that’s left is to swap the Ravens and the Colts…..

  26. Just move, Stan. You and I both know the NFL is powerless to do anything about it. See you in court, Roger. The NFL has no power – NONE – to prevent a privately owned business from moving to whatever market its ownership deems fit. Especially against the backdrop of a not-for-profit organization with anti-trust protection, like the NFL.

    Those nine votes are about as meaningless as ice cubes in Alaska. Of all the people who know this, Mark Davis should. His dad showed every owner how it’s done. But he was just following the lead of Irsay who moved the Colts without anyone’s permission in the middle of the night.

    No federal law has changed in the interim. Why does the NFL, and Florio, think things are different now? They aren’t.

    Moving the Rams to LA will almost overnight double the value of the franchise… for Mr Kroenke. It’s a no brainer if there ever was one.

  27. With the MLB playoffs starting, there won’t be any people in St. Louis paying attention to the Rams, they could go ahead and leave right now and nobody would notice.

  28. I think the best solution is that between the Rams and the league, a sizeable portion of the public share of building a new stadium in San Diego is assumed.

  29. St. Louis conitnues to put the finishing touches to the new “National Rental Car Field” (just announced today), so Rams are not leaving St. Louis. Second new stadium in 20 years for the Rams and the NFL

  30. Kroenke should sell the Rams, leaving them in St. Louis.

    Then he should buy the Raiders and move them to LA.

    Then send a relocation check to Spanos to assist with the building of a new San Diego stadium.

    However, if you factor in ego, Kroenke wants to take on the NFL, so he’ll do just that. Davis wouldn’t sell the Raiders because…because…because of legacy. And Spanos doesn’t want any other team in ‘his’ territory even though LA is not SD and SD is not LA.

    This is a tired subject.

  31. The St. Louis situation offers a cautionary tale for taxpayers in the U.S. When you vote for a bond to build a new stadium, the city leaders can argue that they can extend that bond for a 2nd new stadium. You lose control of your tax dollars once you vote for it one time.

  32. @cards1man – Just announced TODAY, you are a dumbass!!! This deal was for a POTENTIAL stadium in St. Louis and it was between the National Car Rental and the St. Louis Stadium Task Force (who would own a POTENTIAL stadium). This task force has NO money or team committed to play at dream stadium. The Rams are leaving….DEAL WITH IT!!

  33. The tv contracts and removal of the non sellout blackout rule have made this a nightmare . The question isn’t if LA can support a team . Its if it can support two even though it doesn’t have a team .

  34. To everyone that is saying the Rams belong in LA, I think you are forgetting (or never knew) that the Rams moved to LA from Cleveland. The Chargers are the only team that STARTED in Los Angeles. They weren’t there long, but they did start there.

  35. If the raiders get left out of this deal and I’m thinking they will. They stay in Oakland, but don’t start cheering just yet raider fans. Oakland has no money to build them a new venue so the only option left for them is to revisit the two venues needing/wanting a team (St. Louis and San Antonio) forcing them to leave the state after deciding on one. Staying in Oakland is not a viable option for them in that old run down stadium.

  36. There are some misguided people in this thread that think the Rams were not popular in L.A.. That is extremely inaccurate. However, showgirl Georgia Frontiere, who had no business owning the Rams, got greedy and took the money in St. Louis. It was theft of the longest-running major league sports team in Southern California. It’s only fair to have Stan move a team that only fills up half a stadium in the baseball town of St. Louis to move back.

    As for the Chargers, they should remain in San Diego. I live in Los Angeles and there are few Charger fans up here. The team belongs to San Diego. Spanos and the NFL can pony up for a new stadium. It’s a location perfect to host Super Bowls.

    As for Oakland, they are definitely not getting a new stadium but guess what? There a new is a state-of-the-art football stadium not that far from Oakland in Santa Clara. It’s not like other NFL teams don’t share a stadium.

  37. LA’s track record for Pro Football is not all that great. Why are we talking about giving them two or three teams?! Let’s start them out with 1 (if we must) and see how that goes for a while.

  38. Oh FFS… if The Rams and Chargers get stadiums before The Raiders do… I’m starting a petition to airlift one of their old Football Stadiums to Oakland.

    So lame that The Raiders are an afterthought while being the only FOOTBALL team to play on a BASEBALL FIELD.

    They need a stadium more than anyone right now.

    This is getting ridiculous.

  39. oldmanpaco says:Oct 7, 2015 12:02 AM

    I’ve always wondered what would happen if a team just moves without NFL approval. Say the NFL tells the Rams they cannot go and instead the Rams sigh a deal and just move the entire operation next winter. What would the NFL do? Kick the Rams out? Forfeit all their games? Drop the NFL down to 31 teams at the expense of the LA market? I think all 3 teams have more power than the NFL lets on.


    Al davis did this in 80’s moving the,raiders to LA without permission..nfl lost in court to him as well thats why rams moving is a slam dunk.nfl cant do anything.

  40. reecan says: Oct 7, 2015 12:14 PM

    If the raiders get left out of this deal and I’m thinking they will. They stay in Oakland, but don’t start cheering just yet raider fans. Oakland has no money to build them a new venue so the only option left for them is to revisit the two venues needing/wanting a team (St. Louis and San Antonio) forcing them to leave the state after deciding on one. Staying in Oakland is not a viable option for them in that old run down stadium.

    Believe the winner in the long run will be the team that doesn’t go the LA!

  41. It is pretty silly for the Raiders to say they have no stadium — Levi’s is a state-of-the-art stadium, newest in the NFL, closer to Oakland than it is to San Francisco. The 49ers and Raiders could share it, just like the Giants and Jets do.

    I don’t think any teams are smart to move to LA, for reasons I already posted, but definitely not more than ONE please!

  42. The only way the Raiders stay in Oakland is with a stadium deal by the end of the year. We all know that isn’t going to happen unless some billionaire comes out of nowhere and agrees to fund a stadium on a site other than the coleseum property. No way will private investors get involved with that mess. Is this likely to happen? Absolutely not. So if the Raiders can’t get a stadium deal in Oakland and the NFL screws them over and blocks the LA move the Raiders will essentially be free to go anywhere else they want. San Antonio, St Louis, Portland or London. The Raiders will legally have the NFL by the balls if they tried to block them twice. Under the NFLs relocation guidelines the Raiders are the most deserving of relocation. They have the worst stadium of the three and by far the least cooperation in getting a new one built. The Rams are by far the least eligible. They have the newest stadium of the three and a city willing to build them another one. Looks like the Raiders will move because one thing is just a fact. The O.co is not even close to an NFL caliber stadium and the Raiders will be out of there within 18 months. Just not sure where they will be going.

  43. highflyer16, your comment is one of the best I have seen on the subject. I’ll reiterate, I hope briefly. Your opening comment is the best. ” The one thing you learn from history is…. people never learn from history. There are several reasons why pro football has failed in Southern California.” (SOCA).

    1. SOCA is the world’s largest baseball town, not St. Louis.
    2. The football fanatics in SOCA like USC and UCLA. They have rooted for those teams for 100 years.
    3. NFL diehards in SOCA would rather watch football on TV. LA is so spread out most people would live 50 miles from any stadium, and with gridlock traffic, it would take them about 12 hours to watch a game at a stadium.
    4. Many people from SOCA are from other parts of the country and would just as soon watch their teams on Direct TV.

    You not only pointed out that NFL football has failed in LA, but you have enumerated why.

  44. Share the Hollywood Park Stadium a la Giants and Jets in NY, Raiders to San Antonio or St. Louis, whichever offers the more attractive stadium plan.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.