The NFL has way to many legal loopholes in their favor. I'd be in favor of exposing that and more. Let's not the forget the ridiculous notion of tax exempt status, in publicly financed stadiums nonetheless. So the taxpayers get fleeced twice.


The one good that comes out of this is that without LA as leverage the owners can't use it as blackmail to get the public to pay for their stadiums

 

  It will be interesting to see what Dean Spanos does in the coming days,  weeks,  or months.   Spanos has the green light to move to Los Angeles to join Stan Kroenke.   Will Spanos make a serious attempt to get something done in San Diego or even elsewhere?

 

  The other question is Mark Davis' situation regarding the Raiders remains very uncertain.    If the Raiders work out a one year lease to remain in Oakland and the Chargers remain in San Diego,  Davis can use Los Angeles as leverage to get a new stadium in Oakland. 

---

It will be interesting to see what Dean Spanos does in the coming days, weeks, or months. Spanos has the green light to move to Los Angeles to join Stan Kroenke. Will Spanos make a serious attempt to get something done in San Diego or even elsewhere?


The other question is Mark Davis' situation regarding the Raiders remains very uncertain. If the Raiders work out a one year lease to remain in Oakland and the Chargers remain in San Diego, Davis can use Los Angeles as leverage to get a new stadium in Oakland.

And that is what I hate. As much as I love football and the Jaguars, it's not right that the taxpayers must pay for stadiums.

---

Not true. There must be an unresolved stadium issue for a team to be eligible for relocation. That rules out the Jaguars.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with unresolved stadium issues.


The Rams had a stadium plan on the table and their owner balked in favor of heading west.


San Diego and Oakland are both dealing with expired leases.


The league would only make it difficult for a team with an existing lease to break that agreement and move the team.


The league was determined to put a team back in LA, and they've screwed St. Louis in the process. I feel sorry for any city that loses a team.


This is all about greed in the modern NFL.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

From St. Louis, live in St. Louis and fan of Rams.. Got pissed off and decided to follow the Jags (Kahn and his roots) this past summer.


Now that it's official, I feel disgusted.. There are a lot of facts people from out of St. Louis don't know..

We were used and ignored..

Only city with a proposal. Denied money by Goodell, only to be given to OAK.

SD is now given an additional year..

What s joke..


You guys have a great owner..


It's a weird feeling losing a franchise.. I'm 29. Can remember watching Tony Banks Mis throw Issac Bruce..


Some people pray for the Jags to move... I love your city, would never wish this feeling on any other fan base..

All my childhood memories gone.. Over a stadium.

---

It will be interesting to see what Dean Spanos does in the coming days, weeks, or months. Spanos has the green light to move to Los Angeles to join Stan Kroenke. Will Spanos make a serious attempt to get something done in San Diego or even elsewhere?


The other question is Mark Davis' situation regarding the Raiders remains very uncertain. If the Raiders work out a one year lease to remain in Oakland and the Chargers remain in San Diego, Davis can use Los Angeles as leverage to get a new stadium in Oakland.

I think at the end of the day, the Raiders are either playing in Santa Clara or Oakland next year. Davis' comments after the presser open the door to the Raiders playing just about anywhere...except St. Louis long term.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

And that is what I hate. As much as I love football and the Jaguars, it's not right that the taxpayers must pay for stadiums.

 

 

  Fans are too often held hostage.  Other than fans of the Green Bay Packers,  no fan base can be safe from their team eventually relocating.   This is now the 3rd time the Rams have moved since the franchise originally came into existence in Cleveland!

---

I think at the end of the day, the Raiders are either playing in Santa Clara or Oakland next year. Davis' comments after the presser open the door to the Raiders playing just about anywhere...except St. Louis.

 

 Unless something happens for Mark Davis to get a new stadium in Oakland,  I think there's at least a pretty good chance the Raiders will be playing in San Antonio by 2017.   How ironic that would be after Jerry Jones was the owner other than Stan Kroenke most responsible for the Rams being able to leave St. Louis for Los Angeles.  

---

Unless something happens for Mark Davis to get a new stadium in Oakland,  I think there's at least a pretty good chance the Raiders will be playing in San Antonio by 2017.   How ironic that would be after Jerry Jones was the owner other than Stan Kroenke most responsible for the Rams being able to leave St. Louis for Los Angeles.

