|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 12, 2017 11:14:27 GMT -6
Chargers chairman 'looking forward' after announcing L.A. moveChargers chairman Dean Spanos was in no mood to reflect Thursday morning after officially announcing his plans to move the franchise to Los Angeles after 56 seasons in San Diego. "I'm looking forward, not backwards," he told ESPN in a brief phone conversation. "I spent half my life here. I leave behind a lot of friends and lot of great memories, but life goes on. There are always a lot of changes in life, and we know this is not going to be easy. But we made a decision, we're committed to it, and our family is 100 percent behind it. What's happened has happened." The Chargers quickly changed their Twitter name and showed off a new Dodgers-like logo, although the team plans to continue to use its traditional lightning logo. Spanos had until Jan. 17 to exercise the option to move to Los Angeles, where the franchise was founded and played one season in 1960. Sources say he vacillated between staying in San Diego and relocating after the ballot measure for a new downtown stadium, coupled with an expansion of the convention center, was voted down 57 percent to 43 percent. He initially planned to announce the move the week after the season ended on Jan. 1 but chose to wait and see what would transpire at the NFL's stadium and finance committees meeting Wednesday. When fellow owners expressed no appetite for making a contribution beyond the $300 million it had promised, Spanos decided it was best to end the 15-year stadium dance he and local officials had been doing and be the second team in the $2.66 billion stadium that Rams owner Stan Kroenke is building in Inglewood, California. "It was a tough decision for him and his family," said Arizona Cardinals president Michael Bidwill, who is a close friend of Spanos. "He's spent most of his adult life in San Diego and was part of the community. He really worked hard to get a deal done in San Diego, but I think this is the best decision for him and a great opportunity. These new stadiums are really important. This was the best decision for them and for where the franchise will be three years from now, five years from now and in the long term." Spanos is expected to pay the $550 million relocation fee over 10 years, rather than extend the payments beyond that for an additional $100 million. The club will pay roughly $12 million to buy out its Qualcomm Stadium lease in San Diego, according to one team source, then relocate its training facility to Orange County sometime before July 1, when the lease on its training complex expires. "Today, we turn the page and begin an exciting new era as the Los Angeles Chargers," Spanos wrote in a letter on the Chargers website. "L.A. is a remarkable place, and while we played our first season there in 1960 and have had fans there ever since, our entire organization knows that we have a tremendous amount of work to do. We must earn the respect and support of L.A. football fans. We must get back to winning. And, we must make a meaningful contribution, not just on the field, but off the field as a leader and champion for the community." In a statement, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti welcomed the Chargers back to Los Angeles. "L.A. already has more visitors than ever before. The Chargers will make our NFL tradition even richer, and give sports fans everywhere one more reason to be in Los Angeles," Garcetti said. "I congratulate Dean Spanos and the entire Chargers organization, and look forward to the extraordinary contributions they will make to our entire region." The Chargers will play their home games the next two seasons at the 30,000-seat StubHub Center in Carson, California. They are promoting it as a "one-of-a-kind product" that gives fans an opportunity to be "up close and personal" with players. There is also the belief that it helps differentiate them from the Rams, who often appeared to be playing before a half-empty stadium at cavernous Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. The move is considered a financial boon for the Chargers, but perhaps it was fitting that rain fell over the city on the morning of the announcement. In virtually every poll of Angelenos -- official and informal -- the Chargers were ranked as the least desirable of the three teams seeking to relocate to the market last year, trailing the Rams and Raiders. Management knows it will be a challenge to establiCraps roots in the community, which speaks to its planned marketing slogan: Fight for L.A.Spanos is intrigued by the idea of rebranding the team in Los Angeles but currently has no plans to do so. In the meantime, the organization will seek to reach out to fans in San Diego as well as Los Angeles. "You have people that have been fans of this team for 55 years, and they now will be able to go into a stadium worthy of the support that they've given," said New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, another close friend of Spanos. "The team is still within the geography that will allow the fan base to attend games. I personally wish [the stadium] had been in downtown San Diego, but the powers that be didn't want to cooperate. Dean's family was willing to commit nine figures of capital and just couldn't get the cooperation. "In one sense it's sad, but in the other it's nice that it's still close by and true fans will be able to support the Chargers." www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18458293/chargers-announce-move-los-angeles-leaving-san-diego
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 12, 2017 11:41:14 GMT -6
This isn't a surprise. San Diego was NEVER going to approve ANY public money in a vote. This is going to be very tough for the Chargers to win LA fans but winning LA fans is much more likely than ever getting a stadium done in San Diego. The problem is winning over fans takes a winning team at 1st and the Spanos family sucks. The NFL should highly suggest the Spanos sell to an LA group then rebrand the team. Black uniforms/new name are a must to win over non gang member LA Raider fans.
