With L.A. decision looming, lines are being drawn between owners

AP

It has become reasonably clear in the last few weeks that a strong group of some of the league’s more influential owners plan to throw their Los Angeles backing toward the Carson project, which would be for the Chargers and/or Raiders.

But Rams owner Stan Kroenke is not without his backing either, and may have the nine votes or non-votes which could block approval of the competing project.

According to Jason La Canfora of CBS Sports, Kroenke’s supporters include Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft of the Patriots, along with Washington’s Dan Snyder, Jeffrey Lurie (Eagles), Woody Johnson (Jets), Ziggy Wilf (Vikings) and Steve Biscotti (Ravens). With Bengals owner Mike Brown a frequent abstainer, that puts them on the magic number of nine with Kroenke’s vote factored in — if all those owners stay lined up with Kroenke’s attempt to take his team to Inglewood.

The Bills, Falcons and 49ers are among franchises identified as being swing votes, creating sufficient uncertainty.

On the other side, you have Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, Steelers owner Dan Rooney and Giants owner John Mara, who were thrilled with last week’s addition of Disney CEO Bob Iger to the Carson project, a move which many feel gave it the legitimacy it may have lacked.

Whether it’s enough to change some of the support Kroneke has remains to be seen.

21 responses to “With L.A. decision looming, lines are being drawn between owners

  1. Since I want what’s in the best interests of my Raiders I have to say “Go Kroenke”. I wish the Raiders would stay in Oakland but if Son-of-Al doesn’t want to stay then let the Raiders go to San Antonio, Portland or anywhere other than Los Angeles. Repeating his father’s mistake of moving to La-la land and expecting a different result would meet Einstein’s definition of insanity.

  2. If they bring yet another team to California, I’m going to be angry. Just move the Chargers to L.A.. More fans for the opponents of the Chargers go to Chargers home games than Chargers fans do anyways. Seems like the obviously best option to me.

  3. If they want a team in LA why not expand? Why take a team from a city willing to build 2 stadiums in 20 years. Owners do not care about fans, only money.

  4. LA is an overcrowded, dirty, dump of a city. It’s for celebrities and wagon jumper fans. It’s not a sports town and never has been. NFL teams have failed there 3 times over, bringing a team back there is a huge mistake.

  5. If Richardson and the others say that the relocation guidelines must be followed, don’t they make it impossible for Spanos and Davis to move?

    The relocation guidelines state under sector E that the relocation fee should be determined based upon, “The transfer fee will compensate other member clubs of the league for the loss of opportunity…”.

    The loss of opportunity to the team(s) who has their relocation application declined is an absurd figure that clearly neither Spanos of Davis have (they need to borrow to build a stadium).

    If you are going to be a stickler for the rules at one stage, you cannot pick and choose at the other rules to apply firmly. Surely?

    Oviously the fee can be fudged by other concessions to the losing party or parties, but short of cash, it is difficult to se what can possibly be given that is akin to the estimated billion dollars that a franchise increases in value by.

    Kroenke isn’t out of this even without the votes.

  6. The simple answer will be the team(s) that offer the largest relocation payment to the other owners.

    San Diego and Oakland owners are not as wealthy as Kroenke. You make the call….

  7. Remove Oakland from the equation. They have already been to LA and despite winning two Super Bowls there, they were a financial disaster. Oakland should be shipped out to Mexico City where they would thrive. Oakland already operates under a burrito economy.

  8. Raiders and chargers have followed the relocation guide lines. Chargers have been trying to get a new stadium since 2000 and the raiders since 2006. Rams just this year went year to year.

  9. If they want to make it work in LA, they should put the best franchise there. That’s not San Diego. It’s Kroenke. Kraft and Jones know the value of their own franchises only goes up with Kroenke in LA. This would be an easy decision for anyone with any business smarts.

  10. Does this list look like the profit/business minded owners vs. the old guard/nice guy/football family owners or what?

    For those of us in southern California’s greater Los Angeles area (fans and business community alike), the choice is clear: Return our Rams!

  11. All this talk of “votes” cracks me up. Al Davis already proved that the NFL can’t stop an owner from relocating if he wants to. The legal precedent has been set. Kroenke’s coming to LA, anything else is an unlikely crapshoot at this point.

    Sadly, it’s a zero-sum game in Oakland. Either the Raiders leave for some other city, or they somehow get a new yard built – which would then send ticket costs skyrocketing, add PSL fees, etc. The blue-collar fan base of the Raiders would be priced out, unlike those silicon valley wealthy kids who sip their craft beers at Niner games in Santa Clara. It’s a sad situation for the Chargers & Raiders.

  12. Why should the owners care about the fans?

    If they can make money moving, why shouldn’t they do it?

    How is the NFL different from a seller of industrial products?
    If it’s cheaper or more profitable to move a factory, you do it. Fire the local workers, and hire new ones in the new plant location.

    It’s not like most owners have an emotional tie to the team and it’s location, they just want to own a football team.
    If I want to invest in technology stocks, I don’t care if the company is located in CA or ND.

  13. Football stopped being a blue collar fan attending sport over the last 20 years. PSLs and rising ticket costs (plus parking) have displaced many blue-collar fans.

    When something becomes popular there is greater demand and the price rises. The old time fans don’t have the money, and the newly rich (or upper class) have the thousands of dollars to spend on PSLs.

    This will continue.

    >>6250claimer says:
    Nov 15, 2015 11:32 AM
    All this talk of “votes” cracks me up. Al Davis already proved that the NFL can’t stop an owner from relocating if he wants to. The legal precedent has been set. Kroenke’s coming to LA, anything else is an unlikely crapshoot at this point.

    Sadly, it’s a zero-sum game in Oakland. Either the Raiders leave for some other city, or they somehow get a new yard built – which would then send ticket costs skyrocketing, add PSL fees, etc. The blue-collar fan base of the Raiders would be priced out, unlike those silicon valley wealthy kids who sip their craft beers at Niner games in Santa Clara. It’s a sad situation for the Chargers & Raiders.

  14. Doesn’t the Chargers and Raiders need NFL G4 money to get the stadium built? Kronke can do it himself without the NFL.

    So it’s either 1 team going to LA or 3.

  15. Not letting Kroenke go to LA is just going to be a massive headache for the NFL. Let him build his stadium in Inglewood with the Radiers being #2, and build a stadium in San Diego with the money that would of been part of his G4 loan that he didn’t use. Chargers have no business being in LA really, they have no history there. If the Raiders or Rams are there with them, no one will root for the Chargers. And at the same time, Spanos will have killed whatever fanbase he has in San Diego.

  16. Rams are going to LA. Kroenke will pay off Spanos for the rights to the LA market. Spanos can use those funds to build a stadium in San Diego. If the Raiders can’t get something done with Oakland they move in to be Kroenke’s tenant in LA.

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.