Seahawk Proposal Mocked by NFL

The Seattle Seahawks’ formal presentation of their proposed move to Southern California was met with a mixture of laughter and disbelief by the rest of the NFL here Monday.

Club executives dismissed a one-hour argument by Ron Olson, lawyer for Seahawk owner Ken Behring, that the league is gambling with the safety of its players and fans by playing in a building that is not earthquake proof.

The Seahawks are using that argument in an attempt to break their Kingdome lease with 10 years remaining.

“This is like me saying that my East stands are falling down, so I’m leaving,” said Pat Bowlen, Denver Bronco owner.

Carmen Policy, San Francisco 49er president, noted that he was so frightened by the prospect of an unsafe Kingdome that, “If we are still playing up there in August as scheduled, I’ll be there. And I’ll bring my family.”

Another executive said simply, “The whole thing is a sham.”

But the owners alone cannot stop the Seahawks from moving.

In the early 1980s, the NFL lost an expensive court battle to keep the Raiders from moving from Oakland to Los Angeles. It has not fought any of four franchise moves since.

But owners’ reactions Monday--their harshest response to any of the recent moves--may indicate the league’s willingness to throw up roadblocks if the Seahawks are not restrained by a Washington state court in May. The court will hear dueling lawsuits by King County, Wash., and the Seahawks for lease violations.

Behring was clearly distressed by his colleagues’ reaction, but remained intent on playing in Southern California next season.

“Now we get prepared for court,” he said.

Behring said the owners have ulterior motives for their disapproval.

“No doubt, there’s a lot of jealousy about me moving to Los Angeles,” he said. “It’s a big market. They don’t want to tackle it, but they don’t want anybody else to tackle it, either.”

Olson said he hopes owners will realize the magnitude of their risk.

“Sooner or later, I hope [owners] are going to recognize that this is not a Ken Behring problem, this is an NFL problem, an every-owner problem,” Olson said. “Putting people into a structure that is a known seismic risk has serious financial implications, serious implication for any insurance coverage, serious morality considerations.”

Olson added, “They’re gambling . . . and if people are prepared to take that gamble . . . “

The baseball Mariners are among those gamblers. They are expected to play at least 246 home games in the Kingdome while their new stadium is being built.

Bob Kraft, New England Patriot owner, said the alleged problems appear to be worth the risk.

“You play 10 games a year there . . . each game is about three hours . . everything combined, you are talking about maybe 60 hours a year in the building,” Kraft said. “That’s not even three days. For the fans’ sake, I just hope we can find a way to keep the team in Seattle.”

Olson made his presentation to the influential Finance and Stadium Committee, made up of 14 owners and executives, including Behring’s son David.

Olson compared a possible Kingdome disaster to the fatal freeway damage caused by the 1989 San Francisco earthquake.

King County officials will offer rebuttal Wednesday, with the owners expected to withhold a vote until the court has returned a verdict.

“Seattle is, by every expert we talked to, a very active seismic area,” Olson said. “It has two faults. Both are capable, according to experts, of [earthquakes] well in excess of 7.0.”

Olson said Seattle has experienced as many earthquakes as Los Angeles since World War II--two--and said both have been larger.

Olson said the difference is that Los Angeles has prepared for earthquakes and Seattle has not.

The NFL was unimpressed.

Dan Rooney, the Pittsburgh Steeler owner who spoke out against the proposed move last month, shrugged as he left the meeting.

“Nothing that happened in there changed my mind,” he said.

*

NFL Notes

The league has devised an instant-replay plan that will be presented to owners today in hopes of gaining approval for experimental use during exhibition games this summer. Under the plan, only three types of calls could be challenged: scoring, change of possession and out-of-bounds plays. There would be no replay official; the referee would make the decisions after viewing a sideline monitor. Coaches would be allowed a certain number of challenges per half. Instant replay was abandoned after a five-year experiment in 1991 because detractors felt it lengthened games. The new proposal should diminish that problem.