For the first time since '94, the NFL's return to L.A. "might be more than a dream," according to Sam Farmer of the L.A. TIMES. Steelers President Art Rooney II, who chairs the league's L.A. feasibility committee, said, "People are actually investing dollars into getting something done. People can take that as maybe we're more serious than we've been over the last decade or so.” NFL Exec VP/Business Ventures Eric Grubman said, "There's a big difference between the league making something out of a market, and an owner doing that. ... Now that there are multiple clubs in it, the passion is building, and the commitment to get something done on the part of those clubs is very public. That changes the dynamics, and it does increase the complexity.” Farmer wrote the pressure "now is on the NFL to make it work." But the decision on L.A. "could drive wedges" between the "historically cohesive group" of NFL owners. Grubman: "It's fluid because there are multiple sites and multiple clubs. The home markets have not yet fully responded to the possibility that their teams might leave." Rooney added, "I don't sense that any owners are taking the position of 'I'm going whether you like it or not.' We've been in contact with all of them. They all are working with our committee" (L.A. TIMES, 2/22). In L.A., Branson-Potts & Vives wrote football fans in L.A. last week "expressed skepticism" that the Raiders and Chargers sharing a stadium "would ever happen" (LATIMES.com, 2/20). The TIMES' Branson-Potts & Vives wrote under the header, "NFL Stadium Plan In Carson Has Hopeful Fans And Some Skeptics" (L.A. TIMES, 2/21).
MARK HIS WORDS: In L.A., Austin Knoblauch noted the Raiders and Chargers "claim they are trying to work with officials in their cities to avoid relocation." Raiders Owner Mark Davis said, "We're still trying to get something done in Oakland. I’ve got options A, B, C and D out there. This is an awesome opportunity to work with the Chargers to try and get something done. Really, it’s just another part of the process. But again, we’re trying to get something done in Oakland" (
LATIMES.com, 2/21). Davis added, "We have the same need. We are the two California teams that need a stadium. Together, we may be able to get it done. ... We're really trying to stay, and now there's a great opportunity in Los Angeles. We need to get something done." Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said that Raiders President Marc Badain "called her Thursday night." In S.F., Vic Tafur cited sources as saying that Chargers officials "have been meeting with Carson officials for 10 months." And the Chargers "brought the Raiders on board last month" (
S.F. CHRONICLE, 2/21). Davis said that it was "his decision to not share a stadium with the 49ers." But in S.F., Scott Ostler wondered if he "didn’t want to share with his arch-rival 49ers, why is Davis now willing to bed down with the archer-rival Chargers?" (
S.F. CHRONICLE, 2/22).
NOT MESSIN' WITH TEXAS: The L.A. TIMES' Knoblauch noted at least one official in San Antonio "has expressed disappointment over the Raiders' new plans." Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff said, "I may be a little too cynical, but they are not truthful with you. They lie. ... My distrust of the NFL and of Major League Baseball is really high" (LATIMES.com, 2/21). In San Antonio, Tom Orsborn noted although the news "blindsided many San Antonio leaders, former Mayor Henry Cisneros, who has spearheaded efforts to attract the Raiders, received advance notice from the team of the plan." Meanwhile, a statement from San Antonio's Chamber of Commerce indicated that the city "hasn't given up its hopes of landing the Raiders" (SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS, 2/21).
BAY WATCH: CBSSPORTS.com's Jason La Canfora reported Davis is "seen as the most malleable, by far, of the three owners involved in this process and he's content to be that second team -- whether it means going with the Chargers, or the Rams." He "isn't caught up in the developmental and real estate potential of these projects," but instead just "wants some improved revenue streams, a chunk of money every season from suite sales and sponsorships and other revenue that a state-of-the-art stadium would provide." That is the "end game for him: Keep his team, get to L.A., and get the best second-tenant or co-tenant stadium deal he can get. And he's closer to that than ever" (CBSSPORTS.com, 2/20). In San Jose, Mark Purdy wrote under the header, "Raiders On The Move? Don't Bet On It." Carson officials on Friday held a sort of "pep rally to officially announce" the joint stadium deal, but "no leaders of the Raiders or Chargers were there." Purdy: "Strike you as strange? It does me" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 2/22). In Oakland, Marcus Thompson II wrote, "Who wants to lose the Raiders on their watch?" But everyone involved "needs to come to grips with this new reality of big sports business." Prices have "gotten way too high for municipalities to kick in." And it is "doubtful, after all these years, that local leaders can come up with a better plan for the Raiders" (OAKLAND TRIBUNE, 2/22).
