independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > General Discussion > The Rams are moving to Los Angeles; the Chargers probably are too
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 01/13/16 8:05am

RodeoSchro

The Rams are moving to Los Angeles; the Chargers probably are too


KPowers did some great Bat-reporting on this on the Playoffs thread but in case this subject has legs, I started a thread on it so as not to hijack the playoffs thread.

One side of me feels bad that the St. Louis Rams - who got a brand-new stadium in 1995 on which the public still owes $144,000,000 - are losing their team. But the other side of me says, "Heck - St. Louis stole the Rams from Los Angeles in the first place, so phooey on them". Then the third side of me says "I am not aware of anyone in Los Angeles that wants an NFL team, much less TWO NFL teams. This could be an absolute debacle". (Third side, you say? Don't forget, I'm in the Illuminati which means I can shapeshift. Much fun on Halloween!)

The Raiders are out, meaning they have stay in Oakland and try to fleece those poor citizens. There is going to be a big battle between the Raiders and the A's, both of whom want new stadia (didn't know I knew that plural, did you?). The thing is, the A's have raised most of the money for their stadium themselves. They don't need much public funding.

With the exception of Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys, that's not how NFL teams work. Their strategy is to use as little of their money -and as much of the taxpayers money - as possible. I expect the Raiders to say, "Hey taxpayers - since the A's don't need any of your hardearned money, give it to us! It's the American way!"

If that doesn't work, I expect the Raiders to move to London. The NFL, for some bizarre reason, believes they need a team in London. They seem to think there isn't any football in England. Ha, are they going to learn otherwise! Go you Spurs, go!!!!

Which leaves us with the San Diego Chargers. They too have been approved to move to Los Angeles. I wonder what has happened in the last 20 years to make the NFL think that a market that didn't care to support ONE franchise is now ready to support TWO? Perhaps we have some orgers that can confirm this but when the Los Angeles Rams moved to St. Louis 21 years ago, almost no one in LA cared. Los Angeles didn't seem to miss the Rams one bit.

And for the last 10 years+, no one in Los Angeles has been able to even mount a presentation worthy of convincing the NFL to grant a new franchise to Los Angeles. When the NFL expanded in 2002, it awarded the new franchise to Houston. The Houston group was competing against a well-funded group from Los Angeles for that franchise. I thought, "There is NO WAY we are going to beat LA for that franchise. It's a much larger TV market, and it's glamorous". But we did, mainly because the Los Angeles group couldn't convince the NFL that anyone in LA cared about professional football any more.

The NFL and its owners aren't dummies. But I'd sure like to know what makes them think a market that didn't care about one franchise now wants not only that franchise back, but wants another one to go along with it.

Thoughts?

.

[Edited 1/13/16 8:07am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 01/13/16 11:34am

morningsong

All I know is the Chargers have been demanding a new stadium for a while, especially after the Padres got their stadium built which is bringing in mad cash. There's been a bunch of tugging and pulling over the years of where should it be, the residents in MV do not want Qualcomm expanded, downtown is becoming awfully crowded to take on a new stadium. Of course now with the threat of them leaving a new stadium has been a major priority (it will probably be downtown). The Chargers have a lot of fan support to stay here but since all this came as a surprised to the fans it's a big "I don't know" if it's a situation of too little too late. We don't know if they're staying or going. Personally, I think the Chargers did their fans dirty.


An opinion piece.

http://www.boltsfromthebl...e-chargers

[Edited 1/13/16 11:38am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 01/13/16 12:53pm

kpowers

avatar

RodeoSchro said:


KPowers did some great Bat-reporting on this on the Playoffs thread but in case this subject has legs, I started a thread on it so as not to hijack the playoffs thread.

One side of me feels bad that the St. Louis Rams - who got a brand-new stadium in 1995 on which the public still owes $144,000,000 - are losing their team. But the other side of me says, "Heck - St. Louis stole the Rams from Los Angeles in the first place, so phooey on them". Then the third side of me says "I am not aware of anyone in Los Angeles that wants an NFL team, much less TWO NFL teams. This could be an absolute debacle". (Third side, you say? Don't forget, I'm in the Illuminati which means I can shapeshift. Much fun on Halloween!)

The Raiders are out, meaning they have stay in Oakland and try to fleece those poor citizens. There is going to be a big battle between the Raiders and the A's, both of whom want new stadia (didn't know I knew that plural, did you?). The thing is, the A's have raised most of the money for their stadium themselves. They don't need much public funding.

