SAN FRANCISCO -- Admittedly, NFL executive Eric Grubman, the league’s point person on teams attempting to move to Los Angeles, hasn’t had time to fully digest the 42-page document detailing the San Diego task force’s $1.1 billion proposal to build a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers.
However, Grubman offered some initial thoughts on the proposal when I caught up with him on Monday at the NFL owners meetings.
“I haven’t had a chance to analyze it,” Grubman said. “My impression of what they’ve done in the past few weeks since we’ve been there is that they did take seriously our comments, which is time is of the essence. So for a project to get over the goal line, it has to be actionable and it has to be timely.
“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.”
In his meeting with the citizens’ stadium advisory group in San Diego last month, Grubman told the task force that the Chargers were not enthusiastic about the plan. Further, the city needed an agreed-upon finance plan by the end of the year, or the team would consider relocating with the Oakland Raiders to a $1.7 billion shared stadium in Carson, California.
On Monday, the task force revealed a finance plan for a $1.1 billion stadium at the Mission Valley site, with the Chargers responsible for contributing $300 million, along with another $173 million in rent payments over 30 years.
Grubman said teams eyeing a potential move to Los Angeles will discuss with the full group of NFL team owners on Tuesday what’s happening in their home markets, along with updates on proposed stadiums in Inglewood and Carson.
Grubman also said owners will discuss a change in the deadline for filing for relocation. Currently, the window for filing for relocation is Jan. 1-Feb. 15, 2016. Owners have discussed moving that timeline up to the end of this year in order to give teams filing for relocation more time to move in 2016.
Grubman said the owners could consider shortening the window to file for relocation, along with cutting the time frame for owners to vote on the issue.
“We don’t need six weeks for the filing,” Grubman said. “And I think it’s also possible and probably preferred that if there is a good relocation proposal that membership wants to pursue, that they would do that before the March meeting. Exactly when that is, I don’t know. We’re not quite far enough.”