Oakland developer provides city with Raiders funding plan, but you aren’t allowed to see it yet

The Raiders-A’s land war in Oakland is really heating up now, with developer Floyd Kephart providing city officials with a financing plan for a new Raiders stadium (which he can’t tell you about, and the city won’t release yet). Since A’s owner Lew Wolff still insists that he wants the Raiders to vamoose so he can build a stadium and surrounding development on the Coliseum site (and MLB commissioner Rob Manfred backs him up, because that’s what he’s there to do), looks like there’s gonna be a gum fight.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, meanwhile, only released an email statement that she is “analyzing the viability of the submission from Mr. Kephart,” and taking a “multipronged approach so we have as many options available as possible for stadium development without the use of City of Oakland general fund dollars.” Given that past Raiders plans have all involved the use of a heck of a lot of City of Oakland money, this doesn’t seem promising for Kephart’s plan, but we’ll know more when we know more.

Meanwhile, down in Carson, where a combined Raiders/San Diego Chargers stadium remains on the table — and which is currently embroiled in a crazy internecine government battle involving sexual assault charges against the current mayor and the city clerk calling a former mayor a “witch,” all of which is very entertaining but not really all that relevant to the stadium issues at hand — there was a public town hall meeting last night with Chargers and Raiders officials, and the Raiders officials failed to show up. Anybody who has a clue what Raiders owner Mark Davis is thinking in all this, please raise your hand, okay?

Talks over Chargers stadium now just involve both sides insulting each other

If San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer thought that proposing a Chargers stadium plan that nobody was really happy with and then calling for a public vote in order to avoid a more difficult public vote would at least be a productive starting point for negotiations — hey, it worked in Milwaukee, sort of — it’s not really working out that way at all. We already covered the Chargers owners’ statement on Tuesday that this voting thing doesn’t really work for them; since then, things have only descended further into everybody just yelling at each other:

  • Faulconer sniped on Twitter that “we can get this done if we have a willing partner,” while one of his political consultants snarked, “For the first time in seven months of incredibly hard work from the City, County, and the CSAG, the Chargers did something honest – walk away from the table.”
  • Faulconer said he’d next go straight to the NFL to convince the league that a public vote could be held without worries about holdups from environmental lawsuits, with city councilmember Scott Sherman adding approvingly, “They wouldn’t have a choice but to come back to the table.”
  • Chargers stadium czar Mark Fabiani told a KPBS interviewer that “we’re out of time for 2015″ and the only way the Chargers stay put in San Diego is if the NFL rejects their move to L.A. (Asked why the team had agreed to negotiate at all if it was too late, Fabiani replied, “We were hoping the city would come up with something we hadn’t thought of.”)
  • Fabiani told a 10News interviewer via email that negotiating with the city had been “a waste of five months,” that the L.A. market is “far more lucrative,” and that “we haven’t seen any evidence so far in our dealings with Mayor Faulconer that he is capable of managing such a complex project,” calling his approach “remarkably unsophisticated.”

Yep, that’s a lot of yelling. What it all seems to add up to is two sides each trying to make their pitch to the NFL: Fabiani is trying to tell the Chargers’ fellow owners, “Hey, we tried, the mayor’s a buffoon, we have no choice but to go to L.A.,” while Faulconer is sending the message, “We have a good offer on the table, kick these nuts in the butt and tell them to negotiate.” This is looking more and more like the endgame will be an NFL meeting in which the Chargers, St. Louis Rams, and Oakland Raiders owners all try to be the first to win approval to go to L.A.; I’m still skeptical that any of them should really want to, but NFL owners are as susceptible as the next person to wanting things that they’re told they can’t have. Maybe more so.

USA Today report on NFL LA move may violate own unnamed source rule, says source close to journalism

Stop the presses! USA Today reported on Friday that it’s heard the NFL is exploring where a team could play temporarily in Los Angeles, maybe, while a new stadium was possibly being built, if that happens, possibly, says some guy:

The league plans to soon begin talks with existing stadiums in the Los Angeles area in an effort to provide temporary housing for any team or teams that might relocate there, if any, a person familiar with the situation told USA TODAY Sports. The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation.

This is totally expected, since the league needs to do due diligence if it’s going to consider approving a move of either the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, and/or Oakland Raiders. And, for that matter, it’s also totally expected that the NFL might want to leak this to the papers for their own purposes, as a way of turning up the heat on St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland to get new stadium plans in gear already, instead of mucking around with whether it would be legal or whether it makes any sense. You might even wonder if USA Today is being used by the league here for PR purposes, with the whole “asked not to be identified” thing serving as cover so the NFL doesn’t have to answer any uncomfortable questions.

In fact, let’s see what USA Today’s editorial ethics policy has to say about basing stories on the testimony of unnamed sources:

The use of unnamed sources erodes our credibility and should be avoided.

