Chargers to stay in SD in 2016

[Lakers+USC=#1]

I think that a city would need to prove they can support a team no matter where they go. Even though I like San Diego, I've never thought San Diego was capable of supporting the Chargers enough. I don't understand why you'd have a city go from having no teams to having 2 in the same year. That makes no sense to me. I don't believe the Raiders need to be so close to the 49ers, I don't think the Rams needed to be so close to Kansas City, I don't think the Jets need to be so close to the Giants. It's just my point of view on the whole thing. LA should have a team, but not 2. In order for it to even be justifiable in my mind LA would have to show that they're capable of showing out for 2 teams. I'm not sure they're capable of doing that for 1 team. That's only because I haven't seen it. I'm not saying LA can't do it, I'm just saying they shouldn't be gifted 2 teams at the same time before the fans have shown what level of interest is. It doesn't matter how the teams left over 20 years ago. If they can't support 2 teams, then they shouldn't have 2 teams. It's that simple to me.

They did it for 50 years.

 

[Anointed One]

When Charger fans first heard the news on their TV's downstairs...

 

[chf]

Interesting. I guess I view it as worth it for the city in the sense at least I know in Denver every single bar every single Sunday the Broncos are on is completely filled to the brim. People from all over the state come for the game bringing in revenue in all that they do in the city. We are also then talking about the tax money coming from millionaire players and personnel for the team. We are also talking lots and lots of jobs upwards of over 1000 in the city that are all being taxed as well. I can definitely see what you are saying of how the cities are not quite making as much as they used to but I would bet they are still seeing some return on the investment in helping fund the stadium.

The stuff I read specifically was written with Jone's goo-goo plex being built in Arlington. Arlington also has the ballpark for the Rangers. These deals are usually sold to the taxpayers as paying off for THEM, and the studies put the lie to that notion. They see very little out of it. Certainly the jobs promises are way overblown. As are the tertiary business claims they make. It'd be interesting to find out whether the bar experience in Denver is an outlier, but there certainly is no buzzing bar zone around the ballpark in Arlington. Why would you drive to Arlington to go to the bar? You could watch the game in a Deep Ellum bar if the game was being played in San Antonio. Or anywhere else. There is a BIT of activity on game days around the ballpark in Arlington. But the rest of the time? Ghost town zone.

Besides the property taxes, what does the municipality see from the owners/players/staff? Would those houses be sitting empty? Probably not, they'd have dentists or lawyers or plumbers (heh) in them.

At any rate, the point that some of these independent studies have shown is that the return on investment is TINY, and that for the citizens of the town, they'd be much better off for the city to just GIVE them the money rather than spend it on billionaire welfare.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I hate to tell you this, but while the Chargers have reportedly agreed to stay in 2016, it has since been reported that the Chargers and the Rams in principle agreed to share a stadium in Inglewood, so it is just the matter of time to the point where the Chargers become the Los Angeles Chargers

 

[handicappers]

I hate to tell you this, but while the Chargers have reportedly agreed to stay in 2016, it has since been reported that the Chargers and the Rams in principle agreed to share a stadium in Inglewood, so it is just the matter of time to the point where the Chargers become the Los Angeles Chargers

Wrong

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Just hope he doesn't make a half ass effort just to save face then bolt to LA. This is a good way to save some of his fans. If it's a good faith effort and the city votes it down, I'm much more likely to continue supporting them, though I would rarely if ever make the drive to LA.

How much has Spanos committed to the project in SD? If it's not at least 50%...I'd tell him thanks, but no thanks...see you in LA...Joe public investing in stadiums that are obsolete in 20 yrs is total BS.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

The main reason the Rams moved from Los Angeles was because the Coliseum held +90,000 fans and the NFL at time said that if a team was to televise a home game, they had to be sold out 72 hours in advance. The Rams could never sell out the +90,000 fans, so the owner decided to move the team.

Huh? The Rams last played in SoCal in Anaheim & have not played in the LA Coliseum for a very long time. The Raiders were the ones who played there.

This is more complicated than you are presenting the situation. I have not lived in that area for 3 years but lived there for quite a while prior to that time. There are some very unique circumstances about the LA area that make it tough to support 1 let alone 2 teams in the long term (especially if they are not winning every season).