With the exception of Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys, that's not how NFL teams work. Their strategy is to use as little of their money -and as much of the taxpayers money - as possible. I expect the Raiders to say, "Hey taxpayers - since the A's don't need any of your hardearned money, give it to us! It's the American way!"

If that doesn't work, I expect the Raiders to move to London. The NFL, for some bizarre reason, believes they need a team in London. They seem to think there isn't any football in England. Ha, are they going to learn otherwise! Go you Spurs, go!!!!

Which leaves us with the San Diego Chargers. They too have been approved to move to Los Angeles. I wonder what has happened in the last 20 years to make the NFL think that a market that didn't care to support ONE franchise is now ready to support TWO? Perhaps we have some orgers that can confirm this but when the Los Angeles Rams moved to St. Louis 21 years ago, almost no one in LA cared. Los Angeles didn't seem to miss the Rams one bit.

And for the last 10 years+, no one in Los Angeles has been able to even mount a presentation worthy of convincing the NFL to grant a new franchise to Los Angeles. When the NFL expanded in 2002, it awarded the new franchise to Houston. The Houston group was competing against a well-funded group from Los Angeles for that franchise. I thought, "There is NO WAY we are going to beat LA for that franchise. It's a much larger TV market, and it's glamorous". But we did, mainly because the Los Angeles group couldn't convince the NFL that anyone in LA cared about professional football any more.

The NFL and its owners aren't dummies. But I'd sure like to know what makes them think a market that didn't care about one franchise now wants not only that franchise back, but wants another one to go along with it.

Thoughts?

.

[Edited 1/13/16 8:07am]

touched

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 01/13/16 7:29pm

UncleJam

avatar

morningsong said:

All I know is the Chargers have been demanding a new stadium for a while, especially after the Padres got their stadium built which is bringing in mad cash. There's been a bunch of tugging and pulling over the years of where should it be, the residents in MV do not want Qualcomm expanded, downtown is becoming awfully crowded to take on a new stadium. Of course now with the threat of them leaving a new stadium has been a major priority (it will probably be downtown). The Chargers have a lot of fan support to stay here but since all this came as a surprised to the fans it's a big "I don't know" if it's a situation of too little too late. We don't know if they're staying or going. Personally, I think the Chargers did their fans dirty.


An opinion piece.

http://www.boltsfromthebl...e-chargers

[Edited 1/13/16 11:38am]

The Chargers did not do their fans dirty. First off, you have to realize that San Diego fans are the biggest "fair weather" fans on the planet. If the Padres are playing the Giants, Cubs or Cardinals, probably 30% of the crowd is there rooting for the visitors (and if they're playing the Dodgers...FORGET ABOUT IT. Easily 60-40 or 70-30 Dodger fans...we call Petco Park "Chavez Ravine South"). Same goes for the Chargers...if they're playing the Raiders... disbelief . There was an opening day a few years ago (OPENING DAY!!) when they played the Cowboys and the stadium was FULL of Cowboy fans. Week after week for YEARS they've had problems selling out the stadium, to the point that the home games were blacked out in San Diego unless some business stepped up and bought all of the unsold tickets (always at the last minute). Now...when the Padres and Chargers are winning...suddenly EVERYONE in town is a fan, tickets selling like hotcakes.

-

With all of that being said, the Padres are the reason the Chargers cant get a new stadium (well, they're the reason the public doesnt want to fund the new stadium). If you remember, the Padres made it to the World Series in 1998, had probably the best team in their franchise's history. They lost to the Yankees in October 1998 and the city voted overwhelmingly to build Petco Park in November of 1998. What did the Padres do? Blew up the team and started over, back to last place in the NL West. They did hold a meeting with their season ticket holders and told them that the Padres would not be competitive for the next 5 years, "but once we open the new ballpark, we'll have additional revenue and be able to lure high priced free agents to play in San Diego." Petco Park opened in 2004...the Padres made their first significant free agent signings prior to the 2015 season. In other words, they sat in Petco Park making money hand over fist for a decade, and did nothing to make the team a contender. IMO, this is one of the main reasons the Chargers are in the predicament they're in.

