Staff members from the Rams and Chargers yesterday "concluded their first day of meetings" on their potential partnership in L.A., and "as expected, both sides remained quiet," according to Vincent Bonsignore of the L.A. DAILY NEWS. The Rams "are more than open to laying a beneficial Chargers foundation with them" in L.A., but the Chargers "have to accept some reality." While a partnership with the Rams at the new Inglewood stadium "could be advantageous to the Chargers over the long haul, it’s not what the Chargers envisioned back in February when they made their play on Carson with the Raiders." That is something the Chargers "either need to accept or move on from." The deal for the Chargers "likely won’t get any better than what was expressed" yesterday (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/18). In San Diego, Kevin Acee cites a source as saying that the teams "did not set a definite date to reconvene and the date for their next meeting was 'TBD.'" Chargers Chair Dean Spanos and Rams Owner Stan Kroenke did not attend yesterday's meeting and "have yet to meet regarding sharing a stadium." Sources in recent days said that it "is not expected to take longer than a few weeks for the sides to conclude negotiations." However, some sources "stressed that such a conclusion wouldn’t mean the Chargers would move immediately -- if at all." They said that the Rams "are offering a 50-50 partnership that would include the Chargers sharing in stadium constructions costs and all revenues generated by the building." Acee reports there is also an option for the Chargers "to enter a partnership in which they would not directly contribute to the construction costs but get a share of stadium revenue, including naming rights." The latter option "would limit the Chargers’ revenue opportunities but also negate any risk involved in construction and possible litigation." They would have to pay a $550M relocation fee "in either case." A source said, "What they will end up with is a fair deal." Another source: "At least 10 teams would be lined up to take the deal if they wouldn't" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/19).
WHAT HURTS THE MOST: In San Diego, Joshua Stewart in a Q&A with San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts asked if he was "satisfied with the process" of how things are unfolding with the Chargers. Roberts: "I’m not satisfied with what appears to be the outcome that’s developing. ... That’s what it’s all about, the money, the team is going to be worth more in Los Angeles. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem when you’re distorting things, when you’re discrediting the community, when you’re calling people out when it’s not merited. There’s been a certain amount of disingenuous effort on their part, and I guess that would be the piece that is disappointing for me" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/19).
SURVEY SAYS...: The San Diego Union-Tribune and KGTV-ABC on Thursday polled 500 local adults regarding the Chargers' potential relocation. Below are a handful of the questions and results, which have a margin of error of +/- 3.2 to 4.5 percentage points (SANDIEGOUNIONTRIBUNE.com, 1/17).
|
Would you support or oppose spending $350M of public money
to build a stadium?
|
| Support 44% |
| Oppose 50% |
| Not Sure 7% |
|
If Chargers leave San Diego, would you support an attempt to bring the Raiders here? Would you support an attempt to bring another NFL team here? Or would you not support an attempt to bring another NFL team here?
|
| Raiders 18% |
| Another team 34% |
| No team 45% |
| Not sure 3% |
|
If the Chargers leave San Diego, who would you mostly blame?
|
| San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer 5% |
| Chargers Chair Dean Spanos 85% |
| Not sure 10% |
|
Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Chargers have handled the situation?
|
| Disapprove 84% |
| Approve 10% |
| Not sure 7% |
SECOND BANANA: In L.A., Mark Whicker writes if the Chargers move to L.A., they "cannot expect the same embrace the Rams got last week." The city "is not kind to its passenger franchises," and the Chargers "would be the Avis team in L.A., arriving second" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/19).
