PDA

View Full Version : Chargers AND Raiders Building Stadium In L.A.?



Pages : [1] 2

OrangeHoof
02-20-2015, 12:17 AM
Sure sounds like a desperate ploy to get the stadiums they want in San Diego and NorCal respectively, but the Chargers and Raiders are going in together on a new football stadium in Carson, CA where the Raiders have threatened to build before.

Can't imagine how this is going to work but if the Jets and Giants can share a stadium, this could possibly happen but I'd bet against it. The threat of moving to L.A. has been part of blackmailing city fathers in NFL cities for two decades now.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25074632/report-chargers-raiders-propose-joint-17-billion-stadium-in-la

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-20-2015, 01:43 AM
I think LA would be a good fit for the Chargers.

DenBronx
02-20-2015, 02:32 AM
Lol 2 rivals and they both can't afford their own stadium. How embarrassing.

DenBronx
02-20-2015, 02:33 AM
Oakland should just move to San Antonio or Las Vegas.

FanInAZ
02-20-2015, 02:37 AM
And the owner of the Rams have already purchased property in the LA area.

By the way, the Jets & Giants aren't division rivals, so its not as big of a deal for them to share a stadium when they only play each other once every 4 years. The Raiders & Chargers have been division rivals since both teams inception in 1960. I can't imagine this not eventually causing problems when they play each other twice every year.

weazel
02-20-2015, 10:55 AM
If LA was interested in football they would still have a team... this is another idle threat

OrangeHoof
02-20-2015, 11:14 AM
I'm not sure I'd want to share my PSL with a Raiders fan. I'd have to bring disinfectants and wipe down when it's my team's week to play there.

OrangeHoof
02-20-2015, 11:14 AM
If LA was interested in football they would still have a team...

They already do have a pro football team - the USC Trojans.

DenBronx
02-20-2015, 01:57 PM
New report says one of them would likely join the NFCW. Im guessing it would be the Chargers bc noway you break up the Denver/Oakland rival.

Then maybe the Rams join the AFCW in place of whoever leaves.

weazel
02-20-2015, 02:14 PM
New report says one of them would likely join the NFCW. Im guessing it would be the Chargers bc noway you break up the Denver/Oakland rival.

Then maybe the Rams join the AFCW in place of whoever leaves.

wow thats pretty crazy

DenBronx
02-20-2015, 02:20 PM
Yeah that would be a big shake up. I dont really even like SD leaving the division bc they have managed to build a rival with the division too. But looks like they are willing to sell their soul for a new stadium.

One thing I hate though is the Rams have an indoor stadium. I hate us playing there and I always prefer us playing on grass.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 02:30 PM
If Chargers and Raiders share stadium, one would likely move to NFC

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/20/if-chargers-and-raiders-share-stadium-one-would-likely-move-to-nfc/#comment-4045446

If this plays out, the likely scenario is that the Chargers will move to the NFC West and the Cardinals will likely join the AFC West.

DenBronx
02-20-2015, 02:30 PM
From NBC Sports Talk for Android:

If Chargers and Raiders share stadium, one would likely move to NFC
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/20/if-chargers-and-raiders-share-stadium-one-would-likely-move-to-nfc/

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-20-2015, 02:34 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/20/if-chargers-and-raiders-share-stadium-one-would-likely-move-to-nfc/#comment-4045446

If this plays out, the likely scenario is that the Chargers will move to the NFC West and the Cardinals will likely join the AFC West.

What the freak? That would suck. The Chargers, Raiders and Broncos have all been division rivals for 50 years.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-20-2015, 02:35 PM
Boo

Northman
02-20-2015, 02:36 PM
Yea, that would be kind of weird. But, we lost Seattle at one point.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 02:37 PM
They aren't going to move one of the teams to the NFC.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 02:38 PM
What the freak? That would suck. The Chargers, Raiders and Broncos have all been division rivals for 50 years.

Either the Chargers or Raiders would have to change, the reason the Chargers fit the bill to be moved is because they like the Cardinals have not won a Championship in their respective divisions unlike all others in those divisions.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 02:38 PM
They aren't going to move one of the teams to the NFC.

That is coming from league sources, and it would only play out if they agree to a joint LA Stadium venture.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-20-2015, 02:39 PM
Yea, that would be kind of weird. But, we lost Seattle at one point.

Yeah, but they were an expansion team. The original AFC West is from the AFL and should remain in tact.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-20-2015, 02:41 PM
I think having division rivals share a stadium would be must see tv, especially the Raiders and Chargers. The stands would be more entertaining than the games.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 02:41 PM
Either the Chargers or Raiders would have to change, the reason the Chargers fit the bill to be moved is because they like the Cardinals have not won a Championship in their respective divisions unlike all others in those divisions.

I don't see why one team woudl have to move. Seems its just speculationg talk, OR, its talk with the purpose of scaring fans into agreeing to pay for another stadium. It's not hard to schedule the teams to play in separate stadiums, and when they play one another, they do what the JEts and the Giants do when they play one another... they simply share it.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-20-2015, 02:45 PM
The only time the Raiders and Chargers sell out is when they play each other. why mess with a good thing? Build upon it.

jhns
02-20-2015, 02:45 PM
I don't get how this would even work. What happens every 4th year when they have to play each other? One teams fans have to forfeit a game on their season tickets? I guess they already do that for international games and in NY. I would be mad if it was guaranteed one less game every few years though.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 02:50 PM
I don't see why one team woudl have to move. Seems its just speculationg talk, OR, its talk with the purpose of scaring fans into agreeing to pay for another stadium. It's not hard to schedule the teams to play in separate stadiums, and when they play one another, they do what the JEts and the Giants do when they play one another... they simply share it.

Because they're both AFC teams, the Giants and Jets are in separate conferences and divisions and that is the only way the league will see it IMHO. Not sure if it is a scare tactic, but the Chargers and Raiders have been more adamant about such a move. The only way this might be different is if one or the other along with the Rams move to Los Angeles. Remember that not long ago the 49ers and Oakland were thinking of sharing a stadium and it would work according to the league because they were not in the same conference or division.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 02:51 PM
Actually... it doesn't come from league sources. IT comes from a source that PFT says its their "NFL sources." N othing about that is official whatsoever.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 02:53 PM
Because they're both AFC teams, the Giants and Jets are in separate conferences and divisions and that is the only way the league will see it IMHO. Not sure if it is a scare tactic, but the Chargers and Raiders have been more adamant about such a move. The only way this might be different is if one or the other along with the Rams move to Los Angeles. Remember that not long ago the 49ers and Oakland were thinking of sharing a stadium and it would work according to the league because they were not in the same conference or division.

So what difference does that make, Lan? They play each other 2 times a season, in the same stadium. ONe team will get the home ticket sales for the game they designate as their home game, and next the other team does. Its pretty simple. I don't see what difference it makes that both teams are in the same conference/division. That hasn't been explained.

DenBronx
02-20-2015, 03:13 PM
Looks like there's a new thread on this topic now. Lol

TXBRONC
02-20-2015, 03:18 PM
I have a hard time seeing this swap. It would be funny to watch obnoxious twit Charger fans come completely unglued.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 03:23 PM
Actually... it doesn't come from league sources. IT comes from a source that PFT says its their "NFL sources." N othing about that is official whatsoever.

This was not the only article in which this was mentioned and was based off so-called sources NFL and League sort of play into one and the same. It's also how the NFL has handled joint stadiums in the past or planned to, no reason to suspect differently so while the article is not absolute and comes from a tabloid more then true news source I do believe it holds credibility at this stage, now that doesn't mean it won't change or that the league won't be more apt for a Rams/Raiders move.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 03:29 PM
So what difference does that make, Lan? They play each other 2 times a season, in the same stadium. ONe team will get the home ticket sales for the game they designate as their home game, and next the other team does. Its pretty simple. I don't see what difference it makes that both teams are in the same conference/division. That hasn't been explained.

That is how the league deals with these sort of things I believe Rav, not me. It's a league thing, that is why they were fine with the NYG/NYJ's sharing a stadium, that why they were cool with the 49ers/Raiders sharing a new stadium when that was discussed not long ago. I am just stating what I've read, and in a way I see the sense of it though many don't, look at it as a team getting a fresh slate, it was obviously good for Seattle.

chazoe60
02-20-2015, 03:34 PM
I think having division rivals share a stadium would be must see tv, especially the Raiders and Chargers. The stands would be more entertaining than the games.

The stabbings alone would be worth the price of admission.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 03:39 PM
The stabbings alone would be worth the price of admission.

Unless your one of the victims...lol.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 03:42 PM
That is how the league deals with these sort of things I believe Rav, not me. It's a league thing, that is why they were fine with the NYG/NYJ's sharing a stadium, that why they were cool with the 49ers/Raiders sharing a new stadium when that was discussed not long ago. I am just stating what I've read, and in a way I see the sense of it though many don't, look at it as a team getting a fresh slate, it was obviously good for Seattle.

Yeah.. but we've never seen two teams from the same conference ask to share a stadium before. Giants/jets...San Fran/Oakland...were never in the same conference to begin with... so I don't know that we really have a precedent for this. It seems that we've seen teams share stadiums, and that shouldn't change simply because they are in the same conference..... nor division. I can't see how it would make one bit of difference.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 03:44 PM
Yeah.. but we've never seen two teams from the same conference ask to share a stadium before. Giants/jets...San Fran/Oakland...were never in the same conference to begin with... so I don't know that we really have a precedent for this. It seems that we've seen teams share stadiums, and that shouldn't change simply because they are in the same conference..... nor division. I can't see how it would make one bit of difference.

Playoffs is the ONLY thing I can see make a difference. But how often has two teams from the same division, gone to the playoffs while BOTH have earned a home field advantage over the team they were playing? The second team making it into the playoffs would be a wildcard...thus having to go to the away stadium. If they happen to play the same team in their division, then that's just a plus.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 03:50 PM
Yeah.. but we've never seen two teams from the same conference ask to share a stadium before. Giants/jets...San Fran/Oakland...were never in the same conference to begin with... so I don't know that we really have a precedent for this. It seems that we've seen teams share stadiums, and that shouldn't change simply because they are in the same conference..... nor division. I can't see how it would make one bit of difference.

Good point, it could be nothing more then just one person's opinion on the matter too.

That said, I think the fact that it matters might have more to do with scheduling then actually sharing space; it's really not hard to build a stadium with two separate home team locker rooms and another for visiting teams. Twice a year they play each other in the same setting? Two times a year the same teams will visit to play one team or the other, whereas by one being AFCW and NFCW then you get to see Denver, Oakland, Kansas City, St. Louis, San Francisco and Seattle yearly and could cause more gross revenue in regards the television and attendance.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 03:55 PM
Good point, it could be nothing more then just one person's opinion on the matter too.

That said, I think the fact that it matters might have more to do with scheduling then actually sharing space; it's really not hard to build a stadium with two separate home team locker rooms and another for visiting teams. Twice a year they play each other in the same setting? Two times a year the same teams will visit to play one team or the other, whereas by one being AFCW and NFCW then you get to see Denver, Oakland, Kansas City, St. Louis, San Francisco and Seattle yearly and could cause more gross revenue in regards the teams and stadium.

It can't be that hard to schedule, either. One team is away, and one team is home. One team is away for two weeks in a row, the other is home 2 weeks in a row. BOTH teams could be away at the same time. Division teams usually play the near same schedule when it comes to teams agains, but it's not always the same as to where its played.

Until someone actually shows me that there is a BIG reason that two conference teams can't share a stadium, I'm going to just believe this to be rumor and conjecture. I can't imagine the NFL going through the trouble of moving two teams just for the sake of moving them. If they add an LA team, then the LA team should go to the conference and division of the team that they take the place of. They can't add 2 more teams, as that would REALY **** up the divisions.

weazel
02-20-2015, 03:57 PM
I think every team should play in the same stadium and the football should be made of cheese.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 03:58 PM
I think every team should play in the same stadium and the football should be made of cheese.

