PDA

View Full Version : If Rams move to LA, will that affect the AFC West?



BroncosIsWin
01-11-2016, 05:19 PM
Will they be restructuring the divisions if the Rams move to LA, thus affecting us? Just curious.

sheenabobeena
01-11-2016, 05:25 PM
I think they can leave the divisions as is, and it would make much more sense that they are in the NFC west.

I personally don't want them changing up the divisions, so I'm hoping the Chargers and Raiders don't share a stadium. (And also, I'd actually feel sorry for the Chargers... who wants to share a stadium with the Raiders? lol)

PAINTERDAVE
01-11-2016, 05:26 PM
I doubt Rams move to LA. If they did... no reason to alter divisions.
-
Both Chargers and Raiders... different story...
I fully expect to se them move to LA..
split a Stadium....
and yes... that eventuality would cause a likely change in the AFC West.
-
I heard discussion on this..
and thoughts were..

Raiders stay in AFC WEST..

and Chargers flip with Seahawks..
Returning Seattle to the AFC West...
and LA Chargers go into the old Seattle spot in NFC.
-
Just some of the Yip yap I heard about it on Denver Talk radio

L.M.
01-11-2016, 05:30 PM
There are no plans nor proposals as of yet (that I'm aware of) to move the Rams out of the NFC West where it has always been (well, at least since the merger), even when the franchise was in LA from 1946-1995.

The bigger questions are, are the Chargers and Raiders both moving to LA and will they share a stadium, as the Jets and Giants do in NY? If so, then one of them will have to move to the NFC West, and that will likely force the Seahawks back into the AFC West. They are exploring other alternatives to avoid this, like having the Raiders share with the Niners or the Chargers with the Rams.

ArchAngel
01-11-2016, 05:30 PM
Now the Seahags can play in a real division.

L.M.
01-11-2016, 05:45 PM
This article appeared in the LA Times a half hour ago and it summarizes the situation up to date.

NFL consensus builds for a Rams-Chargers stadium project in Inglewood (http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-relocation-20160112-story.html)

sheenabobeena
01-11-2016, 05:54 PM
I was born and raised in Carson, California (the proposed site of the shared Chargers/Raiders stadium) and still go there frequently. It's 15 minutes from the city of LA and is more of a suburb. For several reasons, I have serious doubts that Carson can handle an NFL team, let alone two. Yes, they have the Stub Hub center (LA Galaxy) but that holds 27,000 and the proposed stadium would be more than double that. I just don't see it happening without it being a disaster, but who knows.

Butler By'Note
01-11-2016, 06:07 PM
I doubt Rams move to LA. If they did... no reason to alter divisions.
-
Both Chargers and Raiders... different story...
I fully expect to se them move to LA..
split a Stadium....
and yes... that eventuality would cause a likely change in the AFC West.
-
I heard discussion on this..
and thoughts were..

Raiders stay in AFC WEST..

and Chargers flip with Seahawks..
Returning Seattle to the AFC West...
and LA Chargers go into the old Seattle spot in NFC.
-
Just some of the Yip yap I heard about it on Denver Talk radio


Based on what's being reported, in a perfect world (for the NFL) the Rams and Chargers will be the ones moving to LA, and sharing a stadium. The league is going to then take a chunk of the $550 million relocation fees (each) and give it to the Raiders as a consolation prize so that they can build a new stadium in Oakland.

L.M.
01-11-2016, 06:17 PM
By Judy Battista
NFL Media reporter
Published: Jan. 11, 2016 at 02:15 p.m.
Updated: Jan. 11, 2016 at 03:48 p.m.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2016/01/11/0ap3000000621013.jpg
On Saturday, Rams fans gathered for a rally at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. (Richard Vogel/AP)


HOUSTON -- It has been 21 years since the NFL has had a team based in Los Angeles. By Wednesday night, the league could have two.

Franchise owners, who will meet Tuesday and Wednesday in Houston, are almost certain to take a vote that will allow the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers or Oakland Raiders -- or two out of the three -- to pull up stakes and move to Los Angeles in time to start play there this fall.

The problem: After a year of proposals and arm-twisting, nobody knows which teams it will be, setting up a tense, high-stakes meeting at which owners will be lobbied and cajoled in hopes that one side will come up with the required 24 votes needed for approval. Three home-city fan bases hang in the balance, and this past week, Commissioner Roger Goodell told owners in a memo that all three of the home cities' proposals to keep their teams were not good enough, clearing another hurdle to allow relocation under the league's own rules. After a year of wrestling with Los Angeles as a front-burner issue, weariness has set in among owners.