AFTER FURTHER REVIEW: An L.A. TIMES editorial stated local officials "should take these proposals seriously without becoming desperate or giving away the store." If the "overtures are sincere, they won't disappear because local officials live up to their responsibility to balance the interests of neighborhoods against developers and football franchises" (L.A. TIMES, 2/22). In San Diego, Nick Canepa wrote, "I see a bluff, at least on the Chargers’ side, of Himalayan proportions. I don’t believe the Chargers want to go to L.A. I don’t believe [team President] Dean Spanos ever has, which is why he’s spent millions trying to get something done here, or he would have gone long ago." The “'tell' in this bluff is the Raiders, not to mention Carson, which simply is a terrible place." It is "impossible to believe Spanos wants to partner with the always dysfunctional, fiscally irresponsible and renegade Silver and Black" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/21). In St. Louis, Bernie Miklasz wrote the joint stadium deal is "potentially good news for St. Louis," and a "potentially bad development" for Rams Owner Stan Kroenke. Miklasz: "How does the Chargers-Raiders advance on Carson help St. Louis keep the Rams?" The NFL can "extract a relocation fee from one team ... or collect relocation payments from two teams. Do the math." Also, if the Chargers and Raiders "pull this off and land in Carson, then the NFL will have rectified the league's two worst stadium situations" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 2/22).
SEISMIC SHIFT: THE MMQB's Peter King writes there is "a very dangerous game of musical chairs playing in L.A. right now." Nothing "should be taken as life or death yet," but maybe the Carson plan is the "spur that San Diego needed to convince its electorate that the Chargers really might move." The task force’s announcement yesterday that it would make its decision on whether to move ahead with a new stadium within three months "was the most encouraging thing to come out of local government for the Chargers in years." Regarding the Chargers-Raiders partnership, there is the question "about two teams from one division partnering on a stadium project." If the Raiders and Chargers "join forces on this stadium, there would have to be a realignment involving at least two teams." Because L.A. is America’s No. 2 television market, it "would be impossible for both L.A. teams to be in the same conference." One of these teams "would have to move to the NFC so that both Fox and CBS could each have an L.A. franchise in its lineup" (MMQB.SI.com, 2/23).
ROGER THAT: The AP's Paul Newberry wrote how NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "handles this plot twist will go a long way toward determining whether he's worth" his $35M salary. In the end, the NFL will "probably use the hefty relocation fee it charges the team that moves to settle with the teams that are forced to stay put" (AP, 2/20). Meanwhile, the AP's Blood & Dalton noted scheduling games is "just one snag that would make the notion of three teams in the region unfeasible." SportsCorp President Marc Ganis said that three teams "would slice up the market far too finely to make it work." Managing TV broadcasting alone "would pose a problem." Ganis: "There are some people who have had some doubts if the L.A. market will support one team. Some have even greater doubts it can support two teams. It certainly will not host three teams" (AP, 2/20). Meanwhile, in L.A., Shaikin & Klein noted any team moving to the area "will need temporary housing while its new stadium is built." The L.A. Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Bowl "are the most likely sites, ahead of Dodger Stadium and Angel Stadium." However, USC AD Pat Haden said that the Coliseum "could handle one NFL team but not two." The Rose Bowl also "would be interested in an NFL team but has not been contacted." StubHub Center in Carson "might be another option if enough temporary seating could be added to an existing frame that holds about 27,000" (L.A. TIMES, 2/21).