Cheese? No no.. made of BACON!!!

weazel
02-20-2015, 04:07 PM
Cheese? No no.. made of BACON!!!

well now you're being crazy

Lancane
02-20-2015, 04:08 PM
Cheese? No no.. made of BACON!!!

No way, some of them big boys would eat that **** up and the game would be over in like 5 min. :lol:

MileHighCrew
02-20-2015, 04:11 PM
merged threads

weazel
02-20-2015, 04:14 PM
merged threads

I agree... it should be made of cheese AND bacon. MHC is a thinker!

DenBronx
02-20-2015, 04:21 PM
Threads are always interesting when they are merged. You get to see the true timeline. Lol

Lancane
02-20-2015, 04:42 PM
It can't be that hard to schedule, either. One team is away, and one team is home. One team is away for two weeks in a row, the other is home 2 weeks in a row. BOTH teams could be away at the same time. Division teams usually play the near same schedule when it comes to teams agains, but it's not always the same as to where its played.

Until someone actually shows me that there is a BIG reason that two conference teams can't share a stadium, I'm going to just believe this to be rumor and conjecture. I can't imagine the NFL going through the trouble of moving two teams just for the sake of moving them. If they add an LA team, then the LA team should go to the conference and division of the team that they take the place of. They can't add 2 more teams, as that would REALY **** up the divisions.

I believe the league will see two divisional teams more then simply conference as conflictive to be honest Rav, especially considering their stance on money and competiveness to drive a stronger market. If both teams remain as is then you'll have several of the same teams playing multiple contests at one venue, no matter the home team and not only within the division, it could stagnate the Los Angeles Market. Whereas by changing one to a different conference which makes sense then you open that market by diversity and possibly more primetime games. Actually I am all for the Chargers to go to the NFCW and the Cardinals to come to the AFCW, Denver plays Arizona every off-season anyways and have a pretty good base in the state. I don't see the Chargers staying as, as paramount as Denver, Kansas City and Oakland but that is me.

BroncoJoe
02-20-2015, 05:19 PM
I believe the league will see two divisional teams more then simply conference as conflictive to be honest Rav, especially considering their stance on money and competiveness to drive a stronger market. If both teams remain as is then you'll have several of the same teams playing multiple contests at one venue, no matter the home team and not only within the division, it could stagnate the Los Angeles Market. Whereas by changing one to a different conference which makes sense then you open that market by diversity and possibly more primetime games. Actually I am all for the Chargers to go to the NFCW and the Cardinals to come to the AFCW, Denver plays Arizona every off-season anyways and have a pretty good base in the state. I don't see the Chargers staying as, as paramount as Denver, Kansas City and Oakland but that is me.

Now that's a good point, and a very good reason as to why they'd move one to the other conference.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 06:26 PM
Now that's a good point, and a very good reason as to why they'd move one to the other conference.

Ok.. so Denver, and KC both play ther twice a year. That really a reason to completely change rivalies? I personally don't think that's a very good reason, that's just A reason that someone came up with.

Lancane
02-20-2015, 06:35 PM
Ok.. so Denver, and KC both play ther twice a year. That really a reason to completely change rivalies? I personally don't think that's a very good reason, that's just A reason that someone came up with.

LOL... Stubborn to the end. :laugh:

It would destroy the market for both teams Rav. We're talking every year Denver, Kansas City play their twice and then twice a year they meet at the same stadium for their own in division contest? Whereas changing one to the NFC, you then have San Francisco hated by LA and Seattle hated by all coming twice a year, then St. Louis who many feel screwed LA? Yeah, I think that is more practically sound from a business standpoint. And if the Chargers left is it that big of a loss? I think Denver, KC and Oakland are more invested in that concern.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 07:08 PM
LOL... Stubborn to the end. :laugh:

It would destroy the market for both teams Rav. We're talking every year Denver, Kansas City play their twice and then twice a year they meet at the same stadium for their own in division contest? Whereas changing one to the NFC, you then have San Francisco hated by LA and Seattle hated by all coming twice a year, then St. Louis who many feel screwed LA? Yeah, I think that is more practically sound from a business standpoint. And if the Chargers left is it that big of a loss? I think Denver, KC and Oakland are more invested in that concern.

Explain to me how it will destroy their markets, again? Because this didn't give a single way as to how that happened when you have the same teams play in interdivision rivalries as we've had over the last 50 years. What differnce does it make that KC and Denver play at the same stadium against the Raiders as they do the Chargers? Explain how that's different than the Jets playing in the same stadium and the Giants. How does the different conferences BUILD markets where being in the same conference destroys them...when charger fans will go to charger games and raider fans will go to raider games.

ACTUALLY.. when you think about it, it will SAVE that stadium since BOTH markets are interested in watching the other AFCW Teams play, live. SO two teams that are having a hard time fill their stadium will now share the ticket sales so that oakland fans can now go watch the Chargers vs Broncos...two teams in their own division. That sounds smarter to me than thinking that this will somehow "destroy" their individual markets.

These are two teams that already could not fill their own stadiums,and thus having to combine the funds. Seems that if that's the case, the thought that the sharing would "destroy" their markets is pretty moot. They need help in filling the stadium. Putting two different fanbases to fill ONE stadium seems to be a way of SAVING their market and their team, not destroying it.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-20-2015, 07:15 PM
There's 30 million people in LA county.

Ravage!!!
02-20-2015, 07:23 PM
There's 30 million people in LA county.

Yeah, and unfortunately that county has forfeited two NFL teams due to lack of interest in filling a 80,000 seat stadium.

So LA will get a team because of this fact of 30 million people, but that most probably will be the Rams again.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-20-2015, 07:28 PM
Yeah, and unfortunately that county has forfeited two NFL teams due to lack of interest in filling a 80,000 seat stadium.

So LA will get a team because of this fact of 30 million people, but that most probably will be the Rams again.

The Raiders did fine there.

BroncoWave
02-20-2015, 07:30 PM
Bookmarking this thread so that if all of this actually happens, I can come back and laugh at Rav. :D

Timmy!
02-20-2015, 08:29 PM
Welcome to the Suckoseum.

Davii
02-20-2015, 08:59 PM
Personally, I think this would be a great idea for people that live in LA County. You get two teams and only have to foot the bill for one stadium. Less chance of losing football again as well.

It won't happen though. Kroenke has already bought land, pushed through all the studies required by the city, county, and state (traffic patterns, impact on area. Etc) and so on. These things take a lot of time to get done.

Chances are, if any team moves to LA in the near future it'll be the Rams. SD will fold and pay for a new stadium like they did for the Padres. God only knows about Oak town. They might not, and the mew 9er stadium might have the coty and/or county tapped.

OrangeHoof
02-20-2015, 09:12 PM
The football team most Angelenos care about is the Mexican National team and the futbol is round.

And if the football is made of cheese, we need to make sure it isn't underinflated where one team might have an unfair advantage.

If the Raiders get a separate locker room for the Chargers, it will have to come with backed up sewage just so they can keep that home field "feel".

Lastly, I think the NFL should move the Houston Astros to the AFCW and tell them they can't use a designated hitter after they've built a whole lineup of DHs.

Pudge
02-20-2015, 09:57 PM
The football team most Angelenos care about is the Mexican National team and the futbol is round.

And if the football is made of cheese, we need to make sure it isn't underinflated where one team might have an unfair advantage.

If the Raiders get a separate locker room for the Chargers, it will have to come with backed up sewage just so they can keep that home field "feel".

Lastly, I think the NFL should move the Houston Astros to the AFCW and tell them they can't use a designated hitter after they've built a whole lineup of DHs.

High fived for the sewage. Should have stopped while ahead.

ShaneFalco
02-20-2015, 10:47 PM
Rams aint moving if this is for real. Kroenke can sell the team jet, spit on the fans, doesnt matter with two teams trying to block his move. The NFL will not allow the Rams to move when you have the Chargers and Raiders moving. I wouldnt be suprised if they now call these two teams the SoCal Raiders, or SoCal Chargers, as to appease the entire area and keep their fanbases intact

I personally hope Kroenke sells the rams to STL owners now. I want nothing to do with an owner that buys a team with the intent to move it while poisoning the well every he chance he gets.

The STL stadium proposal is also moving very fast. And i would hate to see Kroenke as the owner still when the Rams are given a brand new stadium on the Riverfront. Frankly Kroenke doesnt deserve it. Spanos spent 12+ years trying to keep the Chargers in SD, Kroenke spent 4. If you can even call it that.

Raiders mention they might be changing to NFC west.

So my Rams could join the AFC West with the Chiefs and Denver :). I think it would be pretty cool to have a Chiefs vs Rams rivalry again. Even better to be able to watch my lambs play in Denver once a year :)

ShaneFalco
02-20-2015, 11:02 PM
One thing I hate though is the Rams have an indoor stadium. I hate us playing there and I always prefer us playing on grass.

New Rams stadium proposal is an outdoor stadium right on the river. Which is crazy considering how hot and humid and how freezing it can get in STL. But they are making it outdoor for the MLS team as well.

http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/New_St_Louis_Rams_Stadium_Photo_Artist_Rendering.j pg

DenBronx
02-21-2015, 01:43 AM
I kind of hope the Rams move to LA. It would sabotage Oakland fans dream of them moving back to LA then Davis just might move them to San Antonio after all. Haaaahahahahahaha

DenBronx
02-21-2015, 01:44 AM
One thing I hate though is the Rams have an indoor stadium. I hate us playing there and I always prefer us playing on grass.

New Rams stadium proposal is an outdoor stadium right on the river. Which is crazy considering how hot and humid and how freezing it can get in STL. But they are making it outdoor for the MLS team as well.

http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/New_St_Louis_Rams_Stadium_Photo_Artist_Rendering.j pg

Yeah that's not going to happen. STL is a terrible market for a football team.

Davii
02-21-2015, 01:55 AM
Again, the Rams proposal is at least two to three years ahead of this idea. The Rams are still the LA front runners. A 60k seat stadium proposal in STL isn't changing that.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 01:57 AM
Again the NFL will not vote to move the Rams while the Chargers and Raiders are planning to move. Especially while St. Louis wants to keep the Rams with a brand new riverfront stadium. The Chargers and Raiders cannot not even get a stadium in their own cities, which STL is. You can try to rip on the seat count of the stadium all you want. At least they have a stadium in the pipeline compared to San Diego and Oakland. Its a joke to act like Kroenke is farther along in the process, when the city the team resides in, is proposing a stadium while the other teams cities do not. The NFL will decide the outcome, not Kroenke.

St. Louis Rams are mid market team, that are not going anywhere. Except maybe to the AFC West.

Davii
02-21-2015, 02:04 AM
Again the NFL will not vote to move the Rams while the Chargers and Raiders are planning to move. Especially while St. Louis wants to keep the Rams.

St. Louis Rams are mid market team, that are not going anywhere.

Please show where there is a plan. Please find evidence of plans being filed with the NFL, the city of Los Angeles, LA County, please show me evidence of a land purchase, evidence of funding procurement, etc.

Fact: there is no plan to move the Raiders or Chargers to LA. There is an idea.

Fact: there is ALSO an idea about moving your precious lambs. A plan that includes a land purchase for a stadium, zoning approval for said plan, required studies completed for approval, funding plan in place, and so on.

Reality Shane. Check in sometime. Your team might not move, but they are still the front runners. Period. Deal.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 02:06 AM
They are not a front runner when st. louis has a stadium in the pipeline, while san diego and oakland does not.

This will come down to NFL votes, not the whims of Kroenke.

Without a doubt, i believe Kroenke wants to move them, i believe he has wanted to move them since he took over ownership.

I just dont think the NFL will allow him to abandon a new stadium in St. Louis when you have SOCAL getting two teams.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 02:08 AM
Please show where there is a plan. Please find evidence of plans being filed with the NFL, the city of Los Angeles, LA County, please show me evidence of a land purchase, evidence of funding procurement, etc.



The Chargers and Raiders bought the land already.

Apparently Spanos has been planning for this for a couple years now.

Davii
02-21-2015, 02:10 AM
They are not a front runner when st. louis has a stadium in the pipeline, while san diego and oakland does not.

This will come down to NFL votes, not the whims of Kroenke.