For fans of palace intrigue, this meeting will be a fascinating window into the NFL's internal politics and power bases. For those looking for a resolution, the exhaustion of owners might be a good thing.

"I think everybody is tired of this and they want to get a vote done," said New York Giants CEO John Mara, who is a member of the league's committee overseeing relocation to Los Angeles.

Here, then, is a primer for the owners' meeting:

How did we get here?

The NFL has discussed going back to Los Angeles in fits and starts for about as long as the market has been empty. But when Rams owner Stan Kroenke bought a large plot of land at the site of the old Hollywood Park about two years ago, it jump-started the conversation and forced the Chargers and Raiders to figure out what they would do so they wouldn't be shut out.

What are the proposals?

Kroenke wants to build an NFL palace in Inglewood. (His is the flashier (and more expensive) project with more bells and whistles.) And in recent weeks, undoubtedly under pressure from the league, he has said that he would be willing to take on a second team either as a tenant or as a partner. There is also a feeling among some owners that when the NFL returns to Los Angeles, it has to bring the "wow" factor, and Kroenke's plan is regarded as having more of that.

The Chargers and Raiders have teamed up to propose a stadium in Carson, California, and in the fall, they brought on a critical figure: Disney chairman Bob Iger, who will oversee the project if it is approved. Why is that critical? Because there are real concerns among owners about the ability of the Raiders, in particular, to maximize the potential of being in Los Angeles, and owners believe there is nobody better equipped to design a spectacular fan experience than Iger.

What's the problem?

Neither of these proposals has the required 24 votes for passage. Although this week, one owner said he thought the Raiders and Chargers were probably a little closer than the Rams. That means a compromise is in order, and negotiating one -- and giving whichever team is left out a palatable way to walk away -- will be the order of business this week.

There are plenty of personal dynamics at play here. Kroenke is a relatively new owner and his grand vision has enticed owners like him -- those who have come to the NFL relatively recently and who believe he is best suited to succeed in Los Angeles. Dean Spanos, of the Chargers, has a lot of personal support because he has been a long-time owner who is viewed as loyal to the NFL and who has held down the Southern California market since the Rams and Raiders left after the 1994 season. Mark Davis, who now owns the Raiders, does not have as much personal support as Spanos does, but there is a block of owners who view Carson as a way to solve the NFL's two most intractable stadium problems -- the Raiders and Chargers play in the league's worst stadiums -- in one fell swoop.

What potential compromises are there?

The Cowboys will propose a resolution that the Rams and Chargers join forces in Inglewood. That, said one owner late last week, would easily get the 24 votes for passage.

There is only one, but very significant, hang-up to that: Spanos has no interest in it.

According to people who have been in Los Angeles planning meetings, Spanos has remained adamant that he already has a partner and a stadium proposal he likes, and it is in Carson. There is also a sense among some owners that he does not have a personal relationship with Kroenke and does not want to be in business with him. And Spanos might also fear the enormous debt he would incur as he partners with Kroenke on a stadium whose cost owners believe eventually will be well over $2 billion. Is there anything the owners could promise that would sway Spanos? That will be among the discussions.

Another possible solution, although it is considered a long-shot: The owners could allow the Rams to move in 2016 and vote to allow the Chargers to move later -- contingent on the outcome of a June referendum on stadium financing in San Diego. The Chargers believe passage is unlikely, but that would give San Diego one final chance to keep the team.

* * * * *

Or the owners could approve one of the proposals as is.

Whatever they do, there will be at least one team left out. One owner said last week that there is a large group of owners who do not want to see that be Spanos because they feel he has been, by far, the best partner. And owners will be charged with figuring out a way to soften the blow for the losing team(s) -- with money or a promise of future relocation, perhaps.

It is unclear what form a vote will take, although the hope all along by the NFL is that a grand bargain will be formulated during negotiations so that all the relevant questions -- who, where and what will be done for the team left out -- would be addressed in one overarching proposal that owners could approve.

That might not happen and one owner said the league could face a situation similar to the one it had when Goodell was elected commissioner.

Goodell was considered the favorite when that meeting of owners began, but on the first few ballots, his challenger, Gregg Levy, had surprisingly strong support. Eventually, though, the owners could see that Goodell had more votes and sides shifted until Goodell had the votes he needed on the fifth ballot.

