Rose Bowl CEO & GM Darryl Dunn confirmed Friday that he "has been contacted by the NFL about the possibility of the stadium’s potential use as a temporary home for a team or teams if one or more were relocated" to L.A. for the '16 season, according to Vincent Bonsignore of the L.A. DAILY NEWS. This marks the "first time the league has officially reached out to any Southern California venue." Dunn said, “We will examine it, analyze it and then determine whether it’s something we will respond to or submit a proposal for.” Two NFL sources said that the league also "has inquired about the use of the Los Angeles Coliseum." Dodger Stadium and the StubHub Center in Carson, Calif., "likely will be considered" as well (L.A DAILY NEWS, 6/27). NFL.com's Wyche & Breer cited a source as saying that Angel Stadium is also among the venues "being discussed." The league "didn't put a deadline on proposals coming back, but it would like to have material to present to the owners on temporary sites for their special meeting" on L.A., set for Chicago in August (NFL.com, 6/26).
REVOLVING DOOR: In San Diego, David Garrick wrote "the crux of the Chargers argument why the NFL should let them move to Los Angeles is nine unsuccessful stadium proposals the team has made across San Diego County" since '03, but it is "not clear whether that will do the trick." The team’s previous efforts "appear to be a compelling case to present NFL officials later this year that the Chargers have met the league’s relocation criteria of exhausting all local options." Nearly a dozen other NFL teams "have gotten new stadiums built during that time, while the Chargers have fought through unusual adversity including a city pension crisis that put stadium issues on the backburner for years and significant political turmoil." San Diego has had "seven different mayors" since '03. However, critics said that a new venue in the city "is far from a slam dunk because many of the stadium proposals were flimsy" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 6/28). Meanwhile, also in San Diego, Matt Calkins noted the Chargers' "point man on all things stadium," Special Counsel Mark Fabiani, "is despised by San Diego but likely revered by football coaches." Chargers fans, public officials and everyday taxpayers "see Fabiani as a concoction of arrogance, antagonism and absurdity." The Chargers "aren't in a one-on-one wrestling match with San Diego right now." They are "in a Battle Royale with the Rams, Raiders, NFL, Carson, and Inglewood, too." Stadium talks in San Diego "can't go too well." The Chargers "need leverage, meaning the likelihood of them getting the best possible deal down here is concurrent with how wide open the door to Los Angeles is" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 6/28).
BUYING TIME: A UNION-TRIBUNE editorial states speculation that the owners at that August meeting "may delay the entire process for a year to let everything percolate in the three cities to see what develops" would likely be the "best possible outcome" for Mayor Kevin Faulconer and company and for San Diego. A delay "would give the city-county negotiators significantly more time to reach a deal" with Chargers Chair Dean Spanos. A delay "might also serve as a signal to Spanos from the other NFL owners" that he "needs to negotiate in earnest with San Diego" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 6/28). NFL Network's Steve Wyche said “it’s hard to tell” which teams will
relocate to the L.A. market and the “owners want to take care” of
Spanos. But they “want to give each existing market the opportunity to
retain their team." Wyche: "You cannot deny it, when you live here in
Los Angeles, you see the Rams’ project (in Inglewood) is significantly further ahead
than the Raiders/Chargers project. It's hard to say if the Rams are a
front-runner, but right now they clearly are ahead in their designs and
their ability to get on the field for 2016 as opposed to the other two
teams” (“NFL Total Access,” NFL Network, 6/26).
TOO LATE FOR A VOTE? In St. Louis, Joe Strauss noted to some, the delay created by placing a November referendum before St. Louis voters regarding public financing of a riverfront facility for the Rams "would be ruinous." Strauss: "Is allowing city residents to give a thumbs up or down on helping to underwrite a $985 million project too abhorrent to contemplate?" There is a "strong possibility" that attendance for the Sept. 13 opener against the Seahawks "will fall short of 40,000." But despite the legal challenges, the Rams "remain the only one of the three relocation candidates with a viable in-town alternative" (ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH, 6/29).