You're grasping at straws. This IDEA is YEARS from fruition. Sorry Shane. Your shitty team is still the most likely to go to LA.

This will come down to votes, and Kroenke's plan will be up for a vote LONG before this plan will even be approved by Los Angeles.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 02:12 AM
St. Louis isnt going to just build a stadium to have a stadium with no team playing in it.

I dont think Kreonke is eithier.

At the end of the day , STL, will have football. And i think it will be the Rams, with a new owner.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-21-2015, 02:14 AM
I read recently that SD was the front runner.

Davii
02-21-2015, 02:16 AM
They are not a front runner when st. louis has a stadium in the pipeline, while san diego and oakland does not.

This will come down to NFL votes, not the whims of Kroenke.

Without a doubt, i believe Kroenke wants to move them, i believe he has wanted to move them since he took over ownership.

I just dont think the NFL will allow him to abandon a new stadium in St. Louis when you have SOCAL getting two teams.

I guess you missed the fact that they both also have stadium plans for their respective cities?

Yes, yes you did. Shane, I see this garbage on local news daily. The take here in Southern Cal is the Carson proposal has nearly no chance and is merely a way for both teams to force a previous plan in their how cities to be approved. Other reasons this has nearly no chance is the location just off the 405.

Davii
02-21-2015, 02:17 AM
I read recently that SD was the front runner.

LA news is what I get here, they disagree.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 02:22 AM
I guess you missed the fact that they both also have stadium plans for their respective cities?

Go look at SDs mayors response. its hilarious. They will not be in SD for much longer.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 02:26 AM
And SD does not have a Stadium proposal other then Carson in LA, so could you could post what you are talking about?

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 02:37 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16373/st-louis-stadium-project-takes-another-step

Nixon is holding weekly conferences keeping media up to date about the stadium process.

Do you see the SD , Oakland mayor doing this?

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 03:09 AM
• If the NFL eventually must choose between Inglewood and Carson, then Carson has the edge. Why? When in doubt, go with the best cash flow. Go with the surest thing financially. A two-team stadium would generate more cash and stand on firmer financial ground than a one-team stadium.

• Relocation fees: The NFL can extract a relocation fee from one team … or collect relocation payments from two teams. Do the math.

• 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. The Chargers and Raiders have been stuck in old multipurpose-model era venues for too long. With the teams having little chance to get new, publicly financed stadiums in San Diego and Oakland, the Carson stadium solves a longstanding NFL problem.

• If the NFL has to make a choice here, then why would they abandon a market (St. Louis) that’s offering to build a new stadium for the second time in 25 years? Why allow Kroenke to jump ahead of Spanos and Davis, who have been waiting much longer than Kroenke for stadium relief? Why reward the one owner, Kroenke, with the right to move if he rejects a good-faith effort to build him a new stadium in St. Louis?

• Instead of granting the Los Angeles territory to a man (Kroenke) who played a major role in the abandonment of Southern California by helping Georgia Frontiere cash in with the Rams in St. Louis, the NFL has an opportunity to take care of two California-based franchises that have more pressing needs for a new stadium. As one NFL executive told me several months ago: the league prefers that the California problem be solved in California — and not by stripping a franchise from another region. Well, here’s the league’s chance to implement a California Solution.

• Three markets are in danger of losing their NFL franchise. But only one of the three markets, St. Louis, is trying to build a new stadium. So let me get this straight: the NFL would prefer to have Kroenke walk away from a new stadium in St. Louis and keep Spanos and Davis locked into deteriorating stadiums that should have been replaced many years ago? That’s asinine.:beer:

Ravage!!!
02-21-2015, 09:30 AM
:beer:

Thats just an opinion piece, that doesn't prove anything.

St. Louis is absolutely one of the front runners for the LA team. They have been for years. Designing a stadium that holds 25% less than everyone else in the NFL doesn't change that fact. It's pretty telling when a team has to build a stadium that holds 20 THOUSAND people less, just to fill the seats and not get block outs.

Ravage!!!
02-21-2015, 09:32 AM
The Raiders did fine there.

WHen? When they had to move?

Ravage!!!
02-21-2015, 09:33 AM
Bookmarking this thread so that if all of this actually happens, I can come back and laugh at Rav. :D

THat makes sense, because even if it happens, that would mean my opinion of it being ridiculous would change??? :confused:

BroncoWave
02-21-2015, 09:41 AM
THat makes sense, because even if it happens, that would mean my opinion of it being ridiculous would change??? :confused:

I'm just messing with you man, hence the smiley at the end. More than likely, I will completely have forgotten about this thread by the time all of this actually takes place. :lol:

Ravage!!!
02-21-2015, 09:49 AM
I'm just messing with you man, hence the smiley at the end. More than likely, I will completely have forgotten about this thread by the time all of this actually takes place. :lol:

I would, unless they actually make one of the AFCW teams MOVE to the NFC over something like this....than the entire "WTF" thread would come back to me.

BroncoWave
02-21-2015, 09:57 AM
I would, unless they actually make one of the AFCW teams MOVE to the NFC over something like this....than the entire "WTF" thread would come back to me.

I mean, it wouldn't shock me too much. There is precedent for teams changing conferences. It's not like San Diego would be being FORCED to do it. They could easily just stay in SD if they didn't want to change conferences to move to LA.

Ravage!!!
02-21-2015, 10:01 AM
I mean, it wouldn't shock me too much. There is precedent for teams changing conferences. It's not like San Diego would be being FORCED to do it. They could easily just stay in SD if they didn't want to change conferences to move to LA.

The Only time that has happened is when they added teams to the NFL. So the precedent hasn't been set for THIS circumstance, just as there isn't precedence to assume that one would HAVE to change purely because NY is sharing a stadium.

But like you said, if there is a "threat" of forcing them to move, maybe the city bucks up to pay for a stadium. Which to me, sounds like what it could be... simply throw out the rumor so that fans take a second consideration.

BroncoJoe
02-21-2015, 10:06 AM
Ok.. so Denver, and KC both play ther twice a year. That really a reason to completely change rivalies? I personally don't think that's a very good reason, that's just A reason that someone came up with.

It's more than that. The teams play the same schedule/teams every year except two games.

Ravage!!!
02-21-2015, 10:08 AM
It's more than that. The teams play the same schedule/teams every year except two games.

I'm well aware. I made that point. But most of the time, we share the same schedule, but don't always bring the same teams home. Meaning, we can all play the colts, but not every one of the teams will play them at home. So whta is the difference if Raider play them at home, and SD plays them in Indy?

BroncoJoe
02-21-2015, 10:10 AM
I'm well aware. I made that point. But most of the time, we share the same schedule, but don't always bring the same teams home. Meaning, we can all play the colts, but not every one of the teams will play them at home. So whta is the difference if Raider play them at home, and SD plays them in Indy?

To be clear, I'm not taking sides. Frankly, I don't really give a damn! I just thought that was an interesting point considering the "same opponent" aspect, and worthy of discussion.

Ravage!!!
02-21-2015, 10:29 AM
To be clear, I'm not taking sides. Frankly, I don't really give a damn! I just thought that was an interesting point considering the "same opponent" aspect, and worthy of discussion.

Yeah.. I gotcha on that (although I HATE the idea of moving another AFCW team to a different conference....rivals are important). But I dont see how having the same schedule could be a deterant. It's not like the NFL ever uses any rhyme or reason as to why one team goes away or stays home. Look how many times in a row we have had to go to NE.

BroncoWave
02-21-2015, 10:45 AM
Yeah.. I gotcha on that (although I HATE the idea of moving another AFCW team to a different conference....rivals are important). But I dont see how having the same schedule could be a deterant. It's not like the NFL ever uses any rhyme or reason as to why one team goes away or stays home. Look how many times in a row we have had to go to NE.

They actually use a very specific formula. You do see odd little runs of a team playing a certain team on the road 2-3 times in a row, but if you look at the last 13 years that they have been using this schedule formula, it winds up being 50/50 home and away for each team you play.

Lancane
02-21-2015, 11:00 AM
Again the NFL will not vote to move the Rams while the Chargers and Raiders are planning to move. Especially while St. Louis wants to keep the Rams with a brand new riverfront stadium. The Chargers and Raiders cannot not even get a stadium in their own cities, which STL is. You can try to rip on the seat count of the stadium all you want. At least they have a stadium in the pipeline compared to San Diego and Oakland. Its a joke to act like Kroenke is farther along in the process, when the city the team resides in, is proposing a stadium while the other teams cities do not. The NFL will decide the outcome, not Kroenke.

St. Louis Rams are mid market team, that are not going anywhere. Except maybe to the AFC West.

I don't see the league allowing the Rams into the AFCW, they've won the NFCW title too many times and Championships via that division, which has become a very tough division in many people's views, the team on the outs in that aspect is the Cardinals in my honest opinion.

I think people are forgetting that Kroenke is one owner, this comes down to the owners and with the current standoffishness with the elected officials in San Diego and Oakland over new stadiums it makes those two teams a priority. That is what made the Vikings front runners to be moved a couple years back when they had similar troubles. And St. Louis despite Kroenke's whims is still a valuable market, just not as much as Los Angeles. However, the league also knows that the Raiders and Chargers have more history in California then the Rams, especially the Raiders.

The NFL wants to expand further but right now there are markets the NFL is worried about losing or not having and are worried about teams that are struggling to meet the standards of the league, the Rams are in neither category. Kroenke personally has long wanted to move the team, it was suggested four years ago that Kroenke a long-time friend of Pat Bowlen's wanted to explore purchasing the Broncos from Bowlen using the Rams as part of the price. But Bowlen had no interest, of course his family owns enough of Colorado's Pro Teams it was no surprise that he wanted ownership of the NFL team here. He sees Los Angeles as a better market, but the St. Louis market is still solid, this comes more of a personal reasoning then actual need like the Chargers or Raiders may have. The Oakland market is in flux as is the San Diego, many in Oakland will likely turn to San Francisco, some will continue to be Raiders fans and Chargers fans would remain loyal even give the switch to a market two hours away, the Rams can do neither.

The league is worried about the Jaguars, Chargers and Raiders more then the Rams from all I have read and Kroenke's push to move from a viable market has caused some NFL owners to worry because the St. Louis market is still better then several others, they only have three viable markets at this stage, Los Angeles, Toronto and London. The league is also looking at Oklahoma City, Portland and Honolulu as possible expansions in the U.S. Market. They are worried about the state of the Great Lakes, particularly Cleveland, Detroit and Cincinnati, but all have very loyal fan bases despite the state of the region and the state of those teams which makes them less a priority though the Brown's ownership is in question right now but they want to keep the market.

IMHO if the Chargers and Raiders can come up with a suitable joint venture that looks beneficial to the league then they will win among NFL owners for the rights to the Los Angeles market over the Rams. Kroenke seems infatuated with leaving the St. Louis area and seems has little to do with the Rams overall and is based off his desire to be further west. And these are all things that will be considered by the owners before this goes anywhere. Also, let's not forget that the Jaguars could be in the mix, despite their new owners wishes to stay in Jacksonville the market has continued to be iffy.

In the end, it will be who will anti up. Will San Diego? Oakland? St. Louis? or could the Jaguars be victim of a poorer market?

Denver Native (Carol)
02-21-2015, 11:08 AM
LOS ANGELES -- If St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke had not announced plans in January to build an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood, the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders would still be quietly trying to find stadium solution in their home markets.

They would not have partnered to buy a 168-acre parcel of land near the 405 Freeway in Carson, California, to build a $1.7 billion stadium, according to Mark Fabiani, the Chargers' special counsel and longtime leader on stadium issues, who spoke to ESPN.com on Friday.

And they would not have put their local municipalities on the clock to find enough public funding for a new stadium by the end of next season or else.

But Kroenke's power play nearly three months ago changed everything.

"We deliberately changed our strategy in the wake of what Kroenke did," Fabiani said. "When this opportunity to create an alternative came along we decided to seize it.

rest - http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/12355910/stan-kroenke-power-play-put-chargers-raiders-notice

Ravage!!!
02-21-2015, 11:36 AM
They actually use a very specific formula. You do see odd little runs of a team playing a certain team on the road 2-3 times in a row, but if you look at the last 13 years that they have been using this schedule formula, it winds up being 50/50 home and away for each team you play.