-

Now...the NFL loves San Diego as a Super Bowl city, mainly because of the weather. If San Diego was to build a new, state of the art stadium...the Super Bowl would be here every 4 years (and would pay for itself rather quickly, simply on the tourism revenue). The last time the SB was here was in 2001 (or 2002...Bucs vs. Raiders). NFL Commish Paul Tagliabue told the city then, "The Super Bowl will never come back unless you build a new stadium." The Chargers owner Dean Spanos has been trying for over a decade to get a new stadium built. There was a proposal to build it downtown (before they expanded the Convention Center where they hold Comic-Con)...the city said no. There was a proposal to build it in Chula Vista (about a 5 minute drive from the Mexico border)...the North County (rich and uppity) Charger fans complained that it was too far to drive, and that it was a "bad" neighborhood. They proposed to expand Qualcomm, but the condo dwellers in Mission Valley complained. Finally, Spanos said, "Fuck it...let's go to LA" and the city lost it's mind. Now it's reversed...the city comes with proposal after proposal, and Spanos says, "No thanks." I dont give a damn what the issue is...whether the taxpayers dont want to pay or if Spanos doesnt want to pay...the bottom line is that it is ridiculous that the city of San Diego cannot realize the potential revenue that would be made from building a new stadium. They dont deserve an NFL franchise, and I for one am hoping that the Chargers get the hell out. I've lived in SD since 1979, and have never rooted for any of their teams...but I'll be rooting for the LA Chargers to win the SB, just to spite the city and it's fair weather fans.

Make it so, Number One...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 01/13/16 10:04pm

TD3

avatar

I recall a couple of years ago Bryant Gumbel doing an HBO Sports report on taxpayer funded sports stadiums. In most instances, taxpayers took all the risk and win or lose the owners made out. neutral


I don't know if anyone has ever been to St.Louise Ram stadium, horrible. Rams stadium was built on the cheap, the acoustic are horrible so was the layout. It wasn't fit for anything but football and these days an owner must have a multi purpose complex / stadium to make money.

Same thing in Chicago, the stadium was State funded. Soldiers Field is lucky if a music act rents the place out 3 times during the summer. To build that "flying saucer" within the Soldiers Fields... SF lost 20,000 plus seats. They made a mistake when a retractable glass doom wasn't built: If they had maybe Chicago could have been in the running for hosting a Super Bowel Bid. The McCaskey are football rich. In other words their family doesn't have outside income... the Bears are it. Mark my word, in a decade or less, that family will be whining the Bears stadium is inadequate.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 01/14/16 12:01am

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

I guess sports teams go where the $$$$ is hmmm

canada

Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 01/14/16 7:43am

morningsong

UncleJam said:



morningsong said:


All I know is the Chargers have been demanding a new stadium for a while, especially after the Padres got their stadium built which is bringing in mad cash. There's been a bunch of tugging and pulling over the years of where should it be, the residents in MV do not want Qualcomm expanded, downtown is becoming awfully crowded to take on a new stadium. Of course now with the threat of them leaving a new stadium has been a major priority (it will probably be downtown). The Chargers have a lot of fan support to stay here but since all this came as a surprised to the fans it's a big "I don't know" if it's a situation of too little too late. We don't know if they're staying or going. Personally, I think the Chargers did their fans dirty.


An opinion piece.



http://www.boltsfromthebl...e-chargers


[Edited 1/13/16 11:38am]



The Chargers did not do their fans dirty. First off, you have to realize that San Diego fans are the biggest "fair weather" fans on the planet. If the Padres are playing the Giants, Cubs or Cardinals, probably 30% of the crowd is there rooting for the visitors (and if they're playing the Dodgers...FORGET ABOUT IT. Easily 60-40 or 70-30 Dodger fans...we call Petco Park "Chavez Ravine South"). Same goes for the Chargers...if they're playing the Raiders... disbelief . There was an opening day a few years ago (OPENING DAY!!) when they played the Cowboys and the stadium was FULL of Cowboy fans. Week after week for YEARS they've had problems selling out the stadium, to the point that the home games were blacked out in San Diego unless some business stepped up and bought all of the unsold tickets (always at the last minute). Now...when the Padres and Chargers are winning...suddenly EVERYONE in town is a fan, tickets selling like hotcakes.


