things are beginning to move quickly.... the key part of this article is that Grubman is characterizing the "no move to la in 2015" as being predicated on the facts at the time.... I believe that the expediting of the process by the owners meeting next month may change those facts to a degree where if Kroenke makes the request to move for next season, it may go through


http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20150212/nfl-vp-on-la-i-would-say-theres-legitimate-hope-but-i-wouldnt-say-its-a-done-deal


NFL VP on L.A.: ‘I would say there’s legitimate hope. But I wouldn’t say it’s a done deal’



By Vincent Bonsignore, Los Angeles Daily News


Posted: 02/12/15, 5:58 PM PST |
0 Comments



NEW YORK — NFL vice president Eric Grubman, the man in charge of overseeing the league’s return to Los Angeles and franchise retention in current NFL cities, has been a busy man lately.

With the league intent on making things work again in Los Angeles, and St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke making the bold move to partner with a California development company to build an 80,000-seat stadium on the site of the old Hollywood Race track in Inglewood, momentum is building toward L.A. getting professional football back for the first time in 20 years.




And Grubman is front and center in that process while also trying to make sure things work out for existing teams in existing markets.

Fact is, with the NFL not yet ready to expand beyond the current 32-team format, satisfying the Los Angeles market likely means departing from a current one.

And that makes Grubman’s job quite the balancing act, one he took a break from to sit down with the Los Angeles News Group in his New York office to shed some light on what’s really going on with the NFL and Los Angeles.




LANG: Los Angeles has been down this road before and got its hopes up, only to have things fall apart. With everything that’s gone on over the past few months, is there legitimate reason for hope right now?

EG: The words I would use to categorize it, or grade the probability, would lead me to conclude that hope makes sense. Faith makes sense would be even better. But the words I would actually use would be, there is a serious opportunity that has been building for the last several years. It’s taken a lot of time and a lot of effort from a lot of people. I might be the face of it at the league, but there are a dozen people working on this project. And there are people (with clubs) who have invested an incredible amount of time. And the fact is, there are people in the Los Angeles community who have really been digging in. All of those oars, pulling, have been making consistent and tangible progress. So I think there is legitimate hope. But I wouldn’t say it’s a done deal.

LANG: It just seems like serious momentum is building this time. Why now? What has changed?

EG: My wife has observed for the last 25 years, one thing I’m really good at is the art of saying nothing. She says, ‘I listen to you describe the situation and then I realize you haven’t said which way it will come out.’ It will come out, and I think you can carve out for yourself the different angles. I think there are two things that are different. One is tangible, one is intangible. Referring back to my wife’s observation of my speech patterns, the intangible is that I have gone from making vague and bland statements to making vague and more excited statements. I haven’t changed the vague, but I’ve definitely changed the tone, the emphasis. That was deliberate, and I think that registers on people even if they don’t know the details because we have to do this kind of stuff in confidentiality.




The thing that’s tangible is that, both the league and the clubs have been willing to be on the record in a way that, while not making any definite statements, it’s been clear that we’re more willing to take a stand.

From the league’s viewpoint, we’ve been willing to put resources into leading the effort back, and going back a few years ago, even to the point of considering buying land as an option. And that was very noticeable to the people in the Los Angeles market. We didn’t put it on the front page of the newspaper, but people started hearing about it.




From a club perspective, a club goes from using mild reference and language to being possibly interested to (actually) buying land. And that’s a big step. You put all that together and I think it boils down to a brew that would suggest people think this is worth taking a look at.

LANG: Last December, the NFL alerted teams that there would be no move to Los Angeles in 2015 due to stadium and other uncertainties. Since then, Stan Kroenke partnered with a California land developer to build a stadium in Inglewood. To what extent has Kroenke settled any of those uncertainties?




EG: Let’s be clear why we said no relocation. This was not some unilateral, down-from-the-mountain decision on the part of the league office. This was after dozens of conversations with clubs that might be interested and with owners on committees, chairmen of committees. Now let’s take a step back and ask, what is wrong with this picture? It’s not just wanting to go to the Los Angeles market. You have to have a place to play permanently, your existing market has to have failed, and you have to have an approved plan between Point A and Point B. All of those things weren’t present in a way that could make the NFL proud. And, no one disagreed with that. So, while it could have been rushed and possibly done, we would not have been able to have the kind of pride and quality in execution that’s become a hallmark of the NFL. When that became apparent, there was no dissent. We talked to the clubs involved, as we said before, and while it may have been a surprise to the market, it wasn’t a surprise to those teams.




LANG: On the surface, it seems Stan Kroenke has settled two of the biggest issues facing Los Angeles over the years: Where a new stadium would be built and who would pay for it. He seems to be closing in on the third: Getting approved by city leaders. On the other hand, you have St. Louis also pushing the ball ahead on getting a new stadium built. Something might not add up in terms of a proving things couldn’t work in St. Louis. How does that get rectified?