Yeah.. uhmm..... as they said when Fox asked why we had to go to NE so many years in a row and the response is... "It will work itself out." As if that's a fair reply.

To be honest... I don't really know why they wo uld need a "mathmatical forumula" to simply look down at the sheet of paper and say "Huh, this team has gone here the last two years ina row... I guess we should switch that up."

I mean, its VERY VERY easy to get a 50/50 split if I'm going to look at the matchup over 20 years. I can flip a coin and get that same %.

BroncoWave
02-21-2015, 12:21 PM
Yeah.. uhmm..... as they said when Fox asked why we had to go to NE so many years in a row and the response is... "It will work itself out." As if that's a fair reply.

To be honest... I don't really know why they wo uld need a "mathmatical forumula" to simply look down at the sheet of paper and say "Huh, this team has gone here the last two years ina row... I guess we should switch that up."

I mean, its VERY VERY easy to get a 50/50 split if I'm going to look at the matchup over 20 years. I can flip a coin and get that same %.

If only it were that easy. If you flip one game because a team has had to go somewhere 2 years in a row, then you have to flip another game on each of the team's schedules to keep it 8 home and 8 away, then that starts a big chain reaction. The formula they have in place works just fine. If you look at the next coule of years, we are projected to host NE the next couple of times we play. It all works itself out.

OrangeHoof
02-21-2015, 01:16 PM
The Rams should build their new stadium in Ferguson. Call it the Michael Brown Memorial Stadium.

I do think a STL Rams - KC Chiefs rivalry in the same division makes sense.

Davii
02-21-2015, 01:47 PM
And SD does not have a Stadium proposal other then Carson in LA, so could you could post what you are talking about?

No. Do your own work because you're obviously ill informed. The Chargers have three stadium proposals including this one. I'm telling you what I see and hear on the news here, you want to read about go dig it up. Google exists for a reason.

San Diego is working to keep the Chargers and most likely will. They dont have to build the NFL's smallest stadium to do it either.

OrangeHoof
02-21-2015, 03:50 PM
I didn't know SD/Jack Murphy/Qualcom was considered a dump now. They kept holding Super Bowls there. What happened? Too close to Mexico?

Lancane
02-21-2015, 03:53 PM
The Rams should build their new stadium in Ferguson. Call it the Michael Brown Memorial Stadium.

I do think a STL Rams - KC Chiefs rivalry in the same division makes sense.

Problem is your moving an established Champion from the Conference they won a Championship in and for not long ago. So I highly doubt they'd be the one's that would be part of the AFCW, just like I don't believe they'd try to move the Raiders, Chiefs or Broncos from the AFC.

Lancane
02-21-2015, 03:56 PM
I didn't know SD/Jack Murphy/Qualcom was considered a dump now. They kept holding Super Bowls there. What happened? Too close to Mexico?

The renovations they did helped renew some life, but the league wants all teams to have more updated stadiums. According to several outlets the residents of Los Angeles are more excited about the possibility of the Chargers and Raiders then the Rams coming back.

Davii
02-21-2015, 07:54 PM
The renovations they did helped renew some life, but the league wants all teams to have more updated stadiums. According to several outlets the residents of Los Angeles are more excited about the possibility of the Chargers and Raiders then the Rams coming back.

As a resident I'd be more excited about it to, but that doesn't mean it's what's most likely.

DenBronx
02-21-2015, 08:11 PM
I think the Cardinals makes more sense in the AFCW then the Rams.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 08:16 PM
No. Do your own work because you're obviously ill informed. The Chargers have three stadium proposals including this one. I'm telling you what I see and hear on the news here, you want to read about go dig it up. Google exists for a reason.

San Diego is working to keep the Chargers and most likely will. They dont have to build the NFL's smallest stadium to do it either.
so i looked at the plans. Not proposals, as they havent even gone that far yet.

One is asking the hotels in SD to bear the load and none of them want it.... another they have to deal with eco terrorists.

All so far away they are not even considered stadium proposals, but plans.

By all means, keep taking shots at me and the city of st. louis. Rams are not going be to moving.



Arash Markazi - A big factor in partnering is NFL help. If they'll give $250 million for a 1-team stadium, they'll give $500 million for a 2-team stadium.


If the Chargers and Raiders both move to LA, one would go to the NFC. I'm hearing both would be OK with it in order to make the move happen.


Difference between Carson & Inglewood proposals is the Rams are technically not involved in Inglewood. Chargers & Raiders all in on Carson.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 08:21 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-TjQKTCYAArA1i.jpg


Carson councilman Albert Robles with a custom Chargers-Raiders jersey

Lancane
02-21-2015, 08:24 PM
I think the Cardinals makes more sense in the AFCW then the Rams.

Agree completely, I hope that the Chargers move to the NFCW and Cardinals come to the AFCW. Keep Oakland in the AFC.

DenBronx
02-21-2015, 08:25 PM
The race for LA. Rams are in the mix...


http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=12354894&src=desktop

DenBronx
02-21-2015, 08:28 PM
I think the Cardinals makes more sense in the AFCW then the Rams.

Agree completely, I hope that the Chargers move to the NFCW and Cardinals come to the AFCW. Keep Oakland in the AFC.

Thats the only move that seems logical. No way you can break up the SF vs Seattle rivalry and Rams are too far away. Plus Arizona has a nicer field than the Rams. Grass field and playing in Arizona would be much better for our Broncos.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 08:30 PM
Agree completely, I hope that the Chargers move to the NFCW and Cardinals come to the AFCW. Keep Oakland in the AFC.

i would love the Rams in the AFC west. Would be awesome for me. The KC vs STL Rivalry is real even without sports teams.


Thats the only move that seems logical. No way you can break up the SF vs Seattle rivalry and Rams are too far away. Plus Arizona has a nicer field than the Rams. Grass field and playing in Arizona would be much better for our Broncos.

2 hrs farther then KC? Driving....


The AFC west will be renamed to the AFC MIDWEST :)

Lancane
02-21-2015, 08:34 PM
i would love the Rams in the AFC west. Would be awesome for me. The KC vs STL Rivalry is real even without sports teams.

I understand Shane, the reason I don't think it's likely is because the Cardinals and the Chargers are the only two in their divisions who have not won a Super Bowl, it would make sense to give them a fresh start in a new division, not to mention I think having NFCC Flags in your stadium and your in the AFCW is kind of corny...my opinion of course.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 08:36 PM
I understand Shane, the reason I don't think it's likely is because the Cardinals and the Chargers are the only two in their divisions who have not won a Super Bowl, it would make sense to give them a fresh start in a new division, not to mention I think having NFCC Flags in your stadium and your in the AFCW is kind of corny...my opinion of course.

yea out of the two NFC west teams i think the Cardinals would be the 2nd choice.

ShaneFalco
02-21-2015, 08:38 PM
The Rams should build their new stadium in Ferguson. Call it the Michael Brown Memorial Stadium.

I do think a STL Rams - KC Chiefs rivalry in the same division makes sense.

The funny thing is, Ferguson is about 8-10 blocks away from the new stadium location

It could do alot to help that area to be honest.

Screw KC! Everytime the Rams and Chiefs play, they play for the Governors Cup. And the winning team holds it until the next matchup

OrangeHoof
02-21-2015, 09:21 PM
The Rams winning the Super Bowl seems like ancient history, as ancient as the Montreal Expos. I'm not thinking about how it benefits/hurts he Broncos. I think it would be a big boost for both Missouri franchises. Keep the Raiders since I think the rivalries with the Raiders are stronger in both KC and Denver. That's how I see it.

And, in case you've forgotten, Arizona has won an NFC Championship more recently than St. Louis has.

Lancane
02-22-2015, 02:37 AM
The Rams winning the Super Bowl seems like ancient history, as ancient as the Montreal Expos. I'm not thinking about how it benefits/hurts he Broncos. I think it would be a big boost for both Missouri franchises. Keep the Raiders since I think the rivalries with the Raiders are stronger in both KC and Denver. That's how I see it.

And, in case you've forgotten, Arizona has won an NFC Championship more recently than St. Louis has.

Rams won in it in 2000 Hoof, it's not that ancient we're not talking Kansas City here who won it back in the day. How does this help both Missouri Franchises? It's the same thing I said to Rav, you'll be looking at schedules with much the same opponents year in and year out, the residents may like the thought of an instate rival but I am sure the league would have issues with the possible television rating dilemmas and the fact that it would cause media repetition for those outlets and look at the Cleveland/Cincinnati thing, it really hasn't helped either team much to be honest. This was brought up when determining if they wanted to re-establish a Cleveland franchise, several owners wanted to move one or the other into a different conference, I believe they were thinking of putting the Lions in the AFCN and then putting the other in the AFCN, the Bengals were the likeliest to move because they never won a Super Bowl nor did they have the same history with the league.

And yes, Arizona did win the NFC not long ago, I mistyped...but they did not win a Super Bowl, and the teams which go do so as the Conference Champions which they represent, the Rams, 49ers, Seahawks, Broncos, Chiefs and Raiders have, Chargers and Cardinals have not.

sneakers
02-23-2015, 05:09 PM
lol raiders will just move back to oakland in 15 years anyways

Jaded
02-23-2015, 09:40 PM
The renovations they did helped renew some life, but the league wants all teams to have more updated stadiums. According to several outlets the residents of Los Angeles are more excited about the possibility of the Chargers and Raiders then the Rams coming back.

This is important, just moving a team there doesn't mean people will show up. As far as I know LA is the only city to lose 2 modern NFL franchises, St Louis is about to join them and nobody talks about the reasons why. . .they don't support the team.

ShaneFalco
02-23-2015, 09:50 PM
thats a load of crap.

Team has the worst record in all NFL for 10 years and the games still have 70-85% attendence.

part of the reason St. Louis is even in the discussion, is because of the lease they signed. Which was completely one sided. And was a desperate attempt to get the Rams to come in the first place.

Davii
02-23-2015, 10:56 PM
So, both teams have openly stated that this is a last resort emergency fallback plan and will only happen if BOTH teams fail to make a deal in their hometown.

So, what's more likely, that two teams will allow their teams to walk at the same time, oh, one of which just elected a new mayor who said he will not be the mayor to lose the Chargers, OR, one team whose billionaire owner already has secured funding, done site surveys, and bought land moves his team instead of playing in the NFL's smallest stadium?

According to a bring the rams back to LA organization that had their head guy interviewed on the news here Kroenke's plan is at least two years ahead of the Chargers/raiders plan.

I don't know what the team will be, don't care because I'll never go to LA again unless I must for some reason, but LA is most likely going to get a team in the next few years, and right now the Rams are the most likely.

Jaded
02-25-2015, 12:30 AM
thats a load of crap.

Team has the worst record in all NFL for 10 years and the games still have 70-85% attendence.

part of the reason St. Louis is even in the discussion, is because of the lease they signed. Which was completely one sided. And was a desperate attempt to get the Rams to come in the first place.

Ok, you support your team better than LA, better?

Wait, who got short sided in that lease?

DenBronx
02-25-2015, 03:15 AM
Inglewood City Council approves 2b stadium plan with Stan Kroenke as an owner. Kroenke is the one that owns the land. Sorry ShaneFalco but your Rams are going to LA!! Bet it's the Rams and Chargers with Oakland on the outside looking in. Lol! Move their asses to San Antonio.

Inglewood approves stadium plans - ESPN (via http://ble.ac/teamstream-) http://teamstre.am/18k03j7

Denver Native (Carol)
02-25-2015, 09:55 AM
INGLEWOOD, Calif. (AP) The city of Inglewood has unanimously and emphatically approved a $2 billion stadium plan backed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke that clears a path for a return to the Los Angeles area of the NFL for the first time in two decades.

But the approval that really matters that of the NFL remains to be obtained.

As does the actual decision of Kroenke to move the team back to Southern California rather than stay in St. Louis, where a rival deal is in the works to keep the team.