If there is no grand bargain to be worked out once this meeting begins, the owners could face a similar scenario. After 21 years, the suspense for Los Angeles might not be over just yet.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000621024/article/la-relocation-meeting-primer-chargers-raiders-rams-in-limbo

Butler By'Note
01-11-2016, 06:24 PM
If Spanos drags his feet on pairing with the Rams he risks the NFL going to the Raiders and asking them if they want to join the Rams stadium proposal. It appears almost certain that Kroenke wants his team in LA no matter what, and will move them regardless, so I think the NFL has accepted that and will give him the go ahead, it's just a matter of who joins him.

L.M.
01-11-2016, 06:31 PM
If Spanos drags his feet on pairing with the Rams he risks the NFL going to the Raiders and asking them if they want to join the Rams stadium proposal. It appears almost certain that Kroenke wants his team in LA no matter what, and will move them regardless, so I think the NFL has accepted that and will give him the go ahead, it's just a matter of who joins him.

-unless there's some kind of solidarity and commitment to each other in the purported Davis/Spano partnership. I hope those two arent hellbent on Carson, defying the League and disrupting the divisions. SMH :rolleyes:

Butler By'Note
01-11-2016, 06:34 PM
-unless there's some kind of solidarity and commitment to each other in the purported Davis/Spano partnership. I hope those two arent hellbent on Carson, defying the League and disrupting the divisions. SMH :rolleyes:

Kroenke will be in LA regardless, I think the NFL knows this so they've reluctantly penciled them in, it's just a matter of which of the other two wants to go with them, if neither blinks, neither goes.

L.M.
01-11-2016, 07:04 PM
Kroenke will be in LA regardless, I think the NFL knows this so they've reluctantly penciled them in, it's just a matter of which of the other two wants to go with them, if neither blinks, neither goes.

That's not actually a proposal -yet, just speculation. The Carson project is rumored (unsubstantively) to be favored.

This is another very good article posted today:

Race to L.A.: Who has edge between Chargers, Raiders and Rams? (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/race-to-l-a---who-has-edge-between-chargers--raiders-and-rams---005459029.html)

ELWAY421
01-11-2016, 07:14 PM
The rams and chargers would stay in the same divisions imo. I'm hearing the raiders would be headed to San Antonio if the rams and chargers go to LA.

L.M.
01-11-2016, 07:17 PM
The rams and chargers would stay in the same divisions imo. I'm hearing the raiders would be headed to San Antonio if the rams and chargers go to LA.

From what I've read that's a temporary measure while a stadium is built elsewhere.

ELWAY421
01-11-2016, 08:16 PM
From what I've read that's a temporary measure while a stadium is built elsewhere.

Where to?

10char

baphamet
01-11-2016, 10:22 PM
no reason to switch divisions if the raiders and chargers don't share a stadium.

L.M.
01-11-2016, 10:34 PM
Where to?

10char

That's still a mystery. Carson, San Fran, St. Louis, even San Diego has been suggested! :laugh:

Grandpa
01-12-2016, 04:04 AM
Kroenke will be in LA regardless, I think the NFL knows this so they've reluctantly penciled them in, it's just a matter of which of the other two wants to go with them, if neither blinks, neither goes.
With recent NFL comments about there being no viable plans by Oakland to try to keep the Faiders there, it's possible that -- despite what happens with the Cloggers -- Oakland is going to lose their franchise. Consider Crams-Cloggers to LA, Faiders to St Louis/San Antonio/etc. The only place the Faiders CAN'T go is Salt Lake City; Joseph Smith would cause fire and brimstone to rain down from above if that became the plan.
:D

broncoslover115
01-12-2016, 01:28 PM
Now the Seahags can play in a real division.

Let's say they restructure the AFC West. Why wouldn't ARI become a part of the AFC West instead of SEA?

baphamet
01-12-2016, 01:40 PM
Let's say they restructure the AFC West. Why wouldn't ARI become a part of the AFC West instead of SEA?

they could but the logic is, the seahawks were originally an AFC west team so bringing them back would make sense. i don't think anyone really has a clue how they would restructure the divisions if the carson project gets approved, i haven't seen anybody comment on it recently.

the last thing i heard was mark davis said he has no problem going to the NFC so i'm guessing that likely means it would be the raiders leaving.

as far as which NFC team? i think seattle or arizona are probably the two that make the most sense.

baphamet
01-12-2016, 01:48 PM
With recent NFL comments about there being no viable plans by Oakland to try to keep the Faiders there, it's possible that -- despite what happens with the Cloggers -- Oakland is going to lose their franchise. Consider Crams-Cloggers to LA, Faiders to St Louis/San Antonio/etc. The only place the Faiders CAN'T go is Salt Lake City; Joseph Smith would cause fire and brimstone to rain down from above if that became the plan.
:D

well from what i have read the third team that gets shafted will actually get hooked up really well by the NFL. especially if spanos breaks his mark davis alliance and moves in with stan kroenke.

