L.A. Is Inching Closer to NFL Deal

The NFL, working toward a Tuesday announcement that football will be returning to Los Angeles if certain conditions are met by early next year, debated Sunday whether to award the city an expansion franchise or a vague “football opportunity.”

The NFL expansion committee, which met Sunday, has decided to endorse Los Angeles at Houston’s expense. In a straw vote, the committee voted, 12-0, in favor of awarding an expansion franchise to Los Angeles. No formal vote has been taken in order to keep it from becoming public before its presentation in front of all 31 owners today.

The expansion committee’s recommendation will carry a lot of weight, but might lose some steam if today’s debate threatens to delay a vote until the league’s next set of meetings in Atlanta in May.

The league’s preference is to award an expansion franchise to L.A., but it is prepared to compromise if the owners balk.

A “football opportunity,” yet to be fully defined by the NFL, could be introduced as a compromise. It would leave the doors open for the return of the Raiders or the move of a troubled franchise, such as the Arizona Cardinals.

The NFL instituted a similar plan in Cleveland after the departure of the Browns, promising an expansion franchise or relocated team--the league’s choice--at a later date.

Cleveland, which feared for some time that it might be forced to accept the beleaguered Indianapolis Colts, received an expansion franchise after the league went four months beyond an agreed-upon deadline.

“It all worked out well in Cleveland,” said a league official. “There might have been some anxious moments, but those people couldn’t be happier now.”

It’s the NFL’s hope that Tuesday’s announcement will earn “Football is coming back to L.A.” headlines, while not focusing on the possibility that a unified stadium effort might only attract the Cardinals or the return of the Raiders.

The league believes it must proceed slowly to gain the confidence of owners, who are not sure any deal can be consummated in Los Angeles.

Calling it the “first step, small as it might be,” one owner said the first order of business is securing the required 24 votes to lift Los Angeles over Houston, which in a surprise development might keep the league from outright awarding the city an expansion franchise.

Concerned about objections from the Raiders, Cowboys and Chargers, the league’s sales pitch to NFL owners today will be they are making a decision with no risk attached, while generating enthusiasm and igniting action in Los Angeles.

The owners will be told that a commitment to a football opportunity in Los Angeles will cost them nothing if L.A. is unable to provide the funding for a new stadium and an owner who is willing to meet a franchise fee, which has yet to be determined.

They will also be told that if Los Angeles is unsuccessful, it will be Los Angeles’ fault, which would allow the owners then to turn to Houston and its ready-made deal, flush with $200 million in public funds.

At the same time, they will have begun work in Los Angeles, setting it up as a potential site for a relocated team, or at the very least, as leverage for any team wanting to threaten a move elsewhere.

Los Angeles will be given a specific amount of time to organize its effort, but not beyond Jan. 31, 2000, when Bob McNair’s exclusive arrangement to become Houston’s owner expires. League owners are scheduled to meet again in May, July and October.

If the league does not make an expansion franchise commitment to Los Angeles this week, that will keep the interest of Houston and McNair, who told NFL owners Sunday he now guarantees sellouts for five years if given the team.

“We’re not going anywhere,” McNair said. “We believe we have the answers the NFL requires.”

Houston’s motivation also provides the NFL leverage in dealing with Los Angeles, allowing the league to threaten a jump to Houston any time Los Angeles begins to balk at demands for a successful financial deal.

Keeping Los Angeles and Houston eager for NFL attention for the remainder of the year also works in the favor of league owners elsewhere seeking better stadium leases or deals. The Arizona Cardinals await a May referendum for a new stadium and would undoubtedly benefit from the implied threat they could move elsewhere.

There will be no discussion about funding L.A.’s effort here because it might damage the Cardinals’ quest for public money to build a new stadium.

Such discussion would also negate any possibility of gaining the vote of 24 owners, who would be asked to choose between giving some of their money to L.A. or accept Houston’s bid to build a stadium and pay the going price for an expansion franchise.

The owners arrived here frustrated, aware that Commissioner Paul Tagliabue was pushing them into a situation where they must go to Los Angeles. They are more accustomed to being pursued by willing suitors, but cannot escape the fact that their future remains clouded should they pass on the No. 2 media market in the country and the capital of the entertainment industry.

Tagliabue has made it clear the league will not even consider expansion any time before 2005--when his contract as commissioner expires.

“If Los Angeles were a country, it would be the sixth largest in the world,” said Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots and chairman of the NFL’s Finance Committee. “We can’t close our eyes to that.”

McNair, who recently sent letters to nine NFL owners offering to buy their teams, is resigned to the fact that the league is working overtime to gain an L.A. consensus, but remains baffled how that can be accomplished.

“They don’t have 24 votes and I don’t see how they can get them,” McNair said. “There’s no deal that makes sense in Los Angeles without a public contribution in funds and the owners here know that.”

NFL spokesman Joe Browne told the media Sunday that the league will not select an owner or site here, but rather a city this week, in effect giving away the league’s decision. Realizing this, Browne amended his remarks and said if Los Angeles is selected, an owner and site will not be picked, but McNair would obviously be the choice in Houston.

The NFL remains unimpressed with Los Angeles’ two proposals from Eli Broad representing the Coliseum and Michael Ovitz on behalf of Carson. The league is leaning toward building a stadium at the Coliseum site, but wants to maintain control of the situation so it can ultimately determine who owns the franchise and at what price.

The league would like to assemble a committee of influential Los Angeles businessmen to raise interest in the return of football thereby pulling other potential owners into the L.A. marketplace.