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]

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]

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]

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... . 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.

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.

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.

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

UncleJam said:

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... . 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.

luv4u said:

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

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]

RodeoSchro said:

luv4u said:

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

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.

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

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.

Hope Steelers leave. Go to hell.

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

Playing purely '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.

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.

namepeace said:

morningsong said:

namepeace said:

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

Playing purely '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?

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.

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.

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

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.

morningsong 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.

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

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.

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