NFL owners voted 30-2 to permit the Rams to return to Saint Louis, and to give the San Diego Chargers the right to join the Rams at the new stadium in Los Angeles. The Oakland Raiders are the odd-man out.
My guess is that the Chargers will reluctantly come back to the negotiating table with San Diego politicians. The Raiders, like the Chargers, will think twice about paying a fee to the NFL to be the second tenant in a stadium in southern California. If I had a say I would tell the Raiders to suck it up and join the 49ers at the new stadium in Santa Clara, which is only about 40 miles south of Oakland. That way the Raiders get to keep the brand “Oakland Raiders,” which was always stronger with the fans (and the TV networks) than ‘the Los Angeles Raiders.’ The Raiders’ owners should now concentrate on reconciling with their fellow NFL owners (still mad a Papa Al Davis, R.I.P.) to get a reasonably affordable deal to play at 49er Stadium in Santa Clara.
Your first sentence confused me at first, as the Rams are already in St Louis. I do wish the team name would stay with the city, easier to remember. I still think of the St Louis football team as the Cardinals.
The raiders may not want to move to Santa Clara, and there is precedent for why they wouldn’t. The Jets did that when they moved to Giants Stadium back in the 80’s, and spent a number of years playing in a stadium not theirs, plus they also received a smaller percentage of parking and concessions than the Giants did. It is likely if the 49ers agree to the Raiders using the stadium, they would end up as a ‘junior partner’ (it was only with the new stadium that the Jets and Giants are equal partners).
The funny part about moving to LA is that the Rams, and then Oakland, had a hard time in that market, part of it was playing in the coliseum, which was a pain to get to, but part of it is that the LA area tended to want to watch the games on TV more than go to the games. It will be interesting to see if the Rams actually can draw in LA, if being in a more accessible place (I assume) might draw more fans than they did in the last incarnation.
Some sportswriters opine today that the Raiders could consider San Antonio or St. Louis. I doubt it. The Raiders are one of the strongest brands in the NFL. Multiple seasons of losing records hasn’t changed that. The Raiders, along with the Packers, the Steelers, the Browns and the Cowboys are the most iconic teams in the league. The first incarnation of the Browns abandoned Cleveland; and the league moved swiftly to rectify that situation. The Packers, Steelers and Cowboys essentially cannot abandon their their cities; it would be too much of a cultural shock for the NFL. The Raiders fall into this category, which is why I believe the team was not fully successful in Los Angeles. I doubt if a San Antonio Raiders or a St. Louis Raiders would live up to its potential, financially and otherwise. Although, a new 30 billion dollar league TV contract might mitigate any disappointment. LOL.