-


With all of that being said, the Padres are the reason the Chargers cant get a new stadium (well, they're the reason the public doesnt want to fund the new stadium). If you remember, the Padres made it to the World Series in 1998, had probably the best team in their franchise's history. They lost to the Yankees in October 1998 and the city voted overwhelmingly to build Petco Park in November of 1998. What did the Padres do? Blew up the team and started over, back to last place in the NL West. They did hold a meeting with their season ticket holders and told them that the Padres would not be competitive for the next 5 years, "but once we open the new ballpark, we'll have additional revenue and be able to lure high priced free agents to play in San Diego." Petco Park opened in 2004...the Padres made their first significant free agent signings prior to the 2015 season. In other words, they sat in Petco Park making money hand over fist for a decade, and did nothing to make the team a contender. IMO, this is one of the main reasons the Chargers are in the predicament they're in.


-


Now...the NFL loves San Diego as a Super Bowl city, mainly because of the weather. If San Diego was to build a new, state of the art stadium...the Super Bowl would be here every 4 years (and would pay for itself rather quickly, simply on the tourism revenue). The last time the SB was here was in 2001 (or 2002...Bucs vs. Raiders). NFL Commish Paul Tagliabue told the city then, "The Super Bowl will never come back unless you build a new stadium." The Chargers owner Dean Spanos has been trying for over a decade to get a new stadium built. There was a proposal to build it downtown (before they expanded the Convention Center where they hold Comic-Con)...the city said no. There was a proposal to build it in Chula Vista (about a 5 minute drive from the Mexico border)...the North County (rich and uppity) Charger fans complained that it was too far to drive, and that it was a "bad" neighborhood. They proposed to expand Qualcomm, but the condo dwellers in Mission Valley complained. Finally, Spanos said, "Fuck it...let's go to LA" and the city lost it's mind. Now it's reversed...the city comes with proposal after proposal, and Spanos says, "No thanks." I dont give a damn what the issue is...whether the taxpayers dont want to pay or if Spanos doesnt want to pay...the bottom line is that it is ridiculous that the city of San Diego cannot realize the potential revenue that would be made from building a new stadium. They dont deserve an NFL franchise, and I for one am hoping that the Chargers get the hell out. I've lived in SD since 1979, and have never rooted for any of their teams...but I'll be rooting for the LA Chargers to win the SB, just to spite the city and it's fair weather fans.




So the solution is leave the city where they are the only football team and go to one where they share the fans with another football team? Note that in the football threads here on the org the Chargers are hardly ever mentioned. The Raiders are, the Rams are but rarely the Chargers. And yet the NFL is very interested in this city to hold the Super Bowl. I wish them luck in receiving great fan support elsewhere if they should decide to leave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 01/14/16 8:02am

RodeoSchro

morningsong said:

UncleJam said:

The Chargers did not do their fans dirty. First off, you have to realize that San Diego fans are the biggest "fair weather" fans on the planet. If the Padres are playing the Giants, Cubs or Cardinals, probably 30% of the crowd is there rooting for the visitors (and if they're playing the Dodgers...FORGET ABOUT IT. Easily 60-40 or 70-30 Dodger fans...we call Petco Park "Chavez Ravine South"). Same goes for the Chargers...if they're playing the Raiders... disbelief . There was an opening day a few years ago (OPENING DAY!!) when they played the Cowboys and the stadium was FULL of Cowboy fans. Week after week for YEARS they've had problems selling out the stadium, to the point that the home games were blacked out in San Diego unless some business stepped up and bought all of the unsold tickets (always at the last minute). Now...when the Padres and Chargers are winning...suddenly EVERYONE in town is a fan, tickets selling like hotcakes.

-

With all of that being said, the Padres are the reason the Chargers cant get a new stadium (well, they're the reason the public doesnt want to fund the new stadium). If you remember, the Padres made it to the World Series in 1998, had probably the best team in their franchise's history. They lost to the Yankees in October 1998 and the city voted overwhelmingly to build Petco Park in November of 1998. What did the Padres do? Blew up the team and started over, back to last place in the NL West. They did hold a meeting with their season ticket holders and told them that the Padres would not be competitive for the next 5 years, "but once we open the new ballpark, we'll have additional revenue and be able to lure high priced free agents to play in San Diego." Petco Park opened in 2004...the Padres made their first significant free agent signings prior to the 2015 season. In other words, they sat in Petco Park making money hand over fist for a decade, and did nothing to make the team a contender. IMO, this is one of the main reasons the Chargers are in the predicament they're in.