in order for that to happen the raiders will have to get hooked up like a tow truck lol

i heard rumors of a possible large cash grant as well as their relocation fee getting waved. when you consider the 200 million loan they will get as well.....thats damn near a billion dollars for them to go along with the money they already have and i'm sure the rest can be publicly funded because it wont take much more than that.

i know for a fact he could build a stadium in SD with that money if he wanted to. when its all said and done all three teams will have their stadium issues figured out in the end, that i am pretty sure of.

L.M.
01-12-2016, 03:05 PM
they could but the logic is, the seahawks were originally an AFC west team so bringing them back would make sense. i don't think anyone really has a clue how they would restructure the divisions if the carson project gets approved, i haven't seen anybody comment on it recently.

the last thing i heard was mark davis said he has no problem going to the NFC so i'm guessing that likely means it would be the raiders leaving.

as far as which NFC team? i think seattle or arizona are probably the two that make the most sense.

Few people remember that the Seahawks were actually NFC West in their first year as an expansion. This is why they were picked to go back to it in 2002. But they were an AFC West rival for twenty five years so it makes the most sense to return them here if they have to move somebody.

The Cardinals by contrast have always been NFC or the original NFL, and BTW are the oldest surviving professional football franchise -founded in 1898! :eek:

Grandpa
01-12-2016, 03:58 PM
Few people remember that the Seahawks were actually NFC West in their first year as an expansion. This is why they were picked to go back to it in 2002. But they were an AFC West rival for twenty five years so it makes the most sense to return them here if they have to move somebody.

The Cardinals by contrast have always been NFC or the original NFL, and BTW are the oldest surviving professional football franchise -founded in 1898! :eek:
..... that used to be the St Louis Cardinals (football) before the Los Angeles Rams became the St Louis Rams. :D

Wonder if anyone has considered the fact that when the Faiders last moved to the LA area, they couldn't capture a fan base and had to move back to Oakland? What indications are there that it wouldn't happen again, leaving LA with only one team, and whichever of the three teams doesn't get selected to make the move, getting the shaft because of the move-back?

L.M.
01-12-2016, 04:09 PM
..... that used to be the St Louis Cardinals (football) before the Los Angeles Rams became the St Louis Rams. :D

Wonder if anyone has considered the fact that when the Faiders last moved to the LA area, they couldn't capture a fan base and had to move back to Oakland? What indications are there that it wouldn't happen again, leaving LA with only one team, and whichever of the three teams doesn't get selected to make the move, getting the shaft because of the move-back?

Before St. Louis the Cardinals actually started in Chicago, and before L.A., the Rams were in Cleveland.

As for L.A., their in-depth market analyses indicate that L.A. is ready for multiple teams again. One fanbase the Raiders did get was the gangs! Both Bloods and Crips wore Raiders gear and that trend spread to other cities.

Grandpa
01-12-2016, 04:13 PM
Before St. Louis the Cardinals actually started in Chicago, and before L.A., the Rams were in Cleveland.
(Whew! Glad YOU posted that! I wasn't all that eager to show my age .... ) :D

FL BRONCO
01-12-2016, 04:21 PM
I'm thinking its going to end up being Rams/Chargers inglewood

samparnell
01-12-2016, 04:29 PM
I think they can leave the divisions as is, and it would make much more sense that they are in the NFC west.

I personally don't want them changing up the divisions, so I'm hoping the Chargers and Raiders don't share a stadium. (And also, I'd actually feel sorry for the Chargers... who wants to share a stadium with the Raiders? lol)

The Broncos, Chargers, Raiders and Chiefs/Texans have been playing each other twice a year since 1960. I don't think that should change.

L.M.
01-12-2016, 04:40 PM
The Broncos, Chargers, Raiders and Chiefs/Texans have been playing each other twice a year since 1960. I don't think that should change.

When the League reorganized in 2002, preserving rivalries was prioritized by owners and may be again -we hope! Otherwise for geographic sense, Indy would have been North, Baltimore East, and Miami South but that breaks up the classic Bills-Dolphins rivalry and Dallas would been South and Carolina East but that breaks up Giants-Cowboys rivalry.

