What: A two-day special meeting to get 24 (3/4 of 32) votes on a stadium plan for the NFL's return to Los Angeles.

Why: Los Angeles has always been the biggest TV market. The NFL would do anything to bring itself back there.

Where: Houston, Texas

Who: All 32 team owners

When: Tuesay, January 12 to Wednesday, January 13

 

 

To give you a better understanding of the issues team owners will be discussing the next two days, here is a well-written preview analysis by my favorite writer, Judy Battista.

---

What: A two-day special meeting to get 24 (3/4 of 32) votes on a stadium plan for the NFL's return to Los Angeles.

Why: Los Angeles has always been the biggest TV market. The NFL would do anything to bring itself back there.

Where: Houston, Texas

Who: All 32 team owners

When: Tuesay, January 12 to Wednesday, January 13

 

 

To give you a better understanding of the issues team owners will be discussing the next two days, here is a well-written preview analysis by my favorite writer, Judy Battista.

 

  You inadvertently didn't provide the link.

 

   In any event,  I hope the NFL owners reject Stan Kroenke's attempt to move the Rams to L.A.   This could happen if Dean Spanos decides he doesn't want to partner with Kroenke in a new stadium either in Inglewood,  Kroenke's preferred site,  or in Carson,  Spanos'  preferred site.

 

   From what I have read and heard,  there seems to be a drive to get Kroenke and Spanos together.   With Raiders owner Mark Davis getting help from the relocation dollars paid by Kroenke and Spanos to get a new stadium in Oakland or elsewhere. 

---

Yes, my error was inadvertent, Here is the link to Judy Batissta's in-depth analysis:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...s-in-limbo

 

I like her because she seems to know everything and states objective views, 

---

Yes, my error was inadvertent, Here is the link to Judy Batissta's in-depth analysis:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...s-in-limbo

 

I like her because she seems to know everything and states objective views, 

 

  Thanks.

 

  Regarding what you mentioned in the last sentence,  in following this story for a long time,   I remain impressed with LA Daily News writer Vincent Bonsignore's knowledge and objectivity on the attempt to bring the NFL back to LA.  His work can be found at the following sites:

 

  https://twitter.com/DailyNewsVinny

 

   http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/

---

From what I've read, there's a decent chance that the owners walk away from this meeting without reaching a decision so that the preferred plan can be worked into a proposal that will get 24 votes a couple of weeks later.

---

I'm just glad it isn't the Jaguars. I love being a fan of the "redheaded step child" of the NFL along with Buffalo

---

THERE IS A SKELETON INSIDE OF YOU.

 

RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

LA chargers and LA raiders sounds better than the LA rams to me.

---

TODAY IS THE DAY.

I AM GIDDY! 

---

I still can't get behind the idea of the Chargers and Raiders, two division rivals, being in the same market let alone the same stadium.

---

News around LA is that the Rams and Charger will share the Inglewood site.

I still think the Rams make the most sense, because of their 50 year history in LA. The NFL owners love Spanos and the Chargers will have the shortest move. This idea, I believe, was proposed by Dallas and seems to have the most steam going into today's meeting. 

---

 


 

   From what I have read and heard,  there seems to be a drive to get Kroenke and Spanos together.   With Raiders owner Mark Davis getting help from the relocation dollars paid by Kroenke and Spanos to get a new stadium in Oakland or elsewhere. 

This seems like a sensible proposal, though there are risks involved too.

 

The league typically offers a certain amount to teams trying to get new stadiums built ($200-$300 million, IIRC).   But I'm sure if the league offers more to the Raiders, a lot of owners who had to come out of pocket more to do this will be ticked off.  Furthermore, some other owners will want more from the league to get stadiums built in the future.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Rumour that I've seen is Rams and Chargers to LA, Raiders to San Antonio..

---

Who's was that reporter that said we would be in LA by 2021? O Halloran or whatever his name is?


Yea, I think it's ok to call that one a miss.

---

Who's was that reporter that said we would be in LA by 2021? O Halloran or whatever his name is?


Yea, I think it's ok to call that one a miss.

The Jags beat writer Ryan O'Halloran said that?

---

  You inadvertently didn't provide the link.

 

   In any event,  I hope the NFL owners reject Stan Kroenke's attempt to move the Rams to L.A.   This could happen if Dean Spanos decides he doesn't want to partner with Kroenke in a new stadium either in Inglewood,  Kroenke's preferred site,  or in Carson,  Spanos'  preferred site.

 

   From what I have read and heard,  there seems to be a drive to get Kroenke and Spanos together.   With Raiders owner Mark Davis getting help from the relocation dollars paid by Kroenke and Spanos to get a new stadium in Oakland or elsewhere. 

It sounds as if Stan has put together a deal the league may not be able to refuse.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

From what I've read, there's a decent chance that the owners walk away from this meeting without reaching a decision so that the preferred plan can be worked into a proposal that will get 24 votes a couple of weeks later.

 

That makes sense, but everyone is tired of talking about Los Angeles and wants to get sit over with. Delaying the vote again would only happen if it is impossible to get 24 votes tomorrow.

---

The relocation fee is set at $550 million.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...n-per-team

---

News around LA is that the Rams and Charger will share the Inglewood site.

I still think the Rams make the most sense, because of their 50 year history in LA. The NFL owners love Spanos and the Chargers will have the shortest move. This idea, I believe, was proposed by Dallas and seems to have the most steam going into today's meeting. 

 

  In terms of your own situation,  which of the two sites would be more convenient for you to get to games and other events?

 

  Which of the two sites would be more convenient to get to for the majority of people in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area?

---

This seems like a sensible proposal, though there are risks involved too.

 

The league typically offers a certain amount to teams trying to get new stadiums built ($200-$300 million, IIRC).   But I'm sure if the league offers more to the Raiders, a lot of owners who had to come out of pocket more to do this will be ticked off.  Furthermore, some other owners will want more from the league to get stadiums built in the future.

 

  Great points.

 

  I'm very interested to see the individual breakdown of the final vote that takes place.  

 

  One other issue is that if the NFL turns down the money that St. Louis and the state of Missouri have pledged,   will elected officials in other areas be more reluctant to offer public funds in future stadium situations?

---

In terms of your own situation,  which of the two sites would be more convenient for you to get to games and other events?

 

Which of the two sites would be more convenient to get to for the majority of people in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area?

 

Good question, but that would be irrelevant for Rams fans who live in Carson.

---