-

Now...the NFL loves San Diego as a Super Bowl city, mainly because of the weather. If San Diego was to build a new, state of the art stadium...the Super Bowl would be here every 4 years (and would pay for itself rather quickly, simply on the tourism revenue). The last time the SB was here was in 2001 (or 2002...Bucs vs. Raiders). NFL Commish Paul Tagliabue told the city then, "The Super Bowl will never come back unless you build a new stadium." The Chargers owner Dean Spanos has been trying for over a decade to get a new stadium built. There was a proposal to build it downtown (before they expanded the Convention Center where they hold Comic-Con)...the city said no. There was a proposal to build it in Chula Vista (about a 5 minute drive from the Mexico border)...the North County (rich and uppity) Charger fans complained that it was too far to drive, and that it was a "bad" neighborhood. They proposed to expand Qualcomm, but the condo dwellers in Mission Valley complained. Finally, Spanos said, "Fuck it...let's go to LA" and the city lost it's mind. Now it's reversed...the city comes with proposal after proposal, and Spanos says, "No thanks." I dont give a damn what the issue is...whether the taxpayers dont want to pay or if Spanos doesnt want to pay...the bottom line is that it is ridiculous that the city of San Diego cannot realize the potential revenue that would be made from building a new stadium. They dont deserve an NFL franchise, and I for one am hoping that the Chargers get the hell out. I've lived in SD since 1979, and have never rooted for any of their teams...but I'll be rooting for the LA Chargers to win the SB, just to spite the city and it's fair weather fans.

So the solution is leave the city where they are the only football team and go to one where they share the fans with another football team? Note that in the football threads here on the org the Chargers are hardly ever mentioned. The Raiders are, the Rams are but rarely the Chargers. And yet the NFL is very interested in this city to hold the Super Bowl. I wish them luck in receiving great fan support elsewhere if they should decide to leave.



Yeah, that's what I see too. LA couldn't support one franchise, couldn't even outbid Houston for a franchise, and now they're going to support two teams? I can maybe see the Rams getting support, since they were originally the Los Angeles Rams, but of course that wasn't good enough the first time.

But I can see no reason at all why very many people in Los Angeles would become Chargers fans - especially with the old Los Angeles team returning to town.

However, the NFL is a socialistic enterprise. The Chargers will get the same amount of TV money as the Rams, so while the stadium might not ever fill up for Chargers games, they'll still get the same amount of TV money as when they were in San Diego.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 01/14/16 8:07am

RodeoSchro

luv4u said:

I guess sports teams go where the $$$$ is hmmm



They go where the PUBLIC money is, that's for sure!

I still can't figure out how the San Diego Chargers expect to find a larger fan base in Los Angeles than in San Diego. They're going to get the same TV money regardless of whether they are in San Diego or Los Angeles (the NFL is a socialistic enterprise in that the NFL negotiates all TV deals (no team negotiates its own TV deal), collects all the money, and splits it evenly between all the teams).

But they have to share the city with another team - something they didn't have to do in San Diego. And to compound things, the team they have to share with is the team that was originally in Los Angeles, before moving to St. Louis 21 years ago.

I would think that every football fan in LA that has lived there for the last 30 years would naturally only root for the Rams, who is their old team. Maybe with LA being the transient city it is, that demographic isn't very large.

I don't know, I guess time will tell.

SIDE NOTE: After thinking about it, this has already been tried. The Oakland Raiders moved to Los Angeles back in the 80's. It didn't work - the LA Raiders suffered from low attendance, and moved back to Oakland.

.

[Edited 1/14/16 8:12am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 01/14/16 10:02am

morningsong

RodeoSchro said:

luv4u said:

I guess sports teams go where the $$$$ is hmmm



They go where the PUBLIC money is, that's for sure!

I still can't figure out how the San Diego Chargers expect to find a larger fan base in Los Angeles than in San Diego. They're going to get the same TV money regardless of whether they are in San Diego or Los Angeles (the NFL is a socialistic enterprise in that the NFL negotiates all TV deals (no team negotiates its own TV deal), collects all the money, and splits it evenly between all the teams).

But they have to share the city with another team - something they didn't have to do in San Diego. And to compound things, the team they have to share with is the team that was originally in Los Angeles, before moving to St. Louis 21 years ago.

I would think that every football fan in LA that has lived there for the last 30 years would naturally only root for the Rams, who is their old team. Maybe with LA being the transient city it is, that demographic isn't very large.

I don't know, I guess time will tell.

SIDE NOTE: After thinking about it, this has already been tried. The Oakland Raiders moved to Los Angeles back in the 80's. It didn't work - the LA Raiders suffered from low attendance, and moved back to Oakland.