The NFL should also suggest/force Kroenke that he sell after the new stadium opens. He is a loser who will never even field a wild card team. The Rams were the most popular brand in polling a year ago but the team is a joke and won't get better. The last 3 home games had only 55,000 to 60,000 fans in the stands. The tickets were sold but unused. The Rams went 4-12 with 4 close wins(they should have won 1-2 games). They were boring(last in the league in every offensive category. They blew up last years draft and this years draft in the Jared Goff trade. Jared Goff is the biggest bust in pro sports history. The rams were on HBO's hard knocks last summer. The rams QB coach asked Jared Goff where the sun rises. Goff didn't know. The QB coach was stunned and remarked "usually quarterback's are very smart and cerebral historically". Goff was later on a helicopter later in the show just totally blown away that he learned the sun rose in the east and set in the west. LOL I don't give a crap how great your brand or your history or how many fans you have, in any market when you make this bad of a trade you will have problems. (see Broklyn Nets/Boston Celtics trade from a few years ago in the NBA).
All in all the LA decisions was a tough one.
With the Rams you got the most popular team in "normal" circumstances, the best stadium, longest history, richest owner etc... but the problem is Stan Kroenke is a loser. See his other 2 Denver teams(Nuggets, Avalanche)
With the Raiders you got the 2nd most popular brand but they had a MASSIVE gang problem the last time and NONE of the fortune 1000 companies were going to buy anything from them in polling done. Problem is you need to sell PSL's because either Inglewood or Carson would have been privately funded. Other problem is the Raiders and Chargers partnered and were going to build a crappy stadium on a toxic dump that had methane fume smells from local refineries. The league would have been a laughing stock every time they held an LA super bowl
With the Chargers see above. No fans in LA, losing ownership.
There's going to be a lot of LA can't support NFL crap in the coming years which isn't true. Rams/Chargers were the right choice but ownership sales should have been forced. Let Spanos/Kroenke cash out. Get someone who can occasionally win. You don't need super bowls but an occasional wild card/win division get knocked out right away every few years would work.
