NFL worried about Chargers viability in LA

[BuffaloHokie13]

I hear St. Louis is looking for a team...

[eball]

And in other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

[dpberr]

"It'll be different this time, they said..."

 

Spoiler alert:  London and/or Mexico City will give them the same heartburn.  

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

2 minutes ago, dpberr said:

"It'll be different this time, they said..."  

Yeah, that's what Atlanta keeps telling the NHL.

[apuszczalowski]

It was doomed from the start forcing 2 teams back to LA. One was always going to be the redheaded stepchild to the other (jets to the giants, Mets to the Yankees, rangers to the islanders). Fans in San Diego weren't going to follow and the Rams have been a very good team so most fans would chose them because they are the better team on the field. Chargers should either move back with their tail between their legs or move to another city further away. (Doubt Houston because of the Texans, and st Louis just lost their team)

[Peter]

22 minutes ago, Wyo_Bills Fan said:

Before the Chargers moved, San Diego residents voted down a Hotel Tax which would have went up like three percentage points and would have paid for the cities contribution to the stadium and then some.  The only tax San Diego residents would have paid is if they stayed in a hotel themselves. 

 

Approximately 15 plus years ago, the Chargers offered to pay for the entire new stadium themselves if the city would grant them the land Qualcomm sits on.  The city council voted that down.

 

Sad situation.

 

Spanos and the Chargers gave San Diego every opportunity to keep the team there.  Spanos did not want to move the team unless it was a last resort.

 

As an aside, if I were an NFL owner, I definitely would consider moving the team to London if I could not make it work in LA or somewhere else.  As an owner, being in London would present a huge opportunity to be the UK's team with very little domestic competition for the support of people there.  Having attended an NFL game, I think London is ripe for an NFL team.

 

P.S. Yes, I know there are naysayers here and elsewhere about having a team anywhere other than in the US.

[Stevie Ray]

Philip Rivers will surely retire if the team moves anyplace than back to SD. 

[apuszczalowski]

14 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

Spanos and the Chargers gave San Diego every opportunity to keep the team there.  Spanos did not want to move the team unless it was a last resort.

 

As an aside, if I were an NFL owner, I definitely would consider moving the team to London if I could not make it work in LA or somewhere else.  As an owner, being in London would present a huge opportunity to be the UK's team with very little domestic competition for the support of people there.  Having attended an NFL game, I think London is ripe for an NFL team.

 

P.S. Yes, I know there are naysayers here and elsewhere about having a team anywhere other than in the US.

Too many logistical issues with London. Going to be near impossible to sign FAs, too much travel for games, having a game played their once in a while will get crowds, but a team would fail miserably if permanently located there.

 

If they expand out of the US, Canada and Mexico would be the only logical choices.

[Bruce_Stools]

24 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

It was doomed from the start forcing 2 teams back to LA. One was always going to be the redheaded stepchild to the other (jets to the giants, Mets to the Yankees, rangers to the islanders). Fans in San Diego weren't going to follow and the Rams have been a very good team so most fans would chose them because they are the better team on the field. Chargers should either move back with their tail between their legs or move to another city further away. (Doubt Houston because of the Texans, and st Louis just lost their team)

Islanders to the Rangers

[Peter]

9 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

Too many logistical issues with London. Going to be near impossible to sign FAs, too much travel for games, having a game played their once in a while will get crowds, but a team would fail miserably if permanently located there.

 

If they expand out of the US, Canada and Mexico would be the only logical choices.

 

Agree to disagree.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

Roger's Plan?

 

Shoe-horn a team into London

 

Force 18 games

 

Then talk about player safety as the #1 goal

 

 

[cba fan]

43 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

It was doomed from the start forcing 2 teams back to LA. One was always going to be the redheaded stepchild to the other (jets to the giants, Mets to the Yankees, rangers to the islanders). Fans in San Diego weren't going to follow and the Rams have been a very good team so most fans would chose them because they are the better team on the field. Chargers should either move back with their tail between their legs or move to another city further away. (Doubt Houston because of the Texans, and st Louis just lost their team)

San Antonio St Louis Portland Oakland...plenty of options. Even SD after they approve and start building a stadium.