EG: Our job up here is not to make things easy. It’s to do things in a way that reflects well on the NFL in its values and priorities and does right by its fans. Along the way, things can happen that you don’t expect. Our job is to do everything we can to make a club successful in its own market. Another part of our job is to develop new market opportunities. Until every one of the clubs is very successful with a road map moving forward of success, in their markets, it’s our job to do both of those things.




I don’t see that as being in conflict, I see that as hedges against one another. Not to get leverage, just because you have to multiple irons in the fire. So, I don’t know what will happen if a Los Angeles opportunity proves out, and a St. Louis opportunity proves out. But I’m confident we can navigate to a place which makes sense for us and our values and does right by our fans.

LANG: Assuming all the questions are answered with Hollywood Park — where the stadium gets built, who pays for it and entitlement — what could you see derailing this from an owners’ standpoint in terms of the Rams not getting approval?




EG: I don’t see owners saying no to any site that’s viable and attractive, whether it’s Hollywood Park or downtown. If it’s viable and attractive and a team wants to go there and the plan is good, I don’t see any problem.

LANG: But it still comes down to the Rams needing 24 “yes” votes. Do you see that as an issue assuming all the boxes get checked off?

EG: Well, we’re leaving aside the boxes of, whoever is departing a market has to satisfy the relocation guidelines. If we’re confining the question to what would prevent a “yes” based on the Los Angeles factors. I think if they’re all positive, nothing would prevent a “yes” vote. If you’re also asking in that same question, the non-Los Angeles variables, then my answer is, I don’t know. That scale has two parts to it. “Yes” to the new market and “no” to whatever the old market proposes. Although, you know it’s possible that an old market proposes nothing. And if it proposes nothing and it’s not viable ...




LANG: I’m going to resist asking whether (the NFL) actually hopes that occurs so that it takes you out of that pickle.

EG: You might resist asking it, but I’m going to answer that question. Because that’s a really important question. I place no higher priority in my mission statement, to creating a viable, approvable plan in Los Angeles and creating a viable plan in St. Louis. I’m going to share a secret with you, if you think an impossible scenario is created by creating a terrific plan in Market One and a terrific plan in Los Angeles — and that’s a really hard decision for owners — that’s exactly what I want. That is my job. And let’s make no mistake, that’s what the commissioner wants me to do, that’s what the owners want me to do. There might be an individual owner that has a different point of view, but I have a league hat on and it’s my obligation and the obligation of the rest of the staff to make it work. And that’s what I aim to do. To create viable projects. Not to create competition, because it’s our obligation to make a team successful in its market, but also our obligation to make it work in Los Angeles.




LANG: Has Stan Kroenke met all obligations relative to the relocation guidelines thus far?

EG: I don’t think it’s fair for me to grade Mr. Kroenke in the abstract or in isolation. I will simply leave it as, all the clubs involved have engaged consistently with the league. We have guidelines in general and guidelines that are specific to the Los Angeles process. And every club that I’m aware of that has been interested in the Los Angeles market has been in full compliance with the general set of guidelines and the specific L.A. guidelines. I don’t have any criticism to make of any kind.




LANG: What do you make of the Hollywood Park plan?

EG: I think it’s a very interesting site, I think it gets terrific and viable when it gets entitled and we see the plan. I think it’s clear it is making progress. I think it knocks off these progress points, then its grades go up. Whether or not it’s the best site, I don’t know.

LANG: The NFL recently formed a committee of owners overseeing the Los Angeles relocation process. What was the reason for forming it and what do you foresee its role being?




EG: That’s a very interesting question. The committee is not taking the place of an existing committee. So any committee that would lead to a judgment and a conclusion and a recommendation would go to membership. All voting rights are preserved, all committee rights are preserved. This committee is really in place so that between league meetings, which can be months apart, and between committee meetings, which can also be months apart, we have a sounding board and we have a representative group because they come from all of the committees and more that would be a part of this. We have a representative group that will act as a sounding board and can amplify once we’ve reached any short of judgment about how to navigate and can amplify that back to the clubs that might be interested. And it possibly could get involved, if we needed them to, if one of the site developers needed to have a conversation.




LANG: It’s been said and speculated that the NFL prefers a two-team model in Los Angeles. Is that accurate to say?

EG: No. It’s accurate to say what the NFL has said, and that is to the extent we are going to finance a stadium in the Los Angeles market, the Los Angeles guidelines say it has to be a two-team capable (plan). We have not taken any position publicly or privately that it needs to be one or it needs to be two teams. There is an open mind, but a stadium that is financed by us would be built as a two-team stadium.




LANG: How do you see the relocation fee getting hammered out, and the process in general playing out?

EG: To the first question, I don’t know how it gets hammered out. The answer to the second question is we have a lot of analysis to do, and there are factors in work that have not been in work in any recent situations. There is no formula to point to, no point on a board to point to. This is a process of a lot of owners getting up to speed on the issues. Thinking about it, talking about it amongst themselves, talking about it together. And I think that will play out over a period of time.