Okay, that’s not a good start. But what about when, you know, you really really don’t want to avoid it?

The identity of an unnamed source must be shared with and approved by a managing editor prior to publication. The managing editor must be confident that the information presented to the reader is accurate, not just that someone said it. This usually will require confirmation from a second source or from documents…

Anonymous sources must be cited only as a last resort. This applies not just to direct quotes but to the use of anonymous sources generally. Before accepting their use for publication, an editor must be confident that there is no better way to present the information and that the information is important enough to justify the broader cost in reader trust. This is not to be taken lightly…

Unnamed sources should be described as precisely as possible. Additionally, reporters and editors should explain why the source could not be identified and if possible, add any information that establishes the credibility of a source on the subject matter in question.

Obviously, we as readers have no way of knowing whether USA Today’s managing editor signed off on this, whether a “second source or documents” was provided, and whether the information was “important enough to justify the broader cost in reader trust.” Still, at best, this seems like bending the “Don’t use unnamed sources unless absolutely necessary” rule for the sake of a juicy headline, even if it’s not a story that necessarily tells anyone much of anything. Which goes on all the time, of course, but that doesn’t make it any better a way of running a journalistic railroad.

 

Extorting four cities for new NFL stadiums at once is hard, guys!

The Los Angeles Daily News’s Vincent Bonsignore has a good article up today detailing the careful balancing act the NFL needs to play in deciding which, if any, teams end up moving to Los Angeles:

Short of San Diego or Oakland stepping forward with satisfactory stadium plans for the Chargers and Raiders, which seems to be a long shot at this point, or [Rams owner Stan] Kroenke surprising everyone by accepting the stadium proposal Missouri leaders are hammering away at, the NFL is headed toward a potentially ugly fight in which owners will be asked to take sides with or against one other.

Worse, if it ultimately comes down to a vote, the team or teams losing out will report back to their local markets with tails decidedly between their legs and left vulnerable while trying to revive new stadium talks.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you’re hearing a lot of rumor and innuendo right now, and no real action, especially on the part of the NFL: Any step forward by one team’s plans would mean a step backward for someone else’s — and the last thing the NFL or its owners wants is for anyone to lose leverage in negotiating a stadium deal. So the endgame here is going to have to be carefully calibrated to ensure that everyone gets a deal they can live with before anything gets finalized. (Bonsignore’s solution — let the St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers move to a shared stadium in Inglewood, and take $400 million from their relocation fees and stadium revenues and give it to the Raiders for a new stadium in Oakland — almost certainly won’t work, since it’s unlikely there’s an extra $400 million in profit just sitting around in any Inglewood finance plan, but hey, an article can’t have everything.)

Instead, let’s watch Hollywood Park racetrack get blowed up to make way for either Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium if it ends up getting built, or for something else if it doesn’t. Momentum!

Carson officials on Chargers/Raiders stadium talks: Sorry, we never wrote anything down

Wondering how exactly the negotiations between the city of Carson and the owners of the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders went before those teams’ surprise announcement of stadium plans in February on the heels of St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke declaring his interest in a stadium in nearby Inglewood? So was the Voice of San Diego, so it asked Carson city officials, and this is what it was told:

What did those negotiations consist of? Not a single email, text message, memo or anything on paper at all between the teams or the NFL and any elected official in Carson, according to city officials…

Carson is not saying that written communications between its elected officials and the Chargers, Raiders and league should be shielded from public view because they are part of real estate negotiations or other legitimate exemptions from the state’s records laws. No, they’re saying that there are literally zero electronic or paper communications between Carson’s elected officials and the NFL.

The VoSD is now suing to force the release of documents that it’s sure must exist. The entertainment value here is potentially awesome, so stay tuned.

Commissioners gotta commissioner: Silver says “upgrades” needed for Cleveland to host NBA All-Star Game

Hey look, everybody, a sports league commissioner has used the promise of a major sporting event as a carrot to demand arena and/or stadium upgrades! That’s surely never happened before!

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said the only thing that would prevent the city of Cleveland from hosting an NBA All-Star game is failing to make improvements to Quicken Loans Arena.

“They’ve expressed interest in it and we’re waiting for them to get the additional work done on the building,” Silver told Northeast Ohio Media Group during Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals…

“It really comes down to when are the upgrades going to made to the arena,” Silver reiterated.

Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert has been asking for public money to upgrade the team’s 21-year-old arena, because the public money he got last year at this time wasn’t enough, or something. So Silver just did him a favor by delivering a promise, or a threat, or a promise-threat, in the hopes that Cleveland officials will get all exciting about the possibility of an NBA All-Star Game without checking to see whether other host cities have actually benefitted from them one bit. Because that’s what commissioners do.

In totally unrelated news, the NFL has said that it will maybe consider holding the 2020 Super Bowl in Los Angeles, if there’s a stadium and a team in place there by then. Must be nice to be the kid with the new car everyone wants to ride in.

