The NFL Committee on L.A. Opportunities has recommended the Carson stadium project over Inglewood, sources said. The move is not unexpected, but it is unclear whether the six-owner committee's decision is a recommendation for the specific Chargers-Raiders shared stadium in Carson, or just that the NFL should move to Carson instead of Inglewood, the site proposed by Rams Owner Stan Kroenke. It also is unknown whether the committee's recommendation was unanimous. After owners speak their mind this morning in the meeting, the Rams will present followed by the Carson project. Disney Chair & CEO Bob Iger, who would run the stadium project, is set to make that presentation. “I feel good,” Iger said when questioned about the chances owners would give his site the nod. Still, much remains fluid, with a big push to put the Rams and Chargers together instead. Steelers Chair Dan Rooney said when asked what team was moving to L.A., “Your guess is as good as mine.” In a sign of just how much interest the meeting is generating, more than 200 media members are covering the gathering, and even Seahawks Owner Paul Allen is in attendance. The last meeting he attended was the July '11 gathering where owners approved the new CBA (Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer). ESPN's Shelley Smith noted she could definitely sense a feel of urgency this morning" as the owners walked into their meeting room. Smith: "Owners told me at the last meetings they expect (NFL Commissioner Roger) Goodell to lock them in that room until they make a decision" ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 1/12).
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: In L.A., Farmer & Fenno in a front-page piece report a consensus "is building within the league" for the Rams and Chargers to share a stadium in Inglewood. Multiple league officials and owners not involved with the Inglewood project, or the competing proposal in Carson, said that there "is momentum to pair the two franchises in what one owner describes as a 'transformational' project backed by the Rams." One owner whose preference "has not been apparent in public or private touted Inglewood over Carson." The owner said, "The deals aren't even close." Farmer & Fenno note it is widely thought that the L.A decision "will help define" Goodell's legacy and "shape the financial future for a league" that generates $10B in annual revenue. There is a sense that most owners "know the point where they want to get -- the Chargers and Rams in Inglewood -- but aren't sure of the best way to get there." The idea of the Raiders returning to L.A. "is not popular among many owners." One option is for them to "return to Oakland in the short term" with the option of exploring "relocating to other cities, among them San Diego, St. Louis" or joining the 49ers at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara (L.A. TIMES, 1/12). NFL Network's Judy Battista reported a Rams-Chargers partnership "would have the support of plenty of owners, certainly enough to get the 24 votes necessary for passage” ("NFL Total Access," NFL Network, 1/11).
TAKING CHARGE: The Chargers said that they "have 'zero interest' in switching alliances at the 11th hour" and that they "remain committed to join" the Raiders with a new stadium in Carson. Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani yesterday in a statement said, "On December 7, the Chargers made clear in writing that we had zero interest in the Inglewood project, and nothing has changed since then" (USA TODAY, 1/12). Chargers Chair Dean Spanos said, "We'll wait and see what happens. Right now my focus is Carson, OK? And that's where my focus has been and we'll see what happens." In California, Scott Reid notes Spanos "isn't expected to negotiate" with Rams Owner Stan Kroenke or his supporters "until at least one vote is held" today or tomorrow (ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 1/12). Spanos: "We’ve been working on it (with the Raiders) for over a year." But he added, "Whatever the owners’ decision is, we’ll abide by it" (NEWSDAY, 1/12). Spanos, on whether he expects a resolution: "I think so." In San Diego, Kevin Acee notes signs "are emerging that a solution is imminent." Sources said that an agreement "could come together relatively quickly" since both the Chargers and Rams "have already internally discussed the contingency" of partnering in Inglewood. A source said, "The league needed a third option. [Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones'] plan is the only one with a chance to get 24 votes -- if it gets on the ballot." Sources continue to stress that the team "left out" of L.A. "will be 'taken care of'" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/12). One source said, "There’s no question the Chargers have more support than the others" (Mark Maske, WASHINGTON POST, 1/12).
RAIDERS RETURN? Raiders Owner Mark Davis last night said that he was "'absolutely' confident in the Carson project," with his team and the Chargers. In S.F., Vic Tafur writes the Raiders "could return to Oakland with a lot of money to help build a stadium, though that’s no guarantee that the A’s -- with a 10-year lease at [O.co Coliseum] -- or the city of Oakland would play ball" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 1/12). In San Antonio, Nick Moyle cites a Bleacher Report post that Davis "could turn to San Antonio should the Raiders' proposal not be accepted" (SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS, 1/12).
FORMING OPINIONS: In N.Y., Ken Belson cites sources as saying that "more than half" of the owners "appear to support the Carson proposal, while about 10 owners favor the plan for Inglewood" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/12). An L.A. TIMES editorial states while the region's football fans "may care most about getting a team that's not a total loser ... the rest of us want a team or teams with a solid track record of community engagement, civic leadership and local investment, not to mention a commitment to L.A. for the long term." Owners, management and players "would also be well-advised to step up their philanthropic game," because the L.A. region "needs more than just a football team" (L.A. TIMES, 1/12).
 |
Kroenke isn't expected to negotiate with the
Chargers' Dean Spanos |
STAN THE MAN: YAHOO SPORTS' Dan Wetzel writes the NFL "got to this place, with likely two teams relocating to L.A. after two decades of treading water because of one man." Kroenke "got the ball rolling," and that is why it is "tough to imagine how he gets passed over." Kroenke "started this," and it "stands to reason that in the end, the NFL is going to let him finish" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 1/12). In St. Louis, Jeff Gordon writes Kroenke "wasn’t always the bad guy here." He "pumped fresh capital into the franchise and brought sanity to the leadership team." Then the losses "mounted, fans drifted and Kroenke’s bid for stadium improvements went nowhere" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 1/12).
SOMETHING FOR NOTHING? In St. Louis, Ben Frederickson writes what "should really raise eyebrows is the speculation on what it might take to cut the Raiders out and solder the Rams and Chargers together." It could result in Davis and Oakland, the city that "never submitted a formal proposal to keep the Raiders, receiving the kind of help Goodell made St. Louis sound like morons for requesting." Frederickson: "This isn't a shot at Oakland, but the city did pretty much nothing to keep its team. Even less than San Diego did to keep the Chargers" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 1/12). In Oakland, John Hickey wrote, "If you think the A’s are particularly anxious about whatever pronouncement is going to come out of Houston, you’d be wrong." A's co-Owner Lew Wolff last night said, "When they (the NFL) say `X,’ whatever `X’ is, there is a distance between what they say and when it happens. We are not sitting on pins and needles. It would be good to know generally what direction the NFL is going, but nothing will change right away" (IBABUZZ.com, 1/11).
