YoloinOhio Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 They want more than 1.5 billion? Ok NFL...you're league makes tens of billions per year but can't afford rent! Hopefully the board says no cause that amount of money is just ridiculous. Goodell has made it clear SD needs to get a new stadium to stay there. He feels they have had enough time to get it done. I feel like the move is inevitable.
plenzmd1 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I don't think Qualcomm is as horrible as most think it is. If they move, I will miss going there for Bills games. Great city to visit and one of the greatest Bills Backers groups out there. Rubes,I have only been once, and that was Ryan Leaf vs Rob Johnson Game...even then i thought the place sucked! I dont think they have done any improvements since then.
Justice Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 If they move to LA they should stick with their name and history. They can be called the California Chargers.
aristocrat Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Goodell has made it clear SD needs to get a new stadium to stay there. He feels they have had enough time to get it done. I feel like the move is inevitable. Oh I know the NFL is playing hardball. A couple hundred mil I could be ok with but over a billion dollars? Move on. That is just way too much money.
negativo Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 The NFL no doubt believes the Chargers can still keep their SD fan base after moving them to LA, while at the same time gaining the monster LA market for league revenue. Hard to argue when it's just a 2hr drive. I agree about keeping the history, though I'd rename them the Southern California (Southern Cal) Chargers.
K D Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 they should be called the "San Diego Super Chargers of the greater Los Angeles, California and surrounding Southern California area"
BarleyNY Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) they want to move...most of fans are from LA the team does not want to move. The city wants them to though, apparently. It might be a matter of using moving as leverage for a new stadium - we've all seen that movie - but I think this is something else though. What makes the most sense is that it is a matter of heading off another team from moving to LA. Think about it this way: If I owned the San Diego Chargers aren't I scared of another team moving to LA and taking away a huge chunk - the Lion's share - of my fan base? I sure as heck am. And knowing that the NFL desperately wants a team in LA I have to assume that it is going to happen sooner or later. So wouldn't it make more sense to simply move the Chargers there? There is a sweet deal waiting there for me including a better stadium than I'd get in SD and I'd be smack dab in the middle of the largest single team market in the US. And the SD fans can still root for the team because we aren't moving far and will still be the only So. Cal. team. My only question would be: How soon can I make this happen? Edited February 17, 2015 by BarleyNY
YoloinOhio Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 I still think that if the Chargers move to LA that another team could move there as well. I guess it could be like they just moved their stadium and they are still SD's team with a name like SC (So Cal) Chargers. Then the other team is pure LA, like LA Rams. Chargers could be in Irvine and Rams could be in Inglewood.
nucci Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 The NFL no doubt believes the Chargers can still keep their SD fan base after moving them to LA, while at the same time gaining the monster LA market for league revenue. Hard to argue when it's just a 2hr drive. I agree about keeping the history, though I'd rename them the Southern California (Southern Cal) Chargers. Their history is they started in LA in 1960.
TheLynchTrain Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) As long as there are overt threats, the team is staying and putting the press on. I really don't think sd moves. Oakland and stl are earmarked then stl will be leaned on for expansion. I know we've seen reports (only speculation) on St. Louis getting another team if the Rams move. But in all honesty, from the NFL's perspective, why would they go back to that market? I'm not hating on St. Louis in any way, and I do feel for them that they got stuck with a scheming bastard of an owner. But if the Rams move, St. Louis has proven twice they can't retain a football team (Cardinals and Rams) whether it was their fault or not. There's also the fact that the city and metro area are in no way booming. Don't you think the NFL would look at other regions that are on the upward trajectory in growth? Maybe San Antonio, or another wildcard like Portland? Yes, I realize that by metro region standards St. Louis is still larger than both these cities, but you could argue the latter two may have better future growth projections. I'm also unsure whether the NFL wants to expand past 32 teams for competitive (enough talented players?), financial (splitting the owner pie even further?) and schedule (32 teams/16 games/4 team divisions) reasons. Edited February 17, 2015 by TheLynchTrain
May Day 10 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I know we've seen reports (only speculation) on St. Louis getting another team if the Rams move. But in all honesty, from the NFL's perspective, why would they go back to that market? I'm not hating on St. Louis in any way, and I do feel for them that they got stuck with a scheming bastard of an owner. But if the Rams move, St. Louis has proven twice they can't retain a football team (Cardinals and Rams) whether it was their fault or not. There's also the fact that the city and metro area are in no way booming. Don't you think the NFL would look at other regions that are on the upward trajectory in growth? Maybe San Antonio, or another wildcard like Portland? Yes, I realize that by metro region standards St. Louis is still larger than both these cities, but you could argue the latter two may have better future growth projections. I'm also unsure whether the NFL wants to expand past 32 teams for competitive (enough talented players?), financial (splitting the owner pie even further?) and schedule (32 teams/16 games/4 team divisions) reasons. That is what I meant by "leaned on". The NFL will leverage some of the markets you mentioned, St Louis, probably Toronto, Oakland if they lose a team into an expansion derby. Contest to see who gives the most free money to the NFL and has an owner willing to pay a monster expansion fee to be split 32 ways.