Chargers and Raiders buy Carson land, NFL presses San Diego to hurry up with its stadium offer

NFL VP for stadium extortion Eric Grubman hasn’t read the whole Citizens Stadium Advisory Group proposal for a San Diego Chargers stadium yet — it’s 42 pages! and there’s good stuff on TV on Tuesdays! — but he knows what he doesn’t like about it:

“I don’t think they made a specific proposal that includes all the key elements of how they get entitled and so forth and so on. So first of all, I haven’t dug into it. And second of all, I don’t know what the timing of that proposal could be.”

What Grubman seems to be saying is “Nice $647 million in land and cash you’re offering, but hurry up and tell us that you can get it all done by next January, or else we could let the team move to Carson, you know.” Not that the NFL would necessarily do that, but threatening to do that they would totally do.

And speaking of Carson, the Chargers and Oakland Raiders owners and the city’s joint powers authority closed on buying the land for a proposed stadium there yesterday, for an undisclosed sum, setting off a round of “Omigod they’re really building a stadium in Carson!” Which this doesn’t necessarily indicate — the city of Carson gets most of the land, and would keep it for some other development if the stadium doesn’t happen — but it does indicate the teams are serious enough to spend a few million dollars in hopes of advancing the three-city stadium game of chicken a bit further.

Carson mayor says city to shoulder site cleanup costs, admits whole Raiders/Chargers move could be bluff

Hey, check it out, it’s some actual news about the proposed San Diego Chargers/Oakland Raiders stadium in Carson! Carson Mayor Albert Robles sat down with a local TV sports anchor on a local AM radio station, which was written up on the web, and … where was I? Oh, right, how that Carson stadium land deal is actually going to work. First off, the site is perfect for a stadium, says Robles, because it’s totally contaminated!

“Most of that site was a former landfill. It’s contaminated land,” said Robles. “There is a strip, about 11 acres, that was never a landfill.”

And that’s good because nobody was going to use it for anything else, I guess?

“We were on schedule to build a massive retail mixed-use commercial project on that site. That was already planned, whether the NFL was coming or not. That still is our backup plan.”

Okay, no, not that, then.

Anyway, the teams have bought, or are buying, or will buy as soon as it’s clear that they’re not going to get new stadiums in San Diego and Oakland, the land for about $20 million. Then, because buyers of contaminated land are responsible for cleanup costs under California law, they’ll transfer the land to a new Joint Powers Authority, which will pass it along to the Carson Remediation Authority. So the teams would get the land, but the city would get the responsibility for any cleanup — the CRA has reportedly already set aside funds for this, and would be doing it for the commercial project anyway, but it would still be nice to know exactly how much is being spent by the public to clean up private land being bought from private owners for a private project. [UPDATE: The L.A. Times has it: $120 million, of which $50 million in final bonds are expected to be approved by the Carson city council today.]

Robles also gives some hints about the possibility that the whole Carson thing is just a bluff to extract stadium subsidies from Oakland and San Diego, noting that one condition of the stadium deal was that “there would be no stadium built unless the city of Oakland and the city of San Diego were unable to build them a new stadium.” And asked if the whole thing is just a bluff, he answered:

“There is a shred of possibility to what you’re saying is true, we’ll leave it at that,” he said.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

NFL actually issues official response to why its website has a “Los Angeles Rams” page

So that was interesting: When I reported yesterday on the Los Angeles Rams page that was hidden on the NFL’s website and wrote, “Conspiracy-theorize away, people of the Internet,” I thought maybe we’d get a crazy Reddit thread out of it. Instead, the news (or “news”) got picked up by Yahoo Sports and Bleacher Report and tons of other places, with someone even reporting that it showed up on a St. Louis TV station.

And now, it’s gotten an official response from the NFL, via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Alex Riethmiller, NFL vice president for communications, said, “It’s a bug in the system that, when you manipulate the URL, will pull up a legacy team from that city if no current one exists.”

So everyone can officially calm down, okay? There’s also a Boston Patriots page, and the Patriots aren’t moving back to Boston. It’s just the way the search function on the NFL teams page is coded, and no particular team is singled out for — sorry, what’s that, NBC Sports’ Mike Florio?

But the glitch has its limits. Inserting “POT” unfortunately does not return a page for the Pottsville Maroons.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The NFL’s official website has a “Los Angeles Rams” page

FoS reader Brian Sweeney writes in with a hot tip: Search for “LA” on the NFL’s official team site, and you get this:

Screen Shot 2015-05-04 at 10.57.43 AMNow, this is almost certainly some artifact of a legacy link to the Rams’ former incarnation, which somebody decided should point to the St. Louis Rams page. (Especially given all those broken image links in there.) Still, it doesn’t come up with the Oakland Raiders page, now does it? Coincidence?

Conspiracy-theorize away, people of the Internet.