.

[Edited 1/14/16 8:12am]

I don't know these things but if SD is left without a football team then doesn't that leave them out of the running from hosting the SuperBowl? That would be the only thing that makes sense is this is a big FU to SD, the Chargers make money regardless because the new staduim in Carson will generate more venues possibly even garnering the SB because it gets the same weather, and isn't in the middle of the congestion of LA.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 01/14/16 10:20am

BobGeorge909

avatar

I recall the teams leaving L.A. not because of a lack of a market, people not wanting football there, or apathy. The primary issue from what I recall was stadium cost-sharing. The city councils were not wanting confront the money for the stadium cuz they were certain the owners would make vast amounts of money off of the citizens. The city councils involved felt the cities shouldn't have to pay for the team owners to make money. The Lakers, the clippers, the kings, the ducks, the dodgers, and the Angels all get mad love and good attendance.

I'm not into football, but as a resident of the area for thirty years, I am certain the people of the region are NOT apathetic to having a football team. They want a football team very much so.

I don't know the new arrangement in terms of stadium cost-sharing, but I believe that is the only place where a tune has changed. The people of L.A. definitely want football. Badly enuff to where some drive the damn 2-3 hours to San Diego for a flippin chargers game.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 01/14/16 10:34am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

That is some sick shit. Quit using taxes to spring for these cunts.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 01/14/16 10:44am

morningsong

BobGeorge909 said:

I recall the teams leaving L.A. not because of a lack of a market, people not wanting football there, or apathy. The primary issue from what I recall was stadium cost-sharing. The city councils were not wanting confront the money for the stadium cuz they were certain the owners would make vast amounts of money off of the citizens. The city councils involved felt the cities shouldn't have to pay for the team owners to make money. The Lakers, the clippers, the kings, the ducks, the dodgers, and the Angels all get mad love and good attendance. I'm not into football, but as a resident of the area for thirty years, I am certain the people of the region are NOT apathetic to having a football team. They want a football team very much so. I don't know the new arrangement in terms of stadium cost-sharing, but I believe that is the only place where a tune has changed. The people of L.A. definitely want football. Badly enuff to where some drive the damn 2-3 hours to San Diego for a flippin chargers game.

Yeah but do they have enough love for 2 teams? The meeting I saw in Carson, when it was just the idea of the Raiders and Chargers, though the room was full I hardly saw any flag waving for the Chargers, it was primarily Raider love. Now coming up against the Rams, an LA original, idk.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 01/14/16 11:35am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Hope Steelers leave. Go to hell.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 01/14/16 11:58am

namepeace

The Chargers are actually going home too. They started in LA.

Playing purely evillol 's Advocate here . . . St. Louis was fully content to take the Rams away from Los Angeles. Of course, St. Louis seemed to support the team more than the LA fanbase did at the end, but LA fans were left behind 20 years ago. But St. Louis doesn't have beaches to console them.

I hate that St. Louis invested so much public money fighting to keep the Rams when it was a lost cause from the beginning. Kroenke seemed like he was determined to move the team at the outset.

Chargers fans are not really getting as much sympathy as St. Louis.

Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016

Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 01/14/16 7:45pm

JoeyC

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

morningsong said:

UncleJam said: So the solution is leave the city where they are the only football team and go to one where they share the fans with another football team? Note that in the football threads here on the org the Chargers are hardly ever mentioned. The Raiders are, the Rams are but rarely the Chargers. And yet the NFL is very interested in this city to hold the Super Bowl. I wish them luck in receiving great fan support elsewhere if they should decide to leave.



Yeah, that's what I see too. LA couldn't support one franchise, couldn't even outbid Houston for a franchise, and now they're going to support two teams? I can maybe see the Rams getting support, since they were originally the Los Angeles Rams, but of course that wasn't good enough the first time.

But I can see no reason at all why very many people in Los Angeles would become Chargers fans - especially with the old Los Angeles team returning to town.

However, the NFL is a socialistic enterprise. The Chargers will get the same amount of TV money as the Rams, so while the stadium might not ever fill up for Chargers games, they'll still get the same amount of TV money as when they were in San Diego.



Exactly. And not only will they not gain many new fans from LA, they will loose quite a bit from San Diego. The only way i can see any of this changing, is if the Chargers become a Super Bowl caliber team. And i don't see that happening for a while.

