The NFL "may ultimately move only one team" to L.A., and that would "happen not as a short-term thing, but as an indefinite move that could result in a second team never going" there, according to a source cited by Mike Florio of PRO FOOTBALL TALK. If only one team moves to L.A., it "likely would be the Rams," since team Owner Stan Kroenke "already has plans in place to fund privately a one-team stadium in Inglewood." A one-team market "likely would hinge on working something out for the Chargers in San Diego, which may not be easy to do without public money." It could be "even harder if the Chargers are dead-set on leaving," and if team Chair Dean Spanos "has the votes to block Kroenke from moving to L.A. alone." The shift to consider just one L.A. team, which was addressed earlier this month by SportsBusiness Journal's Daniel Kaplan, stems from the league’s "intense desire to get it right" regarding the No. 2 market in the U.S. (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 9/23).
KEEPING IT CLASSY? In San Diego, Todd Adams writes if the NFL wants only one team in L.A., "the chances of the Chargers moving decreases significantly." For some time, the common belief has been that the Rams "are the front runners for L.A." One team in L.A. would "help San Diego’s cause because it would not over-saturate the Southern California market." It would make "much more sense for the Chargers to stay in San Diego" if this scenario came to be. The Chargers "still want a new stadium," which "they might still insist" be built downtown. But they "would lose some leverage if Florio’s report proves true" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 9/24). Also in San Diego, Kevin Acee notes it "has always been among the possibilities that one team would be allowed to relocate." That could be the Rams or Chargers but it "won’t be" the Raiders. However, "few believe the NFL is going to close and lock the door on a possible second team, if only because it needs the leverage for unhappy franchises." It is "imperative to the league that it controls the resolution in Los Angeles and balances the timing of that resolution with the realities in the current markets of the three disgruntled teams" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 9/24).
DOWN BY THE RIVER: In Illinois, Scott Wuerz writes the NFL’s relocation policy "should make it a layup that Rams ownership would be forced to accept St. Louis’ proposed new stadium -- if it becomes a reality" -- and the Chargers and Raiders "ought to be allowed to move to their proposed new shared stadium in Carson City." St. Louis "would show its commitment to the league in a major way by building a SECOND stadium for the team in two decades." Fan support "has been good and the lease the Rams enjoy is one of the most lucrative in professional sports." In short, St. Louis "isn’t a lost market." It is "very profitable to run an NFL team in St. Louis." Kroenke "could move anyway and put the league, which seems to lose every time in is forced to assert its authority in court, in a very bad and embarrassing spot." Wuerz: "Will the NFL owners have the guts to stand up to Kroenke for the sake of upholding their principles? I doubt it" (BELLEVILLE NEWS-DEMOCRAT, 9/24).
