NC-17 posted:

What's the backstory behind those photos?

The Glumslinger posted:

So AEG, who wants to build the stadium in downtown LA, commissioned a report about how the Inglewood stadium would be a likely site for a terrorist attack.

Volkerball posted:

Why wouldn't they? The Raiders have a huge leg up on any other team when it comes to establishing a fan base in LA. Mark or no Mark, the team would make a lot of money.

quote:

* If the NFL had to put two teams there, it would probably prefer the Rams and Chargers, but since those teams are in the cities most amenable to knuckling under to their football teams, the league’s other owners would probably prefer not to punish cities that roll over for them.

* In addition, the Rams would prefer to work alone, the Chargers don’t want to be a tenant to the Rams either in word, deed or shoe-squeezing, but wouldn’t mind playing the Rams’ role with the Raiders as the tenant who lives in the back of the flat.

In other words, there are so many moving parts (and we haven’t even gotten to L.A.’s newfound love of the Olympics) that the absence of a resolution actually has some merit as well. It certainly helps St. Louis and San Diego, inconveniences Stan Kroenke and Dean Spanos, and lengthens Mark Davis’ torture . . . if you define “torture” as losing football games and making tons of money no matter what as a member of The 32.

And hey, it still beats being Geno Smith.

So if you’re looking for news from the owners’ meetings, it is this: Oakland is not a player in this debate because Oakland doesn’t have money to misappropriate on a football team it has already misappropriated money on two decades ago. That means that the Raiders can only throw themselves on the “mercy” of The Other 31, and yes, we use “mercy” in the strongest possible quote marks. Without a city to silver-and-blackjack into economic submission, the Raiders’ only leverage is that it is the weakest franchise in the league and as such is as close as the league comes to having a beggar in its midst.

So maybe there’s one last question to be determined – how much longer will the NFL tolerate the Raiders as a corporate entry being like the Raiders on the field? And no, that problem is not something Jack Del Rio or Derek Carr or Charles Woodson can impact.

warcrimes posted:

^^ don't quote Ray loving Ratto if you want to come off as giving facts, NFL Insider was reporting the exact opposite this morning and it's kind of been discussed a lot on the media outlets here. Spanos and Davis have forged this kind of strange partnership and are joined at the hip, unless the Chargers somehow stay in SD.

Volkerball posted:

Raiders and Rams gonna share a stadium probably. I'm cool with that.

Top Hats Monthly posted:

I don't want the Rams to move

Shrimpy posted:

Was McFadden really a risky pick? He obviously never lived up to potential or expectations, but I didn't think there were any red flags about him when he came out.

Also, now that I live in Oakland, I really hope the Raiders don't move.

(Though this opinion might change after I actually go to the Coliseum for the Packers game)

Brannock posted:

Where would the Raiders be today if Al Davis hadn't fired Gruden?

Ross Angeles posted:

Is there a richer NFL owner?

ColonelJohnMatrix posted:

Davis just went Kroenke on the city of Oakland and Spanos told USA today he has no interest in Inglewood. lol. Buckle in, these next 24-48 hours are going to be crazy.

Ross Angeles posted:

the Westin

Ross Angeles posted:

Whatever "Memorial City" is?

I have no idea

Volkerball posted:

I thought the NFL liked Spanos. It looks like he's the one getting most hosed here.

Ross Angeles posted:

https://twitter.com/UTKevinAcee/status/687078802481090564

Ehud posted:

Volkerball posted:

you're kidding right

Ross Angeles posted:

I'm wondering what the Chargers' deadline is to move for the 2016 season.