First and foremost LA is and always will be a Lakers town - NFL football takes a back seat. Secondly - there are tons of transplants that don't really care about the local teams. Now perhaps that will change as younger kids get more familiar with the team. In the past you could count on fans getting used to the team by seeing them live, but insane ticket prices will rule that out for many folks. Finally - the unique weather and entertainment options allow people to spend their time doing many other things besides watching NFL games - this is not an option for most of the country.

This whole change could still work out, but it is far from a given & it is not just a factor of previous owners. BTW - quite a few NFL owners are scumbags & that might even include the current Rams owner.

 

[cdumler7]

Huh? The Rams last played in SoCal in Anaheim & have not played in the LA Coliseum for a very long time. The Raiders were the ones who played there.

This is more complicated than you are presenting the situation. I have not lived in that area for 3 years but lived there for quite a while prior to that time. There are some very unique circumstances about the LA area that make it tough to support 1 let alone 2 teams in the long term (especially if they are not winning every season).

First and foremost LA is and always will be a Lakers town - NFL football takes a back seat. Secondly - there are tons of transplants that don't really care about the local teams. Now perhaps that will change as younger kids get more familiar with the team. In the past you could count on fans getting used to the team by seeing them live, but insane ticket prices will rule that out for many folks. Finally - the unique weather and entertainment options allow people to spend their time doing many other things besides watching NFL games - this is not an option for most of the country.

This whole change could still work out, but it is far from a given & it is not just a factor of previous owners. BTW - quite a few NFL owners are scumbags & that might even include the current Rams owner.

I would say 2 things towards this...

1) The NFL has never been more popular so it makes it one of if not the top entertainment venue in the area. I do think it will take the Rams winning early on though to build up a decent fan base. If they continue with what they have been doing it could really take some time. Although with the population in the area they do have it much easier than many cities in just by sheer numbers of people in the area they should be ok.

2) With the Lakers falling off very quickly they will lose some of the bandwagon fans. Yes you will have your fans that will be loyal through the good and bad but there will be a lot of fans that if the Lakers continue like they are that will quickly drop off and look for a winner to latch onto. Again like I said if the Rams can win early on in the process then they stand a good chance of picking up a very nice fan base.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I would say 2 things towards this...

1) The NFL has never been more popular so it makes it one of if not the top entertainment venue in the area. I do think it will take the Rams winning early on though to build up a decent fan base. If they continue with what they have been doing it could really take some time. Although with the population in the area they do have it much easier than many cities in just by sheer numbers of people in the area they should be ok.

2) With the Lakers falling off very quickly they will lose some of the bandwagon fans. Yes you will have your fans that will be loyal through the good and bad but there will be a lot of fans that if the Lakers continue like they are that will quickly drop off and look for a winner to latch onto. Again like I said if the Rams can win early on in the process then they stand a good chance of picking up a very nice fan base.

Good pts. I wonder if Fisher is capable of putting together a winner - I have my doubts. As for the Lakers - that could change in a hurry after they dump Kobe & his huge salary. I expect them to rebound within a few seasons & I am by no means a Lakers fan. All of this appears to depend on one/both teams being consistent winners which is far from a given when you are talking about the Rams, Chargers & Raiders. However - this is the NFL, and things change quickly.

 

[cdumler7]

Good pts. I wonder if Fisher is capable of putting together a winner - I have my doubts. As for the Lakers - that could change in a hurry after they dump Kobe & his huge salary. I expect them to rebound within a few seasons & I am by no means a Lakers fan. All of this appears to depend on one/both teams being consistent winners which is far from a given when you are talking about the Rams, Chargers & Raiders. However - this is the NFL, and things change quickly.

To me it all depends if they can get a QB in this year's draft. They seem to have many of the other pieces needed. If they can do that then I do think Fisher can win. I still think they should have fired him as I do think there are better options out there and the Rams would have been a very enticing option for all the top choices. They play in a tough division so I doubt they are an instant winner.

As for the Lakers yeah Kobe for all he has done for that franchise is what is holding them back at this point. I have heard they are looking at trying to get Westbrook and Durant to come to town this next off season. With a high pick next year and one of those two or both I could see a very quick rebound for the Lakers. Easier to rebound in the NBA than the NFL as you get a couple of all-stars to come to town and the Lakers would be an attractive place to play and next thing you know you go from worst to NBA Finals in a hurry.

 

[Clayton]

I think that a city would need to prove they can support a team no matter where they go.