Grandpa
01-13-2016, 02:50 AM
Definitely going to be the Rams in Inglewood. Chargers have until 1/15/17 to make up their minds whether they want to be in Inglewood as stadium partners with the Rams, or enter into a lease agreement with the Rams for use of the stadium. If they opt out of Inglewood, or fail to make a decision by 1/15/17, then the Raiders will have until 1/17/18 to make up their minds. If both the Chargers and Raiders decide to not move, both will receive $100 million to build new stadiums. Since an NFC team is definitely going to be in Los Angeles, there's no need to realign the current AFC arrangement.

The new stadium won't be ready until 2019, so the Los Angeles Rams will start their 2016 season at (most probably) the old Coliseum.

EDIT: One bright spot to the whole deal is that no public money is being spent on the new Inglewood stadium, and no public money will be spent on new stadiums for the Chargers and Raiders. The NFL and the team owners are investing in their chosen communities instead of dangling the "economic boom" carrot out to "entice" local governmernts to commit tax dollars they don't have (see city bankruptcy statistics). Warms the cockles of my heart to see a separation between government and private commercial enterprises.

baphamet
01-13-2016, 08:04 AM
Definitely going to be the Rams in Inglewood. Chargers have until 1/15/17 to make up their minds whether they want to be in Inglewood as stadium partners with the Rams, or enter into a lease agreement with the Rams for use of the stadium. If they opt out of Inglewood, or fail to make a decision by 1/15/17, then the Raiders will have until 1/17/18 to make up their minds. If both the Chargers and Raiders decide to not move, both will receive $100 million to build new stadiums. Since an NFC team is definitely going to be in Los Angeles, there's no need to realign the current AFC arrangement.

The new stadium won't be ready until 2019, so the Los Angeles Rams will start their 2016 season at (most probably) the old Coliseum.

EDIT: One bright spot to the whole deal is that no public money is being spent on the new Inglewood stadium, and no public money will be spent on new stadiums for the Chargers and Raiders. The NFL and the team owners are investing in their chosen communities instead of dangling the "economic boom" carrot out to "entice" local governmernts to commit tax dollars they don't have (see city bankruptcy statistics). Warms the cockles of my heart to see a separation between government and private commercial enterprises.

that isn't true, they will still need a big chunk of public money from what i have read. 100 million more isn't going to change that fact. that is the reason as to why the chargers probably wont get a stadium in SD, the people of SD don't want to pay for a stadium and a vote to help finance one is the key issue.

L.M.
01-13-2016, 09:20 AM
that isn't true, they will still need a big chunk of public money from what i have read. 100 million more isn't going to change that fact. that is the reason as to why the chargers probably wont get a stadium in SD, the people of SD don't want to pay for a stadium and a vote to help finance one is the key issue.

Yep that's how most stadia get built. It's how Mile High/Sports Authority field was paid for. I think I read that Kroenke is the 2nd wealthiest owner in the League(?) and as such he could front most of the cash for his project in Inglewood but he's more the exception than the rule.

Looks like Spanos will have to cut costs and scale down if he wants to stay in SD, if he hasn't created too much bad will there now.

Grandpa
01-13-2016, 09:48 AM
that isn't true, they will still need a big chunk of public money from what i have read. 100 million more isn't going to change that fact. that is the reason as to why the chargers probably wont get a stadium in SD, the people of SD don't want to pay for a stadium and a vote to help finance one is the key issue.
Good catch; the actual report was "The league will also give the Chargers and the Raiders each $100 million to put toward new stadiums if they stay in their current home markets. No public money will be used to build the Inglewood stadium." (this morning's LA Times) I evidently read through it too fast; thanks for the correction.

baphamet
01-13-2016, 09:55 AM
Good catch; the actual report was "The league will also give the Chargers and the Raiders each $100 million to put toward new stadiums if they stay in their current home markets. No public money will be used to build the Inglewood stadium." (this morning's LA Times) I evidently read through it too fast; thanks for the correction.

no problem, this crap is confusing and some of the information changes daily if not by the minute as we seen yesterday :laugh:

Grandpa
01-13-2016, 10:12 AM
no problem, this crap is confusing and some of the information changes daily if not by the minute as we seen yesterday :laugh:
And will likely see tomorrow .... and Friday .... right up to game time Sunday. :eek:

BroncosIsWin
02-12-2016, 11:28 PM
So does this have potential to mess with our division?

broncolee
02-13-2016, 04:00 AM
So does this have potential to mess with our division?

No it doesn't.

If both the Chargers and Raiders had moved to LA, that would have messed up the AFC West.

The Rams are an NFC West team and will remain so, as they were when they were first in Los Angeles.