City Of Los Angeles News & Rumors

A source with knowledge of the situation expects that there will be a solution to the Los Angeles relocation dilemma in early January, according to Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk. Of course, we learned several days ago that NFL owners would convene in Houston on January 12th and 13th and may vote on relocation at that time. Florio’s latest report indicates that the vote will, in fact, take place.

There had been rumblings that this process could be dragged out until 2017, but league owners and league officials understand the importance of resolving the matter as soon as possible. Keeping three teams in limbo for an extended period of time could degrade the markets in those three cities, which could make it difficult for the clubs that do not relocate to thrive in the future, and per Florio, “the league seems to understand that fans of every team in every city are growing fatigued by the process.” Ultimately, Florio writes that Roger Goodell or Panthers owner Jerry Richardson–the de facto Los Angeles committee chairman–could force the hands of the other owners in January by refusing to terminate the meetings until 24 votes are cast in favor of one outcome or another.

Although it has appeared for the past several months that the Carson project–the proposal that would see the Raiders and Chargers share a venue just outside of LA–enjoys the majority of ownership support, that proposal did take something of a hit recently. According to Ian Rapoport of NFL.com (article via Conor Orr of NFL.com), a 200-acre piece of land that had been viewed as parking and additional development space for the Carson project is no longer available. That tract of land, the Links at Victoria Golf Course, was part of the league’s vision to turn its future Los Angeles outpost as a grandiose centerpiece, and its loss could theoretically be a blow to the Oakland/San Diego relocation efforts. Carson advocate Carmen Policy, however, does not think so. According to Policy:

“We have our core piece of land, we don’t need anything else. Obviously, if the league gives its approval, we’ll be looking at other developments and expansion ideas in the entire area.”

3:37pm: The word from today’s league meetings indicates that NFL owners will likely meet again in Houston on January 12th and 13th, perhaps voting on relocation at that time, says Jim Trotter of ESPN.com (Twitter links). The Chargers and Raiders would like a vote to happen sooner rather than later, and it appears their support for resolution is increasing, according to Trotter, who adds that there’s “zero chance” of a Kroenke/Spanos partnership at this time.

12:46pm: The NFL will set a date today for its special January meeting, but won’t set a date yet for the L.A. relocation vote, tweets Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune. That vote may happen in January, but it may not.

11:21am: In a letter to the Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities last week, the Rams proposed a 50/50 partnership with either the Chargers or the Raiders in Inglewood, reports Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune. According to Acee, the Chargers are viewed as a more likely potential partner for the Rams, but “it could be the Raiders.”

Throughout the process, Rams owner Stan Kroenke has expressed a reluctance to enter an equal partnership with another team on the proposed Inglewood stadium, and the Chargers and Raiders haven’t had any interest in becoming a tenant at that stadium, preferring instead to pursue a stadium plan in Carson instead. The fact that Kroenke and the Rams are willing to propose a 50/50 partnership is a sign of progress.

Still, one issue with the Rams’ latest proposal is that it wouldn’t allow that second team to be involved in the “surrounding development, stadium design, and other points that would certainly be an issue,” writes Acee. As Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk notes, the fact that Chargers owner Dean Spanos has already agreed to partner with Mark Davis and the Raiders could also create legal issues if Spanos wants to get out of that partnership. In Florio’s view, it may only work if Davis is given the money he needs to go toward the cost of a new stadium in Oakland.

In any case, the fact that the involved parties in potential Los Angeles relocation are considering new scenarios suggests they’re aware that decisions will have to be made soon. Here’s the latest on the L.A. situation:

• Scott M. Reid of the Orange County Register has more on the Rams‘ willingness to take on a partner, writing that some of Kroenke’s “allies” have begun to lobby for a deal that would have the Chargers joining the Rams in Inglewood.
• While there were some rumblings in recent weeks that a move to Los Angeles might get delayed until 2017, that possibility has “all but evaporated,” says Acee. “I just don’t see it,” one team owner tells Acee. “This is going to done.”
• At least two members of the league’s Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities – Giants owner John Mara and Chiefs owner Clark Hunt – would like to see a relocation vote take place in January, per Sam Farmer and Nathan Fenno of the Los Angeles Times. According to the L.A. Times report, the date and locale of that January meeting is still being discussed — the NFL is considering January 12th in Dallas or January 19th in Houston.
• Farmer suggests (via Twitter) that he expects a January meeting on relocation, followed by a February vote, and NFL.com’s Judy Battista (Twitter link) agrees with that assessment. Battista adds (in a series of tweets) that team owners would like to set a date for a January vote by the end of today, but wouldn’t necessarily enter that January meeting with a solution set in stone. As Battista outlines, that scenario would result in plenty of negotiations and side meetings before the vote, and potentially an attempt to broker a deal before that meeting.
• Spanos and the Chargers will almost certainly have a stadium solution at the end of this process, whether it’s in Los Angeles or San Diego, says Albert Breer of the NFL Network (Twitter links). That makes a Rams/Raiders partnership a long shot, since the league wouldn’t want three teams in Southern California (two in L.A., one in San Diego).