 

SD completely screwed the deal by turning them down time after time for deals that essentillay cost the taxpayers ZERO. Just like Cleveland did to Modells Browns.(although Modell was just asking for some support but not to the mega-level the city gave Indians and Cavs.)

7 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Roger's Plan?

 

Shoe-horn a team into London

 

Force 18 games

 

Then talk about player safety as the #1 goal

 

 

with two bye weeks, larger game day rosters, no team playing on short rest IE team with bye week before are only teams eligible for thurs night games etc etc.....a ban on players playing every snap every week etc etc...….. and only 1 or 2 preseason games. YES this would address the safety issue. It can be done and could include two expansion teams to help placate the NFLPA as even more jobs are then created along with the bigger rosters.

Edited October 17, 2018 by cba fan

[yungmack]

1 hour ago, ctk232 said:

 

 

So tired of LA and NYC having multiple teams - NYC at least has historically had both teams long enough to create a base for each. LA couldn't care less about football, and while the Rams are being the Rams, why have the Chargers? Was never a good move.

 

This is exactly the opposite of the truth. For decades, the Rams were always among the attendance leaders. They began to lose their mojo when Frontiere took over the team. In spite of Al Davis's bizarre behavior and attempts to extract ever more money out of the area, the Raiders were -- and remain -- wildly popular in the area. Sc and UCLA have rabid followings and pull in large crowds when the teams are good. High school football is huge throughout the area. I don't know why people keep making these knuckleheaded statements. It's right up there with "Trump's a fantastic businessman." In other words, it's a belief that flies in the face of facts, history, reality.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Reed83HOF said:

I mean who would have thunk it?

 

Seth Wickersham‏Verified account @SethWickersham

FollowFollow @SethWickersham

More

A major discussion topic among NFL owners/executives at this week’s league meetings is the Chargers’ viability in LA. PSL sales have been a struggle and team is expected to revise its Inglewood revenue goals sharply to a more realistic number: $400m to around $150m, per sources

 

Lol, serves them right, go back to San Diego.

 

 

[dollars 2 donuts]

1 hour ago, uticaclub said:

Renovate Qualcomm? I'm guessing you haven't been to the stadium

 

1 hour ago, Reed83HOF said:

Wow you're from Utica and moved to SD? Wife and I did that too, although we are now in LA. 

 

I lived down the road from the stadium in SD, by far the worst in the league...

 

 

You guys are both liars.  Liars, liars, liars!!!!!*

 

 

*  I have absolutely nothing to back that up. 

 

Welcome to 2018...hey, what did you expect?

 

[LFC24]

the state of Oregon should really think about acquiring an NFL team. Portland is a huge city and can financially back it up. 

[Straight Hucklebuck]

5 minutes ago, cba fan said:

San Antonio St Louis Portland Oakland...plenty of options. Even SD after they approve and start building a stadium.

 

SD completely screwed the deal by turning them down time after time for deals that essentillay cost the taxpayers ZERO. Just like Cleveland did to Modells Browns.(although Modell was just asking for some support but not to the mega-level the city gave Indians and Cavs.)

with two bye weeks, larger game day rosters, a ban on players playing every snap every week etc etc...….. and only 1 or 2 preseason games YES this would address the safety issue.

The 18 game schedule waters the product down. 

 

The players don't want it and I don't blame them. 

 

Longer season, pushes the draft later and later. 

 

. 

[4_kidd_4]

I’m pulling for the entire league to just fold.

 

Then go back to 1920’s style, field regional teams and make up your own schedule. Then the “Staley Swindle” all over again!

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

5 minutes ago, LFC24 said:

the state of Oregon should really think about acquiring an NFL team. Portland is a huge city and can financially back it up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas

 

You're right! Portland is right with San Antonio on the list. I would not have guessed that. 

 

I think a team would do better in SA but that's just an opinion I don't have any data.  

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Can't build a stadium in the city of portland with their ridiculous land use rules