Rest in Peace Bettie Boo. See u soon.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 01/14/16 8:23pm

morningsong

namepeace said:

The Chargers are actually going home too. They started in LA.

Playing purely evillol 's Advocate here . . . St. Louis was fully content to take the Rams away from Los Angeles. Of course, St. Louis seemed to support the team more than the LA fanbase did at the end, but LA fans were left behind 20 years ago. But St. Louis doesn't have beaches to console them.

I hate that St. Louis invested so much public money fighting to keep the Rams when it was a lost cause from the beginning. Kroenke seemed like he was determined to move the team at the outset.

Chargers fans are not really getting as much sympathy as St. Louis.


What, 40 years ago?

What's the deal with Rams leaving?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 01/14/16 8:28pm

kpowers

avatar

morningsong said:

namepeace said:

The Chargers are actually going home too. They started in LA.

Playing purely evillol 's Advocate here . . . St. Louis was fully content to take the Rams away from Los Angeles. Of course, St. Louis seemed to support the team more than the LA fanbase did at the end, but LA fans were left behind 20 years ago. But St. Louis doesn't have beaches to console them.

I hate that St. Louis invested so much public money fighting to keep the Rams when it was a lost cause from the beginning. Kroenke seemed like he was determined to move the team at the outset.

Chargers fans are not really getting as much sympathy as St. Louis.

What, 40 years ago? What's the deal with Rams leaving?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 01/15/16 12:32pm

namepeace

kpowers said:

morningsong said:

namepeace said: What, 40 years ago? What's the deal with Rams leaving?


Yeah, San Diego started in Los Angeles in the AFL days back in the 50s and 60s.

The Rams can make more $ in every respect in LA than in STL. Even if you count taxpayer funding and tax breaks.

Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016

Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 01/15/16 3:32pm

morningsong

kpowers said:

morningsong said:

namepeace said: What, 40 years ago? What's the deal with Rams leaving?

Even if that's just 1 $100 bill on top and the rest ones, I'd take it. I could find a little trouble to get into with that.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 01/15/16 3:37pm

kpowers

avatar

namepeace said:

kpowers said:


Yeah, San Diego started in Los Angeles in the AFL days back in the 50s and 60s.

The Rams can make more $ in every respect in LA than in STL. Even if you count taxpayer funding and tax breaks.

Just their first season, founded in 1959 but played in LA for the 1960 season

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 01/15/16 5:29pm

morningsong

Hold up! wait! You mean the Rams will own the new stadium and the Chargers will be just renting a space? That's what I'm getting now. I didn't know all that. It sounds even stupider then ever now.



What makes sense to me, Chargers are staying put, SD is building a new stadium and expanding the Convention Center at the same time. And compete like heck to get the SB, and one day the Olympics. Building, building, building everwhere.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 01/16/16 7:07pm

morningsong

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Mayor Kevin Faulconer said it's not too late to keep the Chargers in San Diego during his second "State of the City" address at the Balboa Theatre Thursday night.

Faulconer said that with the crafting of a financing plan that doesn't include new taxes, and the assembling of experts to design a stadium and conduct an environmental review, the city and county of San Diego have accomplished more on the Chargers behalf in the last 10 months than has been done in the past 10 years.

"Our San Diego family has stood with the Chargers in victory and defeat for more than 50 years -- that ought to count for something," Faulconer said.

"This franchise has prospered because of generations of loyal fans," Faulconer said.

"The passion, the heart, the energy that has powered the Bolts for 55 years, you can't get that in L.A., you can't get that in Inglewood, you can only get that in San Diego."

In his first "State of the City" speech last year, Faulconer warned that "at no point in San Diego's history has the possibility of the Chargers moving to Los Angeles been more real," and announced he would appoint a task force to study building a stadium for the local National Football League franchise.

The group proposed a project to replace 48-year-old Qualcomm Stadium in Mission Valley, but the Chargers broke off talks with the city and county of San Diego in June.

Faulconer spoke tonight two days after the NFL offered the Chargers a one-year window to move to Inglewood, where they could play in a future stadium alongside the Rams.

League owners on Tuesday approved the Rams' return to Los Angeles from St. Louis and rejected a plan by the Chargers and Raiders to build a stadium in Carson.

Faulconer acknowledged the "twists and turns" that have taken place this week by saying, "I hope I'm reading the right version of the speech right now," drawing laughter from the audience.