All in all my guess is this plays out like the LA Clippers in the NBA. They moved to LA from San Diego in 83. From 83 to the early 2000s they drew NOTHING. Coyotes blew them away attendance wise historically in Glendale/Phoenix. In the early 2000's after moving to the Staples Center they caught on and eventually drew and became one of the NBA's most valuable teams.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 12, 2017 11:45:39 GMT -6
Other news tidbits -As far as the Raiders the NFL likes Oakland's stadium proposal a lot less than San Diego's(That's saying something LOL). Rumor was yesterday/the past week San Diego was "salvageable" Oakland wasn't(yet the Chargers are still gone). There was a ton of momentum at the owners meeting yesterday for a relocation to Vegas. It's expected a relocation will be approved in March at the next owners meeting. -The Ronnie Lott deal in Oakland is a carbon copy of Floyd Kepharts failed plan. Also it was reveled a couple months ago by MLB commisioner Rob Manfred that the Oakland mayor told him that the A's are her choice and she wants them to have the Coliseum land. Manfred wasn't supposed to revel that publically he accidentally did and he backtracked the next day saying he "misunderstood" her. They major is trying to cover he @ss and blame Mark Davis for leaving. She's making the right choice though. -Also the Golden State Warriors of the NBA are officially breaking ground on their new San Francisco arena to open in fall of 2019 next Tuesday. -The A's John Fisher bought out Lew Wolfe as owner. Fisher was always majority owner, Wolfe was the managing partner but Fisher always had majority ownership of the A's. Also Fisher brought in the San Jose Earthquakes(MLS) president as the A's President. He helped the Earthquakes arrange private financing for a new soccer stadium. sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/17/owner-lew-wolff-selling-his-stake-in-the-oakland-as/-MLB is also removing/phasing out the A's of receiving revenue sharing. MLB owners got sick of Wolfe and thought he was happy to just collect revenue sharing and wasn't trying hard enough to get a new ballpark. The A's got more than $30M in revenue sharing last year. In 2017 that gets cut to 75% in 2017, 50% in 2018, 25% in 2019, and cut off in 2020 permanently. Remember the top 15 MLB markets are ineligible for revenue sharing. With the Raiders/Warriors gone, Wolfe gone, revenue sharing gone the A's are going to get a new park in Oakland!!!!! m.mlb.com/news/article/210142632/new-cba-to-impact-oakland-athletics-revenue/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 12, 2017 12:03:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 12, 2017 16:15:07 GMT -6
Now the Chargers are backing away from the logo due to negative backlash. LOL
Liz Habib @lizhabib 2h2 hours ago The @chargers told me this is NOT their new logo- you won't see it on helmets or uniforms... it was for marketing purposes today.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 12, 2017 20:51:58 GMT -6
Spanos is such a little puke. From what I have read there was going to be a solution where he would have to pay half out of pocket or finance and he wouldnt doit. He is just another lucky sperm.
A rebrand has its pros and cons, Pros are it will be a reach out to LA fans that this team is yours, san diego keeps the chargers history, but the cons are that i do think San Deigo Fans (not far away) will still support the chargers in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 12, 2017 20:56:47 GMT -6
Spanos is expected to pay the $550 million relocation fee over 10 years?
so 500 million is something he clearly can pay (if financed properly), a 10 year finance plan could have been pulled off with a major firm.
Plus 300 millin from the NFL? He couldnt pull off an outdoor stadium for that much? or is it just wahh they wouldnt give me a hand out?
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 12, 2017 21:01:32 GMT -6
last post.
The chargers playing at Stub hub makes Sam boyd a possible temp stadium for the raiders (40 k)
They could also do a few home games on the road (san antonio, salt lake city, portland)
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 13, 2017 9:23:53 GMT -6