Despite the remaining hurdles, Inglewood found it "time to celebrate" as the mayor said after the 5-0 City Council vote late Tuesday.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_27594585/inglewood-considering-approving-plan-la-area-nfl-stadium

Lancane
02-25-2015, 02:05 PM
I don't see the NFL allowing three Los Angeles based teams and remember that the plan for the Chargers and Raiders was a joint venture. However, before celebrating the league has to approve the Rams moving and that has not been given, they could block Kroenke, even force him to sell his franchise. The NFL has continually said they want to keep the St. Louis market, so this isn't done just yet.

ShaneFalco
02-25-2015, 06:55 PM
The NFL isnt forced to hold a vote either. They could delay it until the SD / Raiders situation unfolds as well.



Wait, who got short sided in that lease?

St. Louis did. They offered them options in the lease that no city would agree to, but STL did just to get another NFL team.

Davii
02-25-2015, 09:11 PM
The NFL isnt forced to hold a vote either. They could delay it until the SD / Raiders situation unfolds as well.



St. Louis did. They offered them options in the lease that no city would agree to, but STL did just to get another NFL team.

Kroenke will get a vote when he asks for one. The writing is on the wall Shane. San Diego and Oakland are merely using this as leverage to extort their cities, Kroenke is truly planning this. The fact that he has already secured funding and gotten all the LA approvals he needs speaks volumes.

If you don't see that your team is the front runner to wind up in Los Angeles you're blinding yourself.

Lancane
02-26-2015, 10:16 AM
Kroenke will get a vote when he asks for one. The writing is on the wall Shane. San Diego and Oakland are merely using this as leverage to extort their cities, Kroenke is truly planning this. The fact that he has already secured funding and gotten all the LA approvals he needs speaks volumes.

If you don't see that your team is the front runner to wind up in Los Angeles you're blinding yourself.

Davii you may be right, however there is a lot more to this then simply approving a single stadium proposal. The city of St. Louis is not giving up without a fight, they can still approve a stadium proposal themselves that could endear the league to not be so quick to vacate a market they want to keep and has proven lucrative and successful. Secondly, St. Louis could do what Cleveland did and force the Rams to lose their name, since the teams main success has come and could be tied to the relocation to the city.


League bylaws block teams from moving simply for financial gain, unless they have exhausted all options in their hometown.


Per a source with knowledge of the current dynamics in Southern California, it’s not believed that Kroenke currently has 24 total votes.

If the Raiders and Chargers both of which have a more lustrous history in the league can set forth a proposal that the league sees as a better fit they can still win out over the Rams and Kroenke, if they'll still be the Rams at all.

Davii
02-26-2015, 12:47 PM
Davii you may be right, however there is a lot more to this then simply approving a single stadium proposal. The city of St. Louis is not giving up without a fight, they can still approve a stadium proposal themselves that could endear the league to not be so quick to vacate a market they want to keep and has proven lucrative and successful. Secondly, St. Louis could do what Cleveland did and force the Rams to lose their name, since the teams main success has come and could be tied to the relocation to the city.





If the Raiders and Chargers both of which have a more lustrous history in the league can set forth a proposal that the league sees as a better fit they can still win out over the Rams and Kroenke, if they'll still be the Rams at all.

Building the smallest stadium in the NFL is not the way to keep your team from moving to the second largest media market in the nation.

Raiders have a better history, Chargers don't. St Louis would lose a Court battle for the name as LA had the name first.

I am not saying this is a done deal. I'm saying right now, this second, the Rams are the front runners. Period.

tomjonesrocks
02-26-2015, 03:18 PM
Viewing selfishly, as an SD resident if the Chargers move to LA I could care less.

But out of the division I'm on the fence about. I currently have an opportunity to watch the Broncos in person every year with the current arrangement - though I don't always take it due to being really tired of rooting against the crowd (and the crowd against me), costs of tickets, and the fact that the stadium is a dump with a lot of poor views (which results in a need for higher cost tickets).

OTOH, if the Chargers leave the division there goes that local TV arrangement and I bet I'd see more Broncos games without needing the NFL Ticket.

DenBronx
02-26-2015, 04:00 PM
I think most everyone sees the writing on the wall for the Rams. Noway Kroenke is involved in a new stadium deal and doesn't move the Rams there.

But I believe the Chargers are the 2nd team. If that's the case then no one changes divisions. And that means for us Cali people that we will see more Broncos games!

Jaded
02-26-2015, 05:26 PM
The size of the stadium will matter just as much as the size of market after a few years when LA has lost interest.

Davii
02-26-2015, 11:50 PM
The size of the stadium will matter just as much as the size of market after a few years when LA has lost interest.

Only team with worse attendance numbers than the Rams (total and %) is Minnesota.

ShaneFalco
02-27-2015, 12:31 AM
because they have the worst record of all the nfl for last 10 years.

You act like Rams fans are the reason they dont go to games, and not the product on the field. Who wants to sit around and watch Kellen Clemens? And whatever non factor qb it was last year, i dont even remember his name. Thats how bad he was.

for chrissakes, hockey games sell out in St. louis. Why? Because the Blues win games. They are having a good season again this year :) Go blues!

i was reading an article on a STL website, and they were talking about how some local business guys were getting together to try to buy the Rams from Kroenke.

The desire to keep the Rams in STL is 100% there. The NFL has stated many times it wants to keep the STL market. Until they have a vote, i am not going to trip over any news.

Davii
02-27-2015, 01:14 AM
Hey Shane, everyone supports a winner. Your town hasn't supported that team in a long time. Mo already schooled you on that. Bottom line, terrible attendance, black out games, a currently small stadium, and a proposal to build the smallest in the NFL. Keep telling yourself it all be ok Shaney, someday you might even believe it.

ShaneFalco
02-27-2015, 01:27 AM
Everybody supports a winner?

How about a team that gives 4 playoff appearances in 20 years? And holds the record for the worst record of the last 10 years....

Oh but its those horrible STL sports fans that sell out hockey games. Its their fault. Not the sub par product that has been called a football team.

team doesnt even go above .500 for years and you honestly think its a "lack of support" from the fanbase.

ShaneFalco
02-27-2015, 02:00 AM
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-st-louis-gets-an-unfair-rap-for-nfl-support/article_dc5c1c65-3c97-506f-8b1a-2696c86d9584.html


St. Louis gets an unfair rap for NFL support

Davii
02-27-2015, 02:15 AM
Blah blah blah blah blah. Your team is the front runner to move (back) to LA. Enjoy.

Lancane
02-27-2015, 02:53 PM
Blah blah blah blah blah. Your team is the front runner to move (back) to LA. Enjoy.

Well, all is on hold until Kroenke gets league approval. Don't expect it to be soon either, according to Sirius Sports the several owners want to see if the Chargers and Raiders can create a joint plan and get city approval and measure the two because they do not want to lose the St. Louis market. However, according to some Kroenke will likely be the winner of the Los Angeles sweepstakes but that does not mean that the Chargers and Raiders will not be moving, because the league is not happy with either home city at this time. Some believe should the Rams move, then St. Louis' doors are open and the likely candidate to replace the Rams would be the Chargers (there is already a Facebook page for this), they would remain in the AFC West, St. Louis has proven willing to develop a new stadium and it would add to a long standing rivalry. Also the Raiders are drawing serious interest from investors in Portland, they are the largest metropolitan city with only one professional team.

Albert Breer tweeted this in light of that

Portland is a bigger TV market than Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Indy, Baltimore, San Diego, Nashville, KC, Milwaukee, Cincy, NOLA, Jax, Buffalo.

San Diego and Oakland may have thought they got one up on the owners of both teams, soon they'll find out that that is not the case.

Davii
02-27-2015, 04:10 PM
Portland I could see happening, but no way San Diego loses a team. San Diego will build a new stadium and there's no way the NFL wants to leave there, it's a great super bowl site. STL is truly not a great market. At all. It should be evidence enough that their plan for a new stadium is the smallest in the NFL. That's a laugher.

Lancane
02-27-2015, 07:07 PM
Portland I could see happening, but no way San Diego loses a team. San Diego will build a new stadium and there's no way the NFL wants to leave there, it's a great super bowl site. STL is truly not a great market. At all. It should be evidence enough that their plan for a new stadium is the smallest in the NFL. That's a laugher.

You could be correct Davii though right now I have to disagree, I do not see the NFL caring whether San Diego has an NFL team, their average market in 2014 while greater then Indianapolis and Pittsburgh was worse then Jacksonville, but both Indianapolis and Pittsburgh are more popular nationally. The other possibility could still be Los Angeles, but the NFL does not want to lose the St. Louis market, they are pretty adamant about that, so what becomes the correct course? You keep saying St. Louis is a bad market, in 2004 they had a higher attendance then the Denver which is a marquee market, continuously sold out - in fact it could be argued that during the years they were winning the market is far better as Falco was trying to explain. Neither market is a prime, but the NFL knows that most prime markets give a few like Portland already have a franchise. The NFL doesn't like to be strong armed, they do the strong arming, that is my opinion at least.

As for the Super Bowl argument, it holds no weight. San Diego isn't set to host a Super Bowl for the next few years at least, hell the last one was what 2003? Twelve years ago. This year it's in San Francisco, then Houston and then Minneapolis. We've now had Denver in the mix for one so was Indianapolis this year, Detroit and New York/New Jersey hosted one, so the idea that the league cares about that aspect is sort of comical, if St. Louis developed a great facility then they could be hosting one, I don't see that as a factor, I wouldn't be surprised if one here soon was held in Hawaii or internationally.

Davii
02-27-2015, 08:12 PM
Cold weather SB won't happen again, last year was the test case and results weren't good. That argument does hold weight and San Diego hasn't had one because of their stadium, which obviously will be new if the Chargers stay there.

You keep saying the NFL doesn't want to lose the STL media market, but I see nothing saying that's true. It's also the smallest media market of the three teams we're discussing, by a long shot.

The rams are second to last in attendance, dead last in team value, and are at or near the bottom in virtually every single revenue statistic. Here's Forbes to agree (http://www.forbes.com/teams/st-louis-rams/).

In the end, the NFL is a business and the $ signs will win.

JPPT1974
02-27-2015, 11:22 PM
Oakland and Raiders could build in LA. But what will it do as it would hurt the San Diego fanbase most of all than it would Oakland.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-28-2015, 12:11 AM
Portland is a great sports city.

FanInAZ
02-28-2015, 12:14 AM
Portland is a great sports city.

Maybe the Rams could move their to create a more intense regional rivalry with the Seahawks.

Lancane
02-28-2015, 02:43 PM
Cold weather SB won't happen again, last year was the test case and results weren't good. That argument does hold weight and San Diego hasn't had one because of their stadium, which obviously will be new if the Chargers stay there.

You keep saying the NFL doesn't want to lose the STL media market, but I see nothing saying that's true. It's also the smallest media market of the three teams we're discussing, by a long shot.

The rams are second to last in attendance, dead last in team value, and are at or near the bottom in virtually every single revenue statistic. Here's Forbes to agree (http://www.forbes.com/teams/st-louis-rams/).

In the end, the NFL is a business and the $ signs will win.

Davii, I'm not sure I'd call the NY/NJ Super Bowl a failure, in fact almost everything speaks to the opposite - Bloomberg, Seattle Times (with the city thinking about bidding to host the game), Roger Goodell per his own words and I could go on have called it a success but that to host another that changes would need to be made, most notably the transit issues. Now, if you're talking the weather, that could be an issue but according to a couple things I've read the NFL wants a Denver Super Bowl in the near future? So who has the right of it? It could be that you are absolutely correct - but again I don't think so.

As for San Diego, Qualcomm not long ago underwent some major renovations and still the city has not been chosen in over a decade, so if the league as you said was so for having Super Bowls then it would have happened IMHO.

Every report on St. Louis I've read has stated that the league and the owners do not want to lose the St. Louis market. Minnesota's market is worse and yet the NFL repetitiously refuted a move unless absolutely necessary, so they don't want to lose the worst market but are okay with losing the second to worst?