The approximately 50-minute speech wasn't all about football.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 01/16/16 7:08pm

morningsong

morningsong said:

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Mayor Kevin Faulconer said it's not too late to keep the Chargers in San Diego during his second "State of the City" address at the Balboa Theatre Thursday night.

Faulconer said that with the crafting of a financing plan that doesn't include new taxes, and the assembling of experts to design a stadium and conduct an environmental review, the city and county of San Diego have accomplished more on the Chargers behalf in the last 10 months than has been done in the past 10 years.

"Our San Diego family has stood with the Chargers in victory and defeat for more than 50 years -- that ought to count for something," Faulconer said.

"This franchise has prospered because of generations of loyal fans," Faulconer said.

"The passion, the heart, the energy that has powered the Bolts for 55 years, you can't get that in L.A., you can't get that in Inglewood, you can only get that in San Diego."

In his first "State of the City" speech last year, Faulconer warned that "at no point in San Diego's history has the possibility of the Chargers moving to Los Angeles been more real," and announced he would appoint a task force to study building a stadium for the local National Football League franchise.

The group proposed a project to replace 48-year-old Qualcomm Stadium in Mission Valley, but the Chargers broke off talks with the city and county of San Diego in June.

Faulconer spoke tonight two days after the NFL offered the Chargers a one-year window to move to Inglewood, where they could play in a future stadium alongside the Rams.

League owners on Tuesday approved the Rams' return to Los Angeles from St. Louis and rejected a plan by the Chargers and Raiders to build a stadium in Carson.

Faulconer acknowledged the "twists and turns" that have taken place this week by saying, "I hope I'm reading the right version of the speech right now," drawing laughter from the audience.

The approximately 50-minute speech wasn't all about football.

Somebody's doing a lot of puckering.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 01/16/16 10:07pm

kewlschool

avatar

It's money first. Politics second. The Chargers are using the recent relocation as a threat to get a new stadium. Raiders and Rams sharing a venue is a better deal for the NFL.

99.9% of everything I say is strictly for my own entertainment
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 01/17/16 3:00am

BobGeorge909

avatar

I'm not sur why some here keep repeating that LW can support a team let alone two. This Forbes report says L.A. is the second largest sports market in the world. I assume the first is New York. I read the article hoping to clear up in my head as to who's paying for the stadium which was part of the reason the teams left LA. The City and its citizens didn't want to be the primary financiers of a cash cow stadium for a franchise which could afford to finance its own stadium. This article didn't clear that up for me, but it does have some AWESOME pics of the building plan which involves a low sunk stadium with only a small portion of it above ground. It will also be the largest NFL complex which will be around then size of small country...The Vatican. It will also be suitable for events like final four events, concerts, festivals.
It will have something like a 50 foot HD screen that circles the entire stadium...outdoing Dallas' screen, who stadium was designed by the same firm that designed this one for the former Hollywood Park horse racing site.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...1d4a277ad3

It's a cool article....check it out. I'm excited for my hometown. They deserve some football action. They're rocking two NBA teams(clippers/Lakers), two NHL teams(kings/ducks), and two MLB teams(Dodgers/Angels). I am beyond certain that they will support a team from the most popular sport in the united States....if not two. There's ASSLOADS of people with ASSLOADS of coin to spill in L.A. on football.
[Edited 1/17/16 3:02am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 01/17/16 9:20am

morningsong

No way SD can compete with a stadium like that. That was part of the issue claimed no big investors wanted to fund the project. I have no idea where this money is coming from the Mayor is talking about, and then where, SD has nowhere near the land mass of LA. Chula Vista was a big fat no before but they have the land, our downtown is really small compared to other large cities, nowhere to expand to. I have a big sigh on where I see this ish going for us.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 01/17/16 11:10am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

They spend other people's money. The right should be outraged.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 01/17/16 12:31pm

kpowers

avatar

I hope no other team moves to LA. Well at least the Rams will travel less for division games now. Now there is talk about the NFL having a team in London, then if that is the case St. Louis should be awarded the other team that comes into the league.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 01/17/16 1:10pm

kpowers

avatar

kewlschool said:

It's money first. Politics second. The Chargers are using the recent relocation as a threat to get a new stadium. Raiders and Rams sharing a venue is a better deal for the NFL.

Then everyone in LA will be Raider fans because they like the gangsta look

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > General Discussion > The Rams are moving to Los Angeles; the Chargers probably are too