Spanos is such a little puke. From what I have read there was going to be a solution where he would have to pay half out of pocket or finance and he wouldnt doit. He is just another lucky sperm. A rebrand has its pros and cons, Pros are it will be a reach out to LA fans that this team is yours, san diego keeps the chargers history, but the cons are that i do think San Deigo Fans (not far away) will still support the chargers in a few years. A lot of this is the NFL's fault. You can't privately finance a stadium in a market like San Diego. Dean asked for help, begged to stay in San Diego the owners did NOTHING even though this is a debacle. www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18458717/san-diego-chargers-desperate-move-shot-nfl-vitality-2017 The Chargers did not want this, LA did not want this, San Diego did not want this, the NFL did not want this yet it happened. San Diego fans will NEVER NEVER NEVER support an LA team let alone a Spanos LA team. San Diego people HATE LA. It's their rival. This ain't like Green Bay/Milwaukee, Buffalo/Rochester etc.. They egged the team headquarters burnt jersies etc... They will likely switch their support to a new San Diego MLS team. The NFL is DEAD in San Diego. The Aztecs are going to build a small stadium to share with MLS.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 13, 2017 9:26:25 GMT -6
Spanos is expected to pay the $550 million relocation fee over 10 years? so 500 million is something he clearly can pay (if financed properly), a 10 year finance plan could have been pulled off with a major firm. Plus 300 millin from the NFL? He couldnt pull off an outdoor stadium for that much? or is it just wahh they wouldnt give me a hand out? Not in a market with only 3.3M and only 4 fortune 1000 companies. VERY few teams in any sport can privately finance their own building. It's all HUGE markets like NY, Chicago, LA, Bay Area Toronto etc.... Financing your own facility is a financial loser in the vast majority of places, that's why they ask for help. Spanos mistake was going all in on Carson. Once he did that funding was never going to pass without a team sale and even then it was unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 13, 2017 9:36:03 GMT -6
last post. The chargers playing at Stub hub makes Sam boyd a possible temp stadium for the raiders (40 k) They could also do a few home games on the road (san antonio, salt lake city, portland) Sam Boyd is an old stadium though. Stub Hub though small has some modern amenities like 46 boxes. With Sam Boyd September games wouldn't work that well with the heat. What you could do is give the Raiders 3 road September games and 1 home game in London/Mexico. Davis though is going to play 17, 18 in Oakland. League should force them to Vegas though because you are going to have another debacle. The Raiders roster is loaded. When teams like the Rams(both LA and Stl) the Oilers, Raiders left they sucked. The Raiders could possible win it all. Ladies and gentlemen your Super Bowl champion lame duck on the way to Vegas Oakland Raiders. LOL Davis might blow Vegas yet. He might try to cut Sheldon Aldelson out of the deal. He runs Vegas and pushed the public funding though. Don't be surprised if somehow that funding disappears if Davis tries this and they get stuck permanently in the Coliseum. This just keeps getting worst and worst. The NFL is run so badly even the NHL would be embarrassed by stuff like this. -0 ish win talented Rams roster -A team LA outright hates and do NOT want coming -Super bowl, lame duck champs in Oakland(or be stuck at the Colieum after Davis blows 750M in public Vegas money) The next thing that will happen is year one in Inglewood when the Chargers play the Raiders it will be all black in the stands and after the game the Raiders gang member fans will sack the stadium/development and permanently destroy it beyond recognition.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 13, 2017 9:44:40 GMT -6
Chargers move shows sad truth of Roger Goodell’s greedy NFLSports predictions are always a dicey proposition, of course, so fraught with potential embarrassment that there’s even a gleeful Twitter feed — “Freezing Cold Takes” — dedicated to ones gone horribly wrong. But here’s a stone-cold lock: The Chargers move to Los Angeles is going to be a flop.
A colossal, mind-boggling, utter and complete flop, not to mention one of the worst in NFL history, until the Raiders announce their move to Las Vegas in a couple of months. NFL franchise relocations are almost always welcomed with open arms and celebrations in the new town, but Chargers owner Dean Spanos got the opposite reaction Thursday to uprooting his team from its home of 55 years in San Diego and plopping it down in L.A. The Los Angeles Times considered the Chargers’ arrival so momentous it didn’t even put the story on the front page of the paper after news of the move broke Wednesday night. NFL Twitter’s favorite activity Thursday, meanwhile, seemed to be Photoshopping increasingly more crude variations on the Chargers’ new lightning-bolt L.A. logo. And the reaction in L.A. itself? A massive yawn. Actually, that’s not quite right. There was also indignation from L.A. folks who had gotten used to seeing the best national games on TV during their two-decade NFL hiatus but will now — puke — be limited to the woeful Rams and Chargers each week. While the hapless