Minnesota keeps its Vikings; Rams and Raiders top candidates for L.A.?

[yaz96]

Minnesota keeps its Vikings; Rams and Raiders top candidates for L.A.?
By MIKE KLIS The Denver Post

I’m happy for the people of the Twin Cities and Minnesota. It’s an underrated metropolis and state. They deserve to keep their NFL Vikings.

The Vikings are officially staying put after the Minneapolis city council approved the stadium financing arrangement, 7-6. Close, but light those cigars.

The city is putting up $150 million towards the $975 million stadium. The Vikings will spend $447 million. The state of Minnesota will ante $348 million. I’m not sure about the other $30 million to cover construction.

Now that the Vikings can be crossed off for possible franchise relocation, the St. Louis Rams — formerly the Los Angeles Rams — and the Oakland Raiders — formerly the Los Angeles Raiders — become even stronger candidates to eventually relocate to Los Angeles.


As for the Chargers — they move from San Diego over the dead bodies of travelling NFL beat writers everywhere.

Know this about the L.A. market: Commissioner Roger Goodell said there would be not one team going there, but two. That’s because the stadium costs in L.A. figure to approach $2 billion. One team can’t handle all that debt and expense. Goodell also said the NFL is not planning to expand. So it’s not one team that will relocate, but two.

Everybody keeps bringing up Jacksonville, but I think the No. 1 issue here will be which teams will give L.A. the best chance to succeed? The NFL will do all it can to make sure L.A. succeeds this time.

The Rams and Raiders still have some fan base in L.A., however dwindling. The Jaguars would be a tough sell to the people in Los Angeles.

Plus, I think Nuggets/Avalanche/St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke has outgrown his homestate of Missouri. He’s a dynamic owner and L.A. would offer a vibrant market as the NFL looks to the second-half of this decade.

 

[whitewolf8214]

I see Raiders going to L.A before rams since the Rams and CVC are moving on negotiating on stadium approvements and it doesnt it goes to arbitration and thats final ruling whoever wins and Rams cant get out of the contratc until after the 2014 year and rumour is arbitrator is going to rule both sides put in on remodeling the stadium

 

[Will94]

It's only been 17 years since the Rams ditched LA for STL. I thought that St. Louis built the TWA Dome (Now Edward Jones) specifically for the Rams? A new stadium only gets you 17 years now?

 

[salsadancer7]

I do not see the Raiders moving to L.A. Atleast not yet.

 

[whitewolf8214]

It's only been 17 years since the Rams ditched LA for STL. I thought that St. Louis built the TWA Dome (Now Edward Jones) specifically for the Rams? A new stadium only gets you 17 years now?

Its the greedy owners and players that are ruining these sports and whereas the regular consumer cant go to the game with there family without spending alot of money on parking tickets concessions etc.As for the dome there was not thought process to think of future and theres a provision in the contract that says the stadium has to stay in the top tier of stadiums in the nfl costing taxpayers more money.We need to stop all owners in all sports from using taxpayer money on all stadiums I live in St.Louis,Mo and i have friends that work for the rams in management that is close to the situation

 

[whitewolf8214]

I do not see the Raiders moving to L.A. Atleast not yet.

But raiders are trying

 

[meStevo]

Related:

Raiders unlikely to move to L.A., unless Mark Davis sells | ProFootballTalk

The Rams definitely should be regarded as a potential candidate, given that they currently are on track to walk away from their St. Louis lease after the 2014 season. As Mark Purdy of the San Jose Mercury News explains it, the Raiders should be on the short list, too. But there’s a catch.


The prevailing opinion among the league’s power brokers is that the owners most likely would not authorize a move by the Raiders unless owner Mark Davis sells controlling interest in the team.


Ultimately, 24 of the league’s 32 owners must approve any relocation.


It’s unclear why there’s a preference that Davis not own the team if/when it goes to L.A. But there is. And it could make it difficult, if not impossible, for Davis to pull off the move.


Thus, if Davis remains unwilling to sell, the Raiders most likely will remain in Oakland, indefinitely.
​

 

[Teehar]

I think the Bills could also be added to that list.

 

[salsadancer7]

Related:

Raiders unlikely to move to L.A., unless Mark Davis sells | ProFootballTalk

Yep. Davis has stated he would really like the team to stay in Oakland. Liking does not equate that it is "edged in stone" though. I am hearing from alot of Raider fans I keep in touch with that though in the papers it states they won't..there is still some behind the scenes negotiating with the Raiders/49ers and a couple of cities within 25-50 of the Bay area about the teams sharing a stadium. Do I think it's still possible? Yeah, ANYTHING is still possible, but I think it's more wishful thinking.

 

[salsadancer7]

I think the Bills could also be added to that list.

Yeah....but I think they would move to Toronto before L.A. to keep the western NY fan base.

 

[meStevo]

Yeah....but I think they would move to Toronto before L.A. to keep the western NY fan base.

Agree, a lot of fan support in Canada for the Bills.

My money would be on Rams or an expansion, in that order.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[yaz96]

Agree, a lot of fan support in Canada for the Bills.

My money would be on Rams or an expansion, in that order.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Goodell is talking about TWO teams to LA to share the stadium and costs. So, Rams and Oakland make most sense, maybe San Diego. All are in western divisions.

 

[yaz96]

Yep. Davis has stated he would really like the team to stay in Oakland. Liking does not equate that it is "edged in stone" though. I am hearing from alot of Raider fans I keep in touch with that though in the papers it states they won't..there is still some behind the scenes negotiating with the Raiders/49ers and a couple of cities within 25-50 of the Bay area about the teams sharing a stadium. Do I think it's still possible? Yeah, ANYTHING is still possible, but I think it's more wishful thinking.

What the article is saying is that the other NFL owners do not want Mark Davis to own the Raiders if they move to LA. They want him to sell. Apparently they do not like him, or what he might do with the team in LA.

So, that is the reason the team will probably stay in Oakland.

 

[salsadancer7]

What the article is saying is that the other NFL owners do not want Mark Davis to own the Raiders if they move to LA. They want him to sell. Apparently they do not like him, or what he might do with the team in LA.

So, that is the reason the team will probably stay in Oakland.

As long as he owns the team, he is making every effort to stay in Oakland. And there are no indications that he plans to sell. And it really never mattered to Al nor his Son on whether owners like them or not... the league has had issues with the Raider franchise for decades. That will not change.

 

[Mets82]

What the article is saying is that the other NFL owners do not want Mark Davis to own the Raiders if they move to LA. They want him to sell. Apparently they do not like him, or what he might do with the team in LA.

So, that is the reason the team will probably stay in Oakland.

If the owners dont like Mark Davis, then the owners are in the same situation they were when Al was running the team. Al took his team to Oakland.
So I am assuming that since Al died, the Raiders are still tough to handle as far as ownership goes? I mean I would have thought that with Al passing away, maybe the Raider franchise would be easier to deal with.

Wouldnt it make sense for the Raiders to move back to LA, considering they play in Oakland?