This is totally bizarre logic. The NFL is a national sport. Most of the money comes from national TV contracts. Baseball is a sport that 100% needs a city to support them but you could have an NFL team in Idaho and it would work.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I think that a city would need to prove they can support a team no matter where they go. Even though I like San Diego, I've never thought San Diego was capable of supporting the Chargers enough. I don't understand why you'd have a city go from having no teams to having 2 in the same year. That makes no sense to me. I don't believe the Raiders need to be so close to the 49ers, I don't think the Rams needed to be so close to Kansas City, I don't think the Jets need to be so close to the Giants. It's just my point of view on the whole thing. LA should have a team, but not 2. In order for it to even be justifiable in my mind LA would have to show that they're capable of showing out for 2 teams. I'm not sure they're capable of doing that for 1 team. That's only because I haven't seen it. I'm not saying LA can't do it, I'm just saying they shouldn't be gifted 2 teams at the same time before the fans have shown what level of interest is. It doesn't matter how the teams left over 20 years ago. If they can't support 2 teams, then they shouldn't have 2 teams. It's that simple to me.

SD...if they were really that bad, idt Spanos would even bother to attempt to stay. I think they've done an okay job considering the success of the team...what SD has refused (to this point) to do in support of it's team is to buck up public financing for a new stadium. Unless the owner has some significant skin in the game...I don't blame them...you're paying for your entertainment 3 or 4 times over while the billionaire owner just rakes it in...screw that.

The only reason Kroenke is moving forward in ATL, and LA is because he bucked up with his own money.

On the proximity thing...LA and NYC both have the population base to support 2 of everything in sports really...STL & KC...if the Royals and Cardinal can make it in MLB...the NFL can too imo...I just think things went sour in STL once Kroenke took over...the question to me...is the demand there for two teams in LA?...IDK to be honest, but I think the Chargers are kinda banking on keeping a % of the SD base.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

This is totally bizarre logic. The NFL is a national sport. Most of the money comes from national TV contracts. Baseball is a sport that 100% needs a city to support them but you could have an NFL team in Idaho and it would work.

Can't compete in the FA market without the gate and skybox revenue...when I 1st got back to ATL in '96...Rankin Smith owned the team...a wealthy insurance man I believe, but when the FA market started to really develop...drawing 45k avg x 8 games was not bringing in the cash to pay the signing bonuses, etc. They were shut out of that market. It got real bad after R. Smith passed and his kids were running the team for a couple of seasons.

Blank steps in and buys the team...much deeper pockets...the season ticket base was about 35k...he dropped the price of the season tkts to $100 for a couple of seasons...instant sellouts, every game on TV now...gradually he got those $100 seats up to market rate, but the gate really changed the fortune of the franchise.

 

[boltfan72]

SD...if they were really that bad, idt Spanos would even bother to attempt to stay. I think they've done an okay job considering the success of the team...what SD has refused (to this point) to do in support of it's team is to buck up public financing for a new stadium. Unless the owner has some significant skin in the game...I don't blame them...you're paying for your entertainment 3 or 4 times over while the billionaire owner just rakes it in...screw that.

.

Actually that's not correct. Voters haven't had an opportunity to vote on public financing. Not one single time. Some say it doesn't have a chance of passing, but recent polls show it about 50/50, and there hasn't been a dime put into a campaign yet.

I don't have an issue with a percentage being financed by the city. The city benefits with tourist dollars and with many other events that the stadium brings. Qualcomm currently hosts two bowl games, and they won't be around much longer if we do nothing. A new stadium will also bring the Super Bowl back, and the former Padres owner is rumored to potentially be getting involved in the project with hopes of bringing an MLS franchise to San Diego. But it has to make sense. $350 million on a $1.1 billion project is reasonable. Most other stadiums have used 40% or more public money.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Huh? The Rams last played in SoCal in Anaheim & have not played in the LA Coliseum for a very long time. The Raiders were the ones who played there.

This is more complicated than you are presenting the situation. I have not lived in that area for 3 years but lived there for quite a while prior to that time. There are some very unique circumstances about the LA area that make it tough to support 1 let alone 2 teams in the long term (especially if they are not winning every season).