TheLynchTrain Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) That is what I meant by "leaned on". The NFL will leverage some of the markets you mentioned, St Louis, probably Toronto, Oakland if they lose a team into an expansion derby. Contest to see who gives the most free money to the NFL and has an owner willing to pay a monster expansion fee to be split 32 ways. Got it. But do you really think the owners (or at least a majority) are willing to expand? If they're gonna expand, they'll have to expand to two more teams (no way they'll just go with 33). We know this will cause schedules and divisions will go haywire and it may be tough for competitive reasons to field another 100 rostered players (and 200 for the offseason). But it always comes down to money. Does the fact they'll get an upfront payday from expansion fees really outweight the fact their share of TV revenue drops from 1/32 to 1/34? That could be anywhere from 10-20-25 M drop in their cut of shared revenue for the chance to cash in on a one-time balloon payment (which may be 80-100 M depending on how big the expansion fees are). In my humble opinion, I don't think enough owners would go for it. Edited February 17, 2015 by TheLynchTrain
PS 56 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 There is absolutely nothing wrong with Qualcom stadium. It is one of the nicest stadiums out there. Half the time the Chargers don't even sell it out.
May Day 10 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Expansion fees will be much higher than $100 Million. Im also sure that LA plus any new expansion markets will only bump viewership and TV money. (oh yeah forgot to add London as a possibility). It will be 2 teams, say $1 Billion each. Plus public money totalling $500 Million to a Billion each.
Mr. WEO Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 SD may move over the lack of a new stadium? Heck yeah, they should just move to LA into that new stadium that they built.... Wait...what? Never mind...
CountDorkula Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 They are choosing a HUGE FERRIS WHEEL over a new stadium. That's how stupid they are here!!! http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/10/port-ferris-tower-waterfront/ Its actually smart. Build a Ferris wheel for 1 tenth of the cost and have it bring in revenue or Help build Billion dollar stadium that is used 8-12 days a year. I say good on SD for standing ground and saying they are not going to pay the asking price when the NFL rakes in billions and billions of dollars each year.
Chuck Wagon Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I still think that if the Chargers move to LA that another team could move there as well. I guess it could be like they just moved their stadium and they are still SD's team with a name like SC (So Cal) Chargers. Then the other team is pure LA, like LA Rams. Chargers could be in Irvine and Rams could be in Inglewood. Why build two stadiums? The Jets and Giants effectively share a stadium (and a market) so there's precedence. Just go in with the Rams, build the California version of Jerry World and cut the costs in half. If there's two new stadiums built that would put four major stadiums (Rose Bowl & Colosseum) in the greater LA area, that seems excessive. Rams and Chargers in LA and Raiders in San Antonio seems inevitable, I would feel bad for San Dieagans but their team will be ~2 hours away and it was negative -3 when I got in my car this morning and weather.com says it's 63 in San Diego, they can get over it.
Clippers of Nfl Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Rubes,I have only been once, and that was Ryan Leaf vs Rob Johnson Game...even then i thought the place sucked! I dont think they have done any improvements since then. I have been there many times. Was there last year as well. Unless you're looking for gold plated seats, I agree with Rubes, place is decent. Not like the new stuff being bulit of course, but it's still a B. A little better than average.
Heitz Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 FWIW, I'm sitting here in SoCal listening to NPR and KPCC is about to do a story on how much money the Chargers moving to LA would really bring. There's a listen live link for those that are interested: http://www.scpr.org/
ProcessAccepted Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 That's backwards thinking. Logically, an LA team should exist before a San Diego one, and therefore, fans should be traveling from SD TO LA. Why would you say that? LA has had teams and lost them. Just because it's a bigger market does not mean that you cast off fans who have been loyal for decades. So what if there might be a bigger piece of cheese in LA. Cast your mind back a year or so when people we saying that the Bills needed to move to a bigger market. I feel empathy for the Chargers fan and hope that it works out in their favor. They are the ones that supported and kept the team viable all these years.
Recommended Posts