Yes, the NFL is a business, but it's a business built on certain principles and rules, Kroenke can not say he's exhausted all avenues on a new stadium in St. Louis (He's tried everything but selling his wife to have an NFL franchise elsewhere because he wants more money) and the league is not so quick to give up Minneapolis then giving up on St. Louis would set a bad precedent for them not to mention sort of counters the aspect of it's all about money - if that's the case why are they not trying to move the Vikings, Jaguars, Cardinals to other markets? Seattle and New England are not even Top 10 in market, I believe one is 17th and the other is 20th. There are huge markets that have not even been tapped that could do leaps and bounds better then St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Diego, Jacksonville and yet the NFL has done everything to try and keep teams in those cities, but they are also not going to let those cities dictate the progress of the league.

In the end though, the mere fact that Kroenke owns the land and it's been approved is not the end of it, Kroenke can push and be forced to sell his franchise and he still does not have the necessary votes anyways. In the end it will likely happen, I've admitted as much, but that doesn't mean that the league will let St. Louis remain void of a franchise or that San Diego will in fact keep the Chargers.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-28-2015, 05:55 PM
LOS ANGELES -- A report commissioned by the developer of a downtown Los Angeles football stadium warns that a rival project nearby could be a potential terrorist target because of its proximity to Los Angeles International Airport.

The report was released Friday at a time when several potential stadium projects are competing to bring an NFL team to Southern California, two decades after the Rams and Raiders exited.

The 14-page report was commissioned by Anschutz Entertainment Group, which wants to build a stadium in downtown Los Angeles. A development venture linked to St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke has proposed a stadium in Inglewood, about 10 miles from downtown.

The report by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge finds that constructing an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood -- as close as 2.5 miles from an airport runway -- "materially increases the risk of a terrorist event."

rest - http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/12396180/la-area-stadium-pose-terror-risk-according-study-commissioned-rival

Lancane
02-28-2015, 06:55 PM
rest - http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/12396180/la-area-stadium-pose-terror-risk-according-study-commissioned-rival

Read it, not sure I buy it.

OrangeHoof
02-28-2015, 09:04 PM
If NFL owners want to make a profit, they should use the Donald Sterling method: get a 20-something mulatto mistress to record you saying you don't want too many blacks in your arena, hand it over to TMZ then wait for the fallout. In a month's time, you'll have a couple of billion in your bank.

Davii
02-28-2015, 10:00 PM
Davii, I'm not sure I'd call the NY/NJ Super Bowl a failure, in fact almost everything speaks to the opposite - Bloomberg, Seattle Times (with the city thinking about bidding to host the game), Roger Goodell per his own words and I could go on have called it a success but that to host another that changes would need to be made, most notably the transit issues. Now, if you're talking the weather, that could be an issue but according to a couple things I've read the NFL wants a Denver Super Bowl in the near future? So who has the right of it? It could be that you are absolutely correct - but again I don't think so.

As for San Diego, Qualcomm not long ago underwent some major renovations and still the city has not been chosen in over a decade, so if the league as you said was so for having Super Bowls then it would have happened IMHO.

Every report on St. Louis I've read has stated that the league and the owners do not want to lose the St. Louis market. Minnesota's market is worse and yet the NFL repetitiously refuted a move unless absolutely necessary, so they don't want to lose the worst market but are okay with losing the second to worst?

Yes, the NFL is a business, but it's a business built on certain principles and rules, Kroenke can not say he's exhausted all avenues on a new stadium in St. Louis (He's tried everything but selling his wife to have an NFL franchise elsewhere because he wants more money) and the league is not so quick to give up Minneapolis then giving up on St. Louis would set a bad precedent for them not to mention sort of counters the aspect of it's all about money - if that's the case why are they not trying to move the Vikings, Jaguars, Cardinals to other markets? Seattle and New England are not even Top 10 in market, I believe one is 17th and the other is 20th. There are huge markets that have not even been tapped that could do leaps and bounds better then St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Diego, Jacksonville and yet the NFL has done everything to try and keep teams in those cities, but they are also not going to let those cities dictate the progress of the league.

In the end though, the mere fact that Kroenke owns the land and it's been approved is not the end of it, Kroenke can push and be forced to sell his franchise and he still does not have the necessary votes anyways. In the end it will likely happen, I've admitted as much, but that doesn't mean that the league will let St. Louis remain void of a franchise or that San Diego will in fact keep the Chargers.

Watch.

ShaneFalco
03-06-2015, 08:32 AM
https://simmqb.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/rams-stadium-2.jpg?w=800&h=450

Merc
03-06-2015, 10:28 AM
The Raiders already tried to move to L.A. What makes the league think that the putrid reaction will be any different? Oakland is crazy, about their team (emphasis on the CRAZY).

MileHighCrew
03-06-2015, 10:49 AM
https://simmqb.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/rams-stadium-2.jpg?w=800&h=450

That is a cool looking concept. I really enjoy looking at concept stadiums.

Davii
03-06-2015, 11:25 AM
That is a cool looking concept. I really enjoy looking at concept stadiums.

What do you think of this one?

6835

MileHighCrew
03-06-2015, 01:12 PM
What do you think of this one?

6835

Is this the one that was build into the hill side with the majority of the stadium under ground level or the one near staples? Both were pretty cool. (ya I see the LA vs St Louis thing but I really like the stadiums.)

MileHighCrew
03-06-2015, 01:14 PM
6836
LA concept

6837
different LA concept

MileHighCrew
03-06-2015, 01:16 PM
6838
Here is Atlanta (for no reason other than to share)

MileHighCrew
03-06-2015, 01:20 PM
another St Louis one

6839

MileHighCrew
03-06-2015, 01:25 PM
6840

Jaded
03-06-2015, 10:38 PM
https://simmqb.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/rams-stadium-2.jpg?w=800&h=450

Where's all the gangs and drug dealers?

Davii
03-06-2015, 10:57 PM
Where's all the gangs and drug dealers?

It's not big enough. This is a proposal to build the smallest NFL stadium, the gangs simply can't fit. LA gangs won't have that problem.

tomjonesrocks
03-07-2015, 12:06 AM
Where's all the gangs and drug dealers?

Without a strip club in it it just doesn't say "St. Louis".

ShaneFalco
03-07-2015, 01:36 AM
Where's all the gangs and drug dealers?

They have to cross the river from Illinois.

Davii
03-07-2015, 04:12 PM
They have to cross the river from Illinois.

Ha! Good one! But yeah, there's plenty there already.

DenBronx
03-09-2015, 08:38 PM
Here's the latest on this story. Looks like AEG is giving up its plans to build a stadium. What does this mean now?



From NBC Sports Talk for Android:

AEG gives up on downtown L.A. stadium
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/09/aeg-gives-up-on-downtown-l-a-stadium/

Davii
03-09-2015, 09:55 PM
Here's the latest on this story. Looks like AEG is giving up its plans to build a stadium. What does this mean now?



From NBC Sports Talk for Android:

AEG gives up on downtown L.A. stadium
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/09/aeg-gives-up-on-downtown-l-a-stadium/

Means the Rams deal is still the most likely as Kroenke has funding already. Raiders/Chargers don't. Honestly this doesn't really change anything for anyone other than AEG. They wanted a team and nobody is selling right now, so no impact at all on Kroenke and the Charger/Raider bs still needs all the funding figured out anyhow.

DenBronx
03-09-2015, 10:03 PM
Here's the latest on this story. Looks like AEG is giving up its plans to build a stadium. What does this mean now?



From NBC Sports Talk for Android:

AEG gives up on downtown L.A. stadium
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/09/aeg-gives-up-on-downtown-l-a-stadium/

Means the Rams deal is still the most likely as Kroenke has funding already. Raiders/Chargers don't. Honestly this doesn't really change anything for anyone other than AEG. They wanted a team and nobody is selling right now, so no impact at all on Kroenke and the Charger/Raider bs still needs all the funding figured out anyhow.


Yeah that's most likely going to be the outcome now that AEG has pulled out of the race. Kroenke seems ALL-IN to move the Rams back to LA. Bet it's San Diego that shares the stadium with them and no one has to change divisions.

Would love that because it hoses the raiders.

Lancane
03-10-2015, 05:12 PM
Means the Rams deal is still the most likely as Kroenke has funding already. Raiders/Chargers don't. Honestly this doesn't really change anything for anyone other than AEG. They wanted a team and nobody is selling right now, so no impact at all on Kroenke and the Charger/Raider bs still needs all the funding figured out anyhow.

Have you heard anything more about Portland or do you think that will become an expansion location?

ShaneFalco
03-10-2015, 05:41 PM
Ha! Good one! But yeah, there's plenty there already.

can you tell which side of the river each picture was taken from?

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/east-st-louis-il.jpg

http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/79/93879-004-24410F65.jpg

Davii
03-10-2015, 09:40 PM
can you tell which side of the river each picture was taken from?

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/east-st-louis-il.jpg

http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/79/93879-004-24410F65.jpg

This has what to do with anything? I've been in St. Louis, there's just as many horrid places on both sides of the river. Sure, East St. Louis is worse, but who cares? If your point is to say "it's worse over there" you've missed the point.

Davii
03-10-2015, 09:42 PM
Have you heard anything more about Portland or do you think that will become an expansion location?

Possible expansion location, but it's going to be tough. I mean, how many teams will they need to add? At least 4?

Denver Native (Carol)
03-21-2015, 04:04 PM
LOS ANGELES -- Organizers behind a proposed stadium near Los Angeles that could become home for the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders announced Saturday that they reached an important, early benchmark on the path to construction.

A coalition of supporters, including labor unions, has collected over 14,000 petition signatures in the city of Carson, nearly twice the number needed to place the stadium plan before local voters.

"We have all been extremely encouraged by the sky-high level of support we have found for the stadium project," Chargers attorney Mark Fabiani said in a statement.

The Raiders and Chargers are planning a shared stadium in Carson, south of Los Angeles, if both teams fail to get new stadiums in their current hometowns.

It's one of two prominent stadium proposals that have emerged in the Los Angeles area this year. St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is part of a development group planning to build an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood, roughly 10 miles from downtown Los Angeles.

rest - http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/12531558/proposed-chargers-raiders-stadium-los-angeles-advances

Jaded
03-21-2015, 04:13 PM
Put all 3 teams in LA while you look for more permanent homes for them.

Davii
03-22-2015, 12:24 AM
All 3 teams should either move to Mexico or Canada.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-22-2015, 07:09 PM
LOS ANGELES An NFL team owner has designed a Los Angeles-area stadium for two clubs with two home locker rooms, identical sets of office space and two owners' suites.

St. Louis Rams' owner Stan Kroenke doesn't need to partner with a second team to finance the $1.86-billion venue in Inglewood, but the league considers Los Angeles a two-team market and wants a stadium that could accommodate both, according to the Los Angeles Times.

His plan competes with one by the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, who want to share a stadium in Carson.

Kroenke hasn't said he plans to move the Rams, but analysts doubt he would invest in a stadium and not use it for his team.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_27764300/stan-kroenkes-nfl-stadium-proposal-l-would-house

ShaneFalco
03-30-2015, 08:26 PM
http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/597616-Forbes-Cardinals-are-most-profitable-team-in-baseball?p=2330679#post2330679

ShaneFalco
04-23-2015, 01:42 AM
Carson approved and moving forward. St. Louis moving forward.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-report/st-louis-stadium-group-states-its-case/article_9124484a-c5c9-52fb-a69b-544ded5c65c6.html


Another member of the committee, speaking on the condition of anonymity at those March meetings, said the league would not “abandon” St. Louis if it came up with a workable stadium plan.

Davii
04-23-2015, 09:12 AM
Carson approved and moving forward. St. Louis moving forward.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-report/st-louis-stadium-group-states-its-case/article_9124484a-c5c9-52fb-a69b-544ded5c65c6.html

Keep clinging. Lol.