First and foremost LA is and always will be a Lakers town - NFL football takes a back seat. Secondly - there are tons of transplants that don't really care about the local teams. Now perhaps that will change as younger kids get more familiar with the team. In the past you could count on fans getting used to the team by seeing them live, but insane ticket prices will rule that out for many folks. Finally - the unique weather and entertainment options allow people to spend their time doing many other things besides watching NFL games - this is not an option for most of the country.

This whole change could still work out, but it is far from a given & it is not just a factor of previous owners. BTW - quite a few NFL owners are scumbags & that might even include the current Rams owner.

You might want to check why the Ram owner moved the team from the Los Angeles Colisuem. One of the main reasons were that they could never sell out, the +90,000 seats prior to the NFL 72 hour requirement to show the game live on Television.

 

[boltfan72]

I hate to tell you this, but while the Chargers have reportedly agreed to stay in 2016, it has since been reported that the Chargers and the Rams in principle agreed to share a stadium in Inglewood, so it is just the matter of time to the point where the Chargers become the Los Angeles Chargers

The Chargers have two options. San Diego is clearly preferred. But to understand what they'd be leaving behind they had to get the deal in LA etched in stone first. You're crazy if you think Spanos will be happy as a tenant in another man's castle.

The LA deal is like a hotel reservation. If Spanos gets the SD stadium done he'll cancel the reservation. Pretty simple.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

The Chargers have two options. San Diego is clearly preferred. But to understand what they'd be leaving behind they had to get the deal in LA etched in stone first. You're crazy if you think Spanos will be happy as a tenant in another man's castle.

The LA deal is like a hotel reservation. If Spanos gets the SD stadium done he'll cancel the reservation. Pretty simple.

I actually hope the Chargers stays in San Diego. I really hope the Raiders don't come to Los Angeles either, but I think the Raiders would do better in L.A. then the Chargers would and I think it would be better for business for the NFL

 

[boltfan72]

I actually hope the Chargers stays in San Diego. I really hope the Raiders don't come to Los Angeles either, but I think the Raiders would do better in L.A. then the Chargers would and I think it would be better for business for the NFL

Agreed the Raiders would do better in LA than SD would. However I believe the NFL's most wanted outcome is Raiders and Chargers stay where they are with new stadiums. They get 3 new stadiums and still have the LA threat to use as leverage for more.

 

[The Oldtimer]

To me it all depends if they can get a QB in this year's draft. They seem to have many of the other pieces needed. If they can do that then I do think Fisher can win. I still think they should have fired him as I do think there are better options out there and the Rams would have been a very enticing option for all the top choices. They play in a tough division so I doubt they are an instant winner.

As for the Lakers yeah Kobe for all he has done for that franchise is what is holding them back at this point. I have heard they are looking at trying to get Westbrook and Durant to come to town this next off season. With a high pick next year and one of those two or both I could see a very quick rebound for the Lakers. Easier to rebound in the NBA than the NFL as you get a couple of all-stars to come to town and the Lakers would be an attractive place to play and next thing you know you go from worst to NBA Finals in a hurry.

Good comment. I would like the Rams to take a chance on RG3, for the right price.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Actually that's not correct. Voters haven't had an opportunity to vote on public financing. Not one single time. Some say it doesn't have a chance of passing, but recent polls show it about 50/50, and there hasn't been a dime put into a campaign yet.

I don't have an issue with a percentage being financed by the city. The city benefits with tourist dollars and with many other events that the stadium brings. Qualcomm currently hosts two bowl games, and they won't be around much longer if we do nothing. A new stadium will also bring the Super Bowl back, and the former Padres owner is rumored to potentially be getting involved in the project with hopes of bringing an MLS franchise to San Diego. But it has to make sense. $350 million on a $1.1 billion project is reasonable. Most other stadiums have used 40% or more public money.

So...in all these years we've been hearing about stadium issue in SD it's never come to a poll? Interesting...I assume that's on the docket now or there's no reason to ponder for a yr.

40% public financing is more than fair. If my memory serves..ATL's venue is costing a tad over a billion and Blank is on the hook for 800 mil plus over runs...the travel tax that was voted in covers about $350-400 mil. Truth be told Blank was always going to fork over a large sum because he's replacing a venue that's barely 20 yrs old...he started out with zero public support...but the sales pitch of the city getting the CFB National Champ game, the Superbowl, final four got the mayor on his side. I think they knew they were going to lose the Braves to Cobb county also so he put pressure on the city council...it never came up for a public at large vote.