San Antonio has been a bridesmaid in NFL relocation talk for a while now. I just don't see the Raiders leaving California. If the Bolts head for LA, it would not surprise me one bit to see the Raiders land there.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

San Antonio has been a bridesmaid in NFL relocation talk for a while now. I just don't see the Raiders leaving California. If the Bolts head for LA, it would not surprise me one bit to see the Raiders land there.

 

The San Diego/ Raiders scenario certainly makes sense as well.   The key would be whether Mark Davis can get a stadium deal that would satisfy him in San Diego,  that would be approved by voters if the stadium has to be voted on by law.  

 

 There even has been speculation that Portland. OR.  could be eyed by Mark Davis.   Being that's a Seattle Seahawks secondary market,  it might be difficult for Davis to get league approval.   The potential Portland option would keep the Raiders on the West Coast,  in a city where they have a sizable following already.   

---

The City of St Louis had a proposal in place and the NFL didn't give them a chance to approve them. San Diego or Oakland moving makes sense from a certain perspective as they for whatever reason couldn't get a stadium going.


St Louis was robbed. My heart truly hurts for their fans

 

The St. Louis proposal funded a fraction (maybe 30%) of the cost of a new stadium. That was less than the amount the NFL requested, and much less than what Kroenke wanted. Admittedly Oakland and San Diego didn't even offer that much, but Kroenke had an LA site already in place and didn't need to convince the city or the NFL to help pay for it.


 

Fair or not, a smaller market has to pony up all, or almost all, of the cost of a new stadium. Big markets like NY and LA get their stadiums built by the owners, because the non-ticket revenue is far far bigger there.


 

Frankly, I'm glad to see the Rams back in LA. I was glad to see the Raiders back in Oakland when that was done. Now St. Louis needs to steal the Cardinals back from Phoenix.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

 Unless something happens for Mark Davis to get a new stadium in Oakland,  I think there's at least a pretty good chance the Raiders will be playing in San Antonio by 2017.   How ironic that would be after Jerry Jones was the owner other than Stan Kroenke most responsible for the Rams being able to leave St. Louis for Los Angeles.  

 

Not a big deal. San Antonio is pretty far from Dallas.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The Rams situation is settled but the Raiders situation is in a total state of flux.

 

https://twitter.com/christinKPIX5/status...9806585856

 


<div><a class="" href='https://twitter.com/christinKPIX5'>Christin Ayers‏@<b>christinKPIX5</b> </a> <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/christinKPIX5/status/687099609806585856' title="6:31 PM - 12 Jan 2016">55m55 minutes ago</a>
</div>
<p class="">Just spoke to Mark Davis outside the presser. He sounds like a man who has no intention of keeping the <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/RAIDERS'>@<b>RAIDERS</b></a> in <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/hashtag/Oakland?src=hash'>#<b>Oakland</b></a>. <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/CBSSF'>@<b>CBSSF</b></a>

<p class=""> 

<p class="">https://twitter.com/christinKPIX5/status...3978668032

<p class=""> 


<div><a class="" href='https://twitter.com/christinKPIX5'>Christin Ayers‏@<b>christinKPIX5</b> </a> <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/christinKPIX5/status/687094623978668032' title="6:11 PM - 12 Jan 2016">1h1 hour ago</a>
</div>
<p class="">Mark Davis: "This is not a win for the <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/RAIDERS'>@<b>RAIDERS</b></a>." <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/CBSSF'>@<b>CBSSF</b></a>

---

Not a big deal. San Antonio is pretty far from Dallas.

 

  True.  But the Cowboys have a huge fan base in San Antonio and have held Training Camp there in some past seasons.  

---

I don't get why another team moved to Cali. Don't the 3 current teams have trouble selling tickets? Great idea to add a 4th. Should have just moved a current Cali team to LA.

 

Didn't all three California teams have losing records? The Chargers and 49ers were terrible in 2015. The Raiders are still not winning enough games. That should explain why tickets are hard to sell.

 

Are we to assume the 2 dissenting votes were from Mark Davis and Dean Spanos?  

 

The Chargers were given the option to move in 2018. That could have swayed Dean Spanos to vote for it.

 

And that is what I hate. As much as I love football and the Jaguars, it's not right that the taxpayers must pay for stadiums.

 

I have always been a strong opponent of voters paying for NFL stadiums. Team owners are billionaires, so obviously they are not 32 of the millions of Americans who need that money.