ShaneFalco
04-23-2015, 08:42 PM
http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/4/23/8486149/new-chargers-raiders-stadium-plans-LIGHTNING-BOLT-LIGHTNING-BOLT

New Chargers stadium will have a tower that SHOOTS LIGHTNING BOLTS

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDT_OFYWIAA011B.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-renderings-carson-20150424-story.html

http://www.trbimg.com/img-55383a6b/turbine/la-sp-new-carson-renderings-side-view-20150422/750/750x422

Davii
04-23-2015, 10:02 PM
Oooooooohhh artist concepts. So much more convincing than land purchases.

jhildebrand
04-24-2015, 11:24 AM
Each team would have 9 home games. While the travel from Oak to SD is small the teams still currently have to do it. With a new shared stadium that woudn't be the case. I would think the other teams in the division would take some issue with that. Had it been Oak and SF that would be more palatable.

BroncoWave
04-24-2015, 11:26 AM
Each team would have 9 home games. While the travel from Oak to SD is small the teams still currently have to do it. With a new shared stadium that woudn't be the case. I would think the other teams in the division would take some issue with that. Had it been Oak and SF that would be more palatable.

It's already been said that one of them would likely move to the NFC if the shared stadium happens.

jhildebrand
04-24-2015, 11:33 AM
It's already been said that one of them would likely move to the NFC if the shared stadium happens.

I didn't hear that. THAT would be terrible. Ruins too many rivalries. A shared Oak/SF stadium was the best option.

BroncoWave
04-24-2015, 12:51 PM
I didn't hear that. THAT would be terrible. Ruins too many rivalries. A shared Oak/SF stadium was the best option.

Well the niners just built their new stadium so I don't know how realistic that would have been. And they do well enough on their own attendance-wise they didn't really need to team up with another team like seems to be the case with Oakland and SD.

Davii
04-24-2015, 02:54 PM
Well the niners just built their new stadium so I don't know how realistic that would have been. And they do well enough on their own attendance-wise they didn't really need to team up with another team like seems to be the case with Oakland and SD.

And STL

ShaneFalco
04-24-2015, 07:35 PM
Insiders are claiming that Carson is now the nfls 1st choice because the St. Louis plan is moving quickly. They have gotten assurances from unions, have started acquiring the land, have hired a few consulting firms, and have named the stadium builders. The NFL owner vote will be the final say and most owners see a team in stl.

BroncoWave
04-24-2015, 08:04 PM
Insiders are claiming that Carson is now the nfls 1st choice because the St. Louis plan is moving quickly. They have gotten assurances from unions, have started acquiring the land, have hired a few consulting firms, and have named the stadium builders. The NFL owner vote will be the final say and most owners see a team in stl.

Link?

Davii
04-24-2015, 08:10 PM
Link?

Nope. No such thing. Speculation, conjecture, and bullshit. Fact is the only person who has purchased land, gotten zoning approval, and secured PRIVATE financing is Kroenke. Everything else is a plan that is far behind. Doesn't mean the Rams are moving, but it does mean Kroenke is currently the most likely stadium owner in LA.

ShaneFalco
04-24-2015, 09:08 PM
Link?

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/progress-on-stadium-front-but-will-kroenke-play-ball/article_b3d3ce6c-bc82-5568-9f8e-6a632e18b3e7.html
http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/04/21/51099/nfl-to-la-carson-city-council-to-consider-stadium/
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20150420/no-workable-plan-on-the-table-to-keep-nfl-in-san-diego
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-659087-chargers-nfl.html
abc7news.com/sports/officials-approve-new-agreement-for-raiders-athletics-stadiums/571403/

Basically it comes from many quotes and articles over the last month or so. Some of what i have read on the Rams forums the last couple weeks, with some people who actually are involved with the city stadium plan.

St. Louis has these two things left to clear since it has moved so fast with its plan. (They just named the builders last week. )
1. The public funding. 2. Then the go ahead from Kroenke. Most likely come October they will know.

Carson is becoming the first choice, because it would involve the Chargers and Raiders, as opposed to just the Rams. Apparently Spanos and Kroenke are quickly becoming rivals and it would be hard to see them working together under the same roof. Also two teams would be needed for LA. Same stadium Price as inglewood plan as well. The city just approved it, and it is now on to the land acquisition and funding aspect.

Inglewood still the big frontrunner in most peoples eyes. But has quickly lost ground to Carson over the last few weeks. The two team thing is huge apparently to the 32 owners and the owner committee for LA. And Spanos/Davis seem to be avoiding working with Kroenke on this plan for Inglewood.

Oakland Stadium Project. Working on agreements with A's and other franchises to build a new stadium still. Could still be a possibility.

SD stadium Project, is basically dead in the water. Is the farthest behind.

Apparently if this all goes through the way it is supposed to.... Kroenke will be beloved by the NFL owners if he is the one who not only gets himself a brand new riverfront stadium, while also getting stadium deals done for the Chargers and Raiders and bringing football back to LA. But anything is possible until October. Also Goodel mentioned that a vote could be moved up. Alot of STL media sources believe Kroenkes inglewood plan was leverage for st. louis all along, because he knows what it would take to get the city to build a new stadium.

All we can really do is speculate and twiddle our thumbs until then.

ShaneFalco
04-24-2015, 09:33 PM
The lightning bolt thing, shoots lightning when Chargers play, and turns into this when Raiders play.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDT_6_qXIAIE0BB.jpg The eternal flame!


Kind of cool.

Jaded
04-25-2015, 12:09 AM
Kinda F-ed up that Kroenke is going to move the Rams from the city he grew up in.

Davii
04-25-2015, 01:20 AM
Kinda F-ed up that Kroenke is going to move the Rams from the city he grew up in.

Cash is king. Kroenke doesn't give a rat's ass about that team or city, he cares about his fat bank account.

jhildebrand
04-25-2015, 12:07 PM
Cash is king. Kroenke doesn't give a rat's ass about that team (or the Nuggets or the Avalanche) or city, he cares about his fat bank account.

Edited your quote to make it even more accurate!

OrangeHoof
04-25-2015, 02:56 PM
Looking at that stadium design tells me they plan to use it for futbol, the national sport of Los Angeles.

ShaneFalco
05-08-2015, 02:07 PM
apparently Nixon pushed through the bonds for STL to secure the funding for the stadium.

This was posted as well.

http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i/?img=/photo/2015/0507/soc_rams_stadium_1296x729.jpg&w=738&site=espnfc


Now all St. Louis is waiting on to hear Kroenke, i believe, minus a few things.

Jaded
05-10-2015, 10:27 PM
apparently Nixon pushed through the bonds for STL to secure the funding for the stadium.

This was posted as well.

http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i/?img=/photo/2015/0507/soc_rams_stadium_1296x729.jpg&w=738&site=espnfc


Now all St. Louis is waiting on to hear Kroenke, i believe, minus a few things.

A stadium right on the Specific Ocean? That's tits.

Where'd he find ocean-front property in L.A?

ShaneFalco
05-16-2015, 10:54 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/16/st-louis-task-force-co-chair-hints-at-new-owner-for-rams/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs


Is it possible for Rams owner Stan Kroenke to move to L.A. and his team to stay in St. Louis? Apparently it is.

PLEASE. Please let this happen. And after the Rams get a new owner, all i can hope is the Nuggets do as well. The kroenke family blows.

SoCalImport
05-17-2015, 05:03 AM
I'd be a shame to see the Chargers move out of SanDiego. I get the whole "small/Big Market" thing but I can't see how they'd sell more tickets in LA. I love to hate the Dolts but at least they've stayed put from day one. let the transient teams do the moving.

SR
05-17-2015, 09:15 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/16/st-louis-task-force-co-chair-hints-at-new-owner-for-rams/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs PLEASE. Please let this happen. And after the Rams get a new owner, all i can hope is the Nuggets do as well. The kroenke family blows.

And Avalanche

FanInAZ
05-17-2015, 02:38 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/16/st-louis-task-force-co-chair-hints-at-new-owner-for-rams/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs



PLEASE. Please let this happen. And after the Rams get a new owner, all i can hope is the Nuggets do as well. The kroenke family blows.

So the guy blamed for destroying all of Colorado's non-NFL teams may buy the Raiders :confused:

Does this mean he'll go from being 1 of Colorado's greatest sports villains to hero :confused:

SR
05-17-2015, 04:15 PM
So the guy blamed for destroying all of Colorado's non-NFL teams may buy the Raiders :confused: Does this mean he'll go from being 1 of Colorado's greatest sports villains to hero :confused:

The Davis family won't sell the Raiders.

And because the Davis family being such horrible owners the Raiders stay in the NFL's toilet. Any ownership change, even to the Kreonkes, would be an improvement.

Jaded
05-18-2015, 12:23 AM
Remember when there was no way in hell Kroenke was moving the Rams?

DenBronx
05-18-2015, 10:05 AM
Remember when there was no way in hell Kroenke was moving the Rams?

I kinda want to see that happen. Just so I can see ShaneFalco have a meltdown.

tomjonesrocks
05-18-2015, 12:02 PM
I'd be a shame to see the Chargers move out of SanDiego. I get the whole "small/Big Market" thing but I can't see how they'd sell more tickets in LA. I love to hate the Dolts but at least they've stayed put from day one. let the transient teams do the moving.

There was some news story today that a new plan has been formed to fund a new stadium without taxpayer contributions/public vote in San Diego.

Things have been looking grim for SD on the Chargers but maybe that will turn things around.

I'm sort of surprised the hardball the NFL Has played with the city, as you'd think for Super Bowl reasons the NFL would have serious interest in keeping the team there.

LA is good, but not quite as good as SD. Guess the NFL doesn't care so long as they get a new stadium in one of them.

BroncoJoe
05-18-2015, 03:44 PM
There's zero comparison between LA and SD. SD by a mile.

Davii
05-18-2015, 06:46 PM
There's zero comparison between LA and SD. SD by a mile.

SD is a beautiful city. My favorite in SoCal.

OrangeHoof
05-18-2015, 07:42 PM
You would think that as a Super Bowl site, the NFL would want to keep a team in San Diego. If the Chargers leave, they'll never get a Super Bowl-worthy stadium built there. That would be a shame.

ShaneFalco
05-19-2015, 03:39 AM
i lived in ocean beach for 6 months. SD was such nice weather. Still glad i live in Denver, Cali out of water!

ShaneFalco
05-19-2015, 03:40 AM
There was some news story today that a new plan has been formed to fund a new stadium without taxpayer contributions/public vote in San Diego.

Things have been looking grim for SD on the Chargers but maybe that will turn things around.

I'm sort of surprised the hardball the NFL Has played with the city, as you'd think for Super Bowl reasons the NFL would have serious interest in keeping the team there.

LA is good, but not quite as good as SD. Guess the NFL doesn't care so long as they get a new stadium in one of them.
yea i saw that today, but then some NFL people ripped the proposal or something, didnt actually get to look into it yet


I kinda want to see that happen. Just so I can see ShaneFalco have a meltdown.

naw i have made my peace with it. Kroenke is a whore, all sports franchises he touches turn to ash.

I dont live there anymore, and ill always be a rams fan because of players like Warner Faulk and Bruce, and SJax. Now they got Gurley. Too awesome not root for.

ShaneFalco
05-19-2015, 11:57 AM
Breaking: Land transfer on #Raiders #Chargers Carson stadium is officially completed
— Vincent Bonsignore (@DailyNewsVinny) May 19, 2015



The deed was recorded for the transfer from Carson Marketplace (CM) to Carson Holdings (CH).#Chargers #Raiders
— Vincent Bonsignore (@DailyNewsVinny) May 19, 2015



;o.

VonDoom
05-20-2015, 11:01 AM
I keep thinking someone is going to blink, but we really might see the Chargers and Raiders play in LA by 2016. Wouldn't that be crazy?

One of those teams would have to leave our division - who would it be? And who do we get? The Seahawks again?

Davii
05-20-2015, 11:26 AM
I keep thinking someone is going to blink, but we really might see the Chargers and Raiders play in LA by 2016. Wouldn't that be crazy?

One of those teams would have to leave our division - who would it be? And who do we get? The Seahawks again?

No chance it could be that soon, stadium can't be built that quickly.

ShaneFalco
05-20-2015, 12:18 PM
it would suck to move divisions.

