Fear, deadlines amping the NFL's pursuit of Los Angeles

Brent Schrotenboer | USA TODAY Sports

The NFL's pursuit of the Los Angeles market has gotten so hot and heavy this year that the league has called a special owners meeting to discuss the topic Tuesday in Chicago.

There's still a long way to go before determining which teams — if any — will move into which proposed stadium.

But some parts of the puzzle have sharpened into better focus recently and are likely to be part of the discussion this week involving the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams.

Here's an analysis, based on deadlines, stated positions and people with knowledge of the situation who didn't want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation:

WILL A DOMINO SOON FALL?

The Chargers appear certain to apply for relocation to Los Angeles County for the 2016 season, barring a surprise deal or delay. It's not because they want to leave San Diego, their home since 1961, but because they think they've practically run out of time to get a stadium deal done there without forfeiting their leverage in Los Angeles.

This is about deadlines and fear. The city of San Diego is pushing for a Jan. 12 election on a stadium plan. To get that on the ballot by then, the team needs to make a deal with the city by Sept. 11.

If that doesn't happen, that January vote is off. And if the January vote is off, the Chargers would appear to have little choice. The team could apply to relocate or risk waiting too long to get anything done anywhere.

The deadline to submit relocation applications is Feb. 15, but that might move to an earlier date. Teams also would want to file as soon as they can — possibly in December if the league allows it. Filing as soon as possible would allow enough time to work out any kinks that might come up in the application process.

WHY THE RUSH?

The owners of the Chargers, Raiders and Rams are unhappy in their stadiums and pursuing two stadium plans in Los Angeles County, which hasn't had an NFL team since 1995. But the NFL has said it only will support one new stadium in Los Angeles capable of housing two relocated teams.

In this high-powered game of musical thrones, that means one team could lose out by not submitting a timely application. Losing out in this case means being blocked out of Los Angeles and forced to remain in your current market with no new stadium and little leverage to get one.

WHY NOT JUST WAIT FOR THE JANUARY VOTE IN SAN DIEGO?

The team needs to reach a deal with the city by Sept. 11 in order for it to get ready for a special election Jan. 12. And it's not looking likely. After trying for a new stadium in San Diego for more than a decade, the Chargers walked away from more futile talks with the city in June.

They think that such a hurried march to ballot is a lose-lose proposition. If the vote fails, the public has effectively told the team to get out of town. Even if a vote in January wins, the team fears lawsuits that could kill the stadium project later because of a rushed process and inadequate environmental impact report, among other possible legal threats.

That's a risk the team doesn't want to take. If the project is at risk later, the team could be left empty-handed — no new stadium in San Diego and no leverage in Los Angeles because it might be too late. By then, the Rams and Raiders might have tried to fill that market.

To maintain progress toward at least one viable stadium plan — in Los Angeles — the team might feel forced to apply for relocation.

THEN WHAT?

If the Chargers apply to relocate, the Raiders would seem certain of doing the same. That's because they are partnered with the Chargers in a new stadium plan in Carson, a Los Angeles suburb. The Raiders also have no viable stadium plan of their own on the table in the Bay Area.

The Raiders are free to leave their lease in Oakland after the season. The Chargers would be required to pay San Diego a termination fee of $15.2 million, according to their lease.

WHAT COULD CHANGE THAT?

If one of the teams reached a deal in its current market, the other two wouldn't feel as pressured about being left without leverage in Los Angeles, and that could buy them more time. If the league decided no teams can relocate until at least 2017, such a move also could buy the teams' current cities time to find solutions.

A spokesman for San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer noted that voter approval of a stadium is possible in January, June or November 2016.

"If by January the NFL owners have not made a decision on where the Chargers will play, or if they decide the Chargers should remain in San Diego, the San Diego stadium plan could appear on the regular election ballot in June or November," said the spokesman, Matt Awbrey.

But there's no guarantee much will change with another year. A delay also could risk plans in Carson, where there's an April 30 deadline for the Chargers and Raiders to make a decision to move there or potentially lose out on the property.

WHAT ABOUT THE RAMS?

Rams owner Stan Kroenke is pursuing his own stadium in Inglewood, near the Los Angeles airport. At the same time, officials in Missouri have a stadium plan in St. Louis that is arguably more viable right now than in Oakland and San Diego — a $998 million project to be supported by public funds. Proponents of this new stadium in St. Louis also cheered last week when a judge ruled city taxpayer funds could be used for this project without requiring a public vote.

If a team wants to relocate, it needs approval from 24 of the league's 32 owners, according to league rules. For NFL owners, it might be hard to justify why the Rams should return to California — after leaving the L.A. market in 1995 — when St. Louis is planning to help build the Rams a new stadium with public funding. Unless, of course, that plan falls apart.

HOW WILL IT BE DECIDED?

The league doesn't want it to come down to a vote in which one franchise walks away as a loser. Finding a negotiated solution beforehand would help avoid that.

WHERE WILL THEY PLAY IF THEY MOVE?

Any new stadium might not be ready until 2018. If a team applied to move next year, it would be a lame duck in its current market and would want to move as soon as possible to start selling itself in its new market. That would mean it needs temporary housing, likely the Coliseum, which is controlled by the University of Southern California. USC is interested but only can host one NFL team, according to its lease.

The Rose Bowl Operating Company decided last month it was not going to pursue a temporary relationship with the NFL because it wants to pursue a music and arts festival instead. To find a second temporary home for a relocating team, the NFL might have to cobble together a home schedule at various venues. For example, perhaps the Raiders could go on tour, with stops in London and Dodger Stadium along with farewell appearances in Oakland.

Some NFL owners already have predicted one or two teams will move to Los Angeles for the 2016 season. A decision could come later this year, but much work remains.

Follow Brent Schrotenboer on Twitter @Schrotenboer. E-mail: bschrotenb@usatoday.com