 

I think at the end of the day, the Raiders are either playing in Santa Clara or Oakland next year. Davis' comments after the presser open the door to the Raiders playing just about anywhere...except St. Louis long term.

 

Mark Davis said early on he has no interest in sharing Levi's Stadium with the 49ers.

---

The NFL will provide some financial assistance to the Raiders and Chargers.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...ce-package

---

*cough* The London Raiders *achoo!*


Very interesting developments. Has to be good for the Jags I think.

---

Are we to assume the 2 dissenting votes were from Mark Davis and Dean Spanos?  

Maybe, maybe not. Mark Davis is probably getting a pile of cash out of this deal to build a stadium wherever he wants to, and Spanos still has the option of moving to LA.

 

Like I expressed many times in recent months,  there's no question in my mind that Kroenke is the NFLs worst owner.   He's cemented his legacy as an NFL owner,  regardless of what transpires in Los Angeles.   That much more after listening to his comments at the press conference following the relocation vote.

Dan Snyder - Patience of a six-month-old

Jimmy Haslam - Felon, patience of a three-month-old

Jim Irsay - cokehead, insane

 

Those are three right off the top of my head that I'd be less interested in having. Kroenke's not really a terrible owner unless you live in SL. One has to sit back tonight and look at how he was able to sneak a team out from under everyone's nose, make a freaking huge land purchase in the center of the LA metroplex without anyone noticing, drag his current city through the mud and, in the process, create a scenario where, if the NFL were to tell him that the Chargers and Raiders were moving and he wasn't, he could hold them hostage with the threat of a book-opening anti-trust suit that would expose the NFL to monopolistic practice laws. He's a Richard, yeah, but from a cold, hard business perspective, he could not possibly have executed this any better than he did.

 

 Unless something happens for Mark Davis to get a new stadium in Oakland,  I think there's at least a pretty good chance the Raiders will be playing in San Antonio by 2017.   How ironic that would be after Jerry Jones was the owner other than Stan Kroenke most responsible for the Rams being able to leave St. Louis for Los Angeles.  

I think there's a pile (or fifty) of cash coming out of the LA relocation fund with Mark Davis' name on it. I read a handful of articles out of Oakland over the last year, and I got the impression that he didn't really want to leave, but the government's complete unwillingness to give the Raiders any form of public money to build a new stadium was forcing his hand. If Davis does, in fact, get what he needs out of the Rams' relocation fee to build the surprisingly modest 55,000-seat stadium he wants, I wouldn't expect to see the Raiders anywhere but Oakland for the rest of his life.

 

San Antonio has been a bridesmaid in NFL relocation talk for a while now. I just don't see the Raiders leaving California. If the Bolts head for LA, it would not surprise me one bit to see the Raiders land there.

Doubt it. One of the underlying messages in the NFL's moves tonight is that the NFL wants itself out of San Diego, where it's potentially competing with itself.

 

"But why would the NFL give the Chargers $100M to figure something out with SD?"

 

Simple. The NFL knows, as does Dean Spanos, as does everyone in San Diego, that a $100M incentive will not get a stadium built without public funds--the same public funds that no one in the municipal government has been willing to talk about for the last decade and a half. I really do hope the Chargers stay in SD, but I think they're ultimately the team that will end up leaving California. If you believe what you read (and the results of the day kind of indicate this), Spanos absolutely does not want to do business with Kroenke, and he doesn't want to put his team in the position of being a tenant in a building owned by a different team. Always-a-bridesmaid San Antonio might end up being the best option for them long-term.

 

Not a big deal. San Antonio is pretty far from Dallas.

Eh, not really. Granted, I live a little southwest of Dallas proper, but if I'm motivated to get there, I can be there in a little under four hours. It's only a few minutes longer than it takes to get to Houston.

---

Welcome back to the Best Coast Rams!

---

I'll just leave this here.

 

---

THERE IS A SKELETON INSIDE OF YOU.

 

RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

I don't get why so many teams (Chargers & Rams) want to go to L.A. when Raiders left there I thought part of it was due to ticket sales being a problem.



I heard they might have to play in a small soccer stadium while they wait for a stadium to be built how bad was St. Louis to make the owner want to do this & for 30 owners to allow it...

seems odd to me...


SanDiego is the oddest because I thought they had no problems with ticket sales.. of course the team has had a hard time winning Post Season despite having talent on the team (more of a GM / HC problem if you ask me).

---