I like having two teams to root for. Will be hard if broncos and rams in same division.

also owners mentioned something about a "California solution to LA". Which means the teams that could possibly get the go ahead would come from Cali. Not st. Louis.

ShaneFalco
05-20-2015, 04:20 PM
Kaplan mentioned that a full NFL owners' meeting is possible for this summer ... and that St. Louis would be the reason for it. "The prospective summer owners meeting would largely revolve around the proposed St. Louis stadium, which is further along than the efforts in California," Kaplan wrote. "Whether that meeting occurs depends in part on progress in St. Louis, and the recommendation of the (owners') LA committee." Bernie Miklasz


which means the NFL is taking "keeping NFL in st. louis" seriously.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2015, 04:22 PM
which means the NFL is taking "keeping NFL in st. louis" seriously.

Maybe the Chargers or Raiders will move there once the Rams move to LA?

ShaneFalco
06-21-2015, 03:31 AM
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-san-diego-dreamin-nfl-20150619-column.html

San Diego nightmare: Tell me again why any city would do business with the NFL

Jaded
06-21-2015, 02:55 PM
I hope the Rams stay in St Louis.

Because **** Stan Kroenke

ShaneFalco
06-22-2015, 07:30 PM
he is pretty terrible.

VonDoom
06-26-2015, 03:44 PM
No chance it could be that soon, stadium can't be built that quickly.

Saw an article that reminded me of this thread. Looks like the stadium doesn't have to be built to have a team playing in LA next year ...


The NFL confirmed that it is researching potential temporary venues that could host a team or teams in Los Angeles beginning in 2016.

Chris Hardart, NFL vice president of corporate development, acknowledged that the league has issued proposal requests to multiple venues in Southern California, including the Rose Bowl and the Los Angeles Coliseum.

"It is part of the process, and an effort to understand all of our options and have a well-thought-out plan if a team or teams were to be approved to relocate," Hardart said.

The rest: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13153798/nfl-seeks-temporary-venue-los-angeles-market-2016-season

ShaneFalco
07-01-2015, 09:28 PM
im personally sick of waiting. shit needs to be announced.

Davii
07-01-2015, 10:26 PM
im personally sick of waiting. shit needs to be announced.

Not going to be announced real soon. Maybe this year, maybe not.

ShaneFalco
08-03-2015, 09:45 PM
Judge rules in favor of St. Louis stadium group


The St. Louis stadium task force's quest to get a new stadium built on the north riverfront and keep the St. Louis Rams in town got some good news Monday morning.

St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley ruled that no public vote will be required for the use of public dollars on the proposed stadium.

That's considered a big win for the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA), which has earmarked about $66 million in bonds from the city toward the cost of the stadium.


http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13370964/judge-rules-favor-group-proposal-build-stadium-st-louis-rams

FanInAZ
08-04-2015, 02:01 AM
Judge rules in favor of St. Louis stadium group



http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13370964/judge-rules-favor-group-proposal-build-stadium-st-louis-rams

AZ voters shot something like this down 2 or 3 times before the politicians got smart & basically blackmailed us. Thay attached funding for the Cards new stadium with funding for Pop Warner football ("little league" for our non-American friends). My mom & step dad lived in Seattle when the voters shot down funding for their stratum as well, either the Mayor of Seattle or Governor of Washington State declared a state of emergency & imposed the tax anyway.

SR
08-04-2015, 07:13 AM
AZ voters shot something like this down 2 or 3 times before the politicians got smart & basically blackmailed us. Thay attached funding for the Cards new stadium with funding for Pop Warner football ("little league" for our non-American friends). My mom & step dad lived in Seattle when the voters shot down funding for their stratum as well, either the Mayor of Seattle or Governor of Washington State declared a state of emergency & imposed the tax anyway.

Wasn't the tax just in Glendale? Or is that the Coyotes tax ordeal I'm thinking of?

Davii
08-04-2015, 09:04 AM
Judge rules in favor of St. Louis stadium group



http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13370964/judge-rules-favor-group-proposal-build-stadium-st-louis-rams

And this pleases you? Funny how your political ideals are so easily compromised.

TXBRONC
08-04-2015, 11:38 AM
And this pleases you? Funny how your political ideals are so easily compromised.

Pot rots the brain.

Valar Morghulis
08-04-2015, 12:10 PM
Pot rots the brain.

As does cortisol.

TXBRONC
08-04-2015, 01:22 PM
As does cortisol.

Good to know.

FanInAZ
08-04-2015, 05:21 PM
Wasn't the tax just in Glendale? Or is that the Coyotes tax ordeal I'm thinking of?

I'm pretty sure the Cards was the whole valley & the Coyotes were just Glendale.

ShaneFalco
08-04-2015, 10:26 PM
Pot rots the brain.

Actually it protects the brain from brain damage. Do some research texas

ShaneFalco
08-04-2015, 10:27 PM
And this pleases you? Funny how your political ideals are so easily compromised.

All I did was post an article, funny how anal all of you are

TXBRONC
08-04-2015, 10:39 PM
Actually it protects the brain from brain damage. Do some research texas

:lol:

ShaneFalco
08-04-2015, 10:41 PM
what do you think stopping seizures and protecting against concussions is?

Laugh it up, you made a dumb comment.

TXBRONC
08-04-2015, 10:45 PM
what do you think stopping seizures and protecting against concussions is?

Laugh it up, you made a dumb comment.

No I didn't make a dumb comment you just let small things bother you way to much. :wave:

ShaneFalco
08-04-2015, 10:46 PM
No its a dumb comment.

Nancy Grace would approve though

ShaneFalco
08-04-2015, 10:50 PM
AZ voters shot something like this down 2 or 3 times before the politicians got smart & basically blackmailed us. Thay attached funding for the Cards new stadium with funding for Pop Warner football ("little league" for our non-American friends). My mom & step dad lived in Seattle when the voters shot down funding for their stratum as well, either the Mayor of Seattle or Governor of Washington State declared a state of emergency & imposed the tax anyway.

yea i really dont like that the public does not have a vote. I believe they would vote for it anyways, The NFL survey was very strong for the NFL in St. Louis. But would be nice to actually have a vote to support it. But this is what the NFL does to every city now, and its terrible for the country as a whole.

TXBRONC
08-04-2015, 10:58 PM
No its a dumb comment.

Nancy Grace would approve though

Lighten up and go smoke some pot to protect that soft brain of yours. :lol:

FanInAZ
08-04-2015, 11:07 PM
All I did was post an article, funny how anal all of you are

I just realized that I misread the article. The fact that you are a Libertarian, you should be opposed the government imposing taxes, especially when they are doing so without the consent of the citizens. Using the court to void the will of the voters is classified as tyranny. My preconceived notion of your political beliefs effected my my reading of your excerpt. So instead of reading that the Judge, "ruled that no public vote will be required;" I read the Judge, "ruled that public vote will be required." The latter would be more consistent with Libertarian view points then the former.

After your exchange with Tex & Diva, I not only reread your excerpt & found my mistake, but read the article itself. Clearly, this ruling is an affront to Libertarian political philosophy. So let me give you the opportunity to choose between Libertarian politics & your desire to keep the Rams in St. Louis. If side with Libertarian view of this ruling, then you must denounce this judge. If you support the ruling, Diva is right that your "political ideals are so easily compromised" anytime you see fit.

FanInAZ
08-04-2015, 11:08 PM
yea i really dont like that the public does not have a vote. I believe they would vote for it anyways, The NFL survey was very strong for the NFL in St. Louis. But would be nice to actually have a vote to support it. But this is what the NFL does to every city now, and its terrible for the country as a whole.

Looks like you answered my question before I got it posted.

TXBRONC
08-04-2015, 11:11 PM
Chronic this is just for you buddy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo1VInw-SKc

ShaneFalco
08-04-2015, 11:13 PM
like i said, there should be a vote. And i believe the vote would pass, because this is not just a stadium downtown. They are tearing down a blighted area and totally reconstructing a good part of the riverfront. This is something the city has desperately needed for some time for that area.

There was an NFL survey done on St. Louis a few months back and it was overwhelming positive for keeping the Rams in St. Louis. However it would be nice to have a public vote to back that up. I dont like the fact they did this. To me its a bit offputting, but this what the NFL does to cities. Nobody wants to be the mayor who "lost the Rams".

ShaneFalco
08-04-2015, 11:24 PM
Chronic this is just for you buddy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo1VInw-SKc

need to make that my alarm in the morning.

FanInAZ
08-04-2015, 11:34 PM
yea i really dont like that the public does not have a vote. I believe they would vote for it anyways, The NFL survey was very strong for the NFL in St. Louis. But would be nice to actually have a vote to support it. But this is what the NFL does to every city now, and its terrible for the country as a whole.

So if the government raises taxes against the will of the voters because they believe they know more about what best for the citizens then the voters do, its tyranny. If corporate executives uses the courts to void the will of the voters because they believe they know more about what best for the citizens then the voters do, its OK. That's because everything the government does is evil & everything corporations do is benevolent.

ShaneFalco
08-04-2015, 11:36 PM
no both are bad. I dont know what you are getting at.

ive said a bunch there should be a vote. and that the vote would most likely pass. Because as i pointed out, its a reconstruction of a huge part of the riverfront area.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-05-2015, 09:16 AM
Actually it protects the brain from brain damage. Do some research texas

High Times magazine does not constitute 'research'.
:D

ShaneFalco
08-10-2015, 06:16 PM
There is a meeting tomorrow, probably will find out nothing.

Im still scared though...... hold me.

Davii
08-10-2015, 08:13 PM
There is a meeting tomorrow, probably will find out nothing.

Im still scared though...... hold me.

Nobody cares. That's the funny part. The lambs, bolts, and faid might all, or any combination thereof, move to LA or elsewhere and hardly anyone gives a damn. Funny. Guess that's part of why they're considering the move.

ShaneFalco
08-10-2015, 08:13 PM
then why post?

Davii
08-10-2015, 08:15 PM
then why post?

Because message board. Duh.

ShaneFalco
08-10-2015, 08:16 PM
oh ok.

FanInAZ
08-10-2015, 11:09 PM
7637

:lol:

BroncoWave
08-17-2015, 07:49 PM
Yo Shane...

https://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL/status/633321277030137856

Davii
08-17-2015, 09:35 PM
Yo Shane...

https://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL/status/633321277030137856

This has been the case all along, San Diego was using this as leverage.

BroncoJoe
08-18-2015, 07:09 AM
Picture from the Cowboy's and Rams practice/scrimmage:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0818-rams-cowboys-camp-20150818-column.html

http://www.trbimg.com/img-55d2a2ab/turbine/la-sp-0818-rams-cowboys-camp-20150818

sorry the image is so big.

MOtorboat
08-18-2015, 12:37 PM
Lol.

Davii
08-18-2015, 12:58 PM
Picture from the Cowboy's and Rams practice/scrimmage:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0818-rams-cowboys-camp-20150818-column.html

http://www.trbimg.com/img-55d2a2ab/turbine/la-sp-0818-rams-cowboys-camp-20150818

sorry the image is so big.

"But St Louis loves their Rams, they enjoy amazing support with one of the worst attendance records in the league in a timy stadium, and, but, st lou1s is awesome thou"

Timmy!
08-18-2015, 01:03 PM
LA Raiders, LA Rams.....


http://m.quickmeme.com/img/78/785d49584266631aefc56174a0659bde3cbf5af234fa4a609f 4cd27c01b56e58.jpg

Denver Native (Carol)
08-18-2015, 02:05 PM
LOS ANGELES -- Construction of an NFL stadium in the Los Angeles area could come with another change: a possible shift in division for the Oakland Raiders or the San Diego Chargers.

The teams have proposed a shared $1.78 billion stadium in the city of Carson -- one of two stadium projects being considered by the NFL near Los Angeles that could bring professional football back to the region after a two-decade absence.

Carmen Policy, a former San Francisco 49ers executive who was hired to help oversee the Carson project, said Monday that the teams have agreed to shift divisions, if necessary, to make the project acceptable to the league.

rest - http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/los-angeles-stadium-could-affect-nfl-divisions-081715