Spanos is the villain of this story and now a suntanned version of Art Modell, you also can blame the unrelenting greed and complete moral emptiness of the NFL in the Roger Goodell era. The Chargers’ move, as well as being a heartless stab in the back, makes no sense for multiple reasons. T he Chargers have no fans in L.A. — merchandise sales show the second-most popular team there is the Raiders — and they are already a year behind the Rams in trying to win fans in the market. Spanos won’t get to share in the spoils of the new stadium Rams owner Stan Kroenke is building in Inglewood (former home of the Lakers) because he will be renting, not owning. And if you’ve ever read about Kroenke’s cutthroat ways in real estate over the years, “tenant” is the last thing you want to be with him. Spanos is about to hire an unknown as a new head coach in Anthony Lynn, has a bad team with an aging quarterback in Philip Rivers and is a ll but guaranteed to provide the NFL with two years of embarrassing visuals from being unable to sell out even their 30,000-seat temporary home in Carson. Except, of course, when the Raiders come to town and fill the building in silver and black — a whole other embarrassment.The biggest head-scratcher of all, though, is the money situation. Spanos and the NFL were between $450 million and $550 million apart with San Diego on a new stadium, which isn’t unreasonable for a league with $13 billion in annual revenues and for someone like Spanos and his family estimated to be worth $2 billion. But rather than make up that difference (and allow the city to use that money instead for things that matter, like roads and schools and police salaries), Spanos decided instead on the move to L.A. and the staggering $650 million relocation fee that comes with it. That works out to as much as $200 million more out of Spanos’ pocket than it would have cost him to stay in San Diego. Huh? Apparently, the NFL’s amoral principle of never letting local taxpayers (or taxpaying tourists) off the hook is so important to Spanos he’s even willing to spend an extra $200 million just to spite San Diego residents for not building him a gaudy new sandbox. Goodell, whose 2011 push to triple the league’s annual revenues to $25 billion by 2027 is fueling this endless parade of greed, made that clear with a statement Thursday that implied NFL owners funding stadiums largely out of their own pocket isn’t “a viable solution.” NBA owner Mark Cuban caused a stir a couple of years ago by saying the NFL’s relentless pursuit of cash threatened its dominance. People laughed at Cuban, but football ratings nosedived this season and the trendline of interest in the sport is no longer pointing forever upward.Betraying another good football town in San Diego for rampant disinterest and acres of empty seats is just another self-inflicted NFL wound. nypost.com/2017/01/12/chargers-move-shows-sad-truth-of-roger-goodells-greedy-nfl/
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 13, 2017 18:34:51 GMT -6
Spanos is such a little puke. From what I have read there was going to be a solution where he would have to pay half out of pocket or finance and he wouldnt doit. He is just another lucky sperm. A rebrand has its pros and cons, Pros are it will be a reach out to LA fans that this team is yours, san diego keeps the chargers history, but the cons are that i do think San Deigo Fans (not far away) will still support the chargers in a few years. A lot of this is the NFL's fault. You can't privately finance a stadium in a market like San Diego. Dean asked for help, begged to stay in San Diego the owners did NOTHING even though this is a debacle. www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18458717/san-diego-chargers-desperate-move-shot-nfl-vitality-2017 The Chargers did not want this, LA did not want this, San Diego did not want this, the NFL did not want this yet it happened. San Diego fans will NEVER NEVER NEVER support an LA team let alone a Spanos LA team. San Diego people HATE LA. It's their rival. This ain't like Green Bay/Milwaukee, Buffalo/Rochester etc.. They egged the team headquarters burnt jersies etc... They will likely switch their support to a new San Diego MLS team. The NFL is DEAD in San Diego. The Aztecs are going to build a small stadium to share with MLS. The nfl has the money to build a stadium for every tea in a profit sharing scheme...they could absolutely absorb it too...its just each owner being greedy not looking out for the shield, just their team. Terrible owners group that does not care about the proliferation of the sport.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 13, 2017 22:23:07 GMT -6
If you look at how many billions each stadium now costs(1.2B minimum) it wouldn't pay off if you outright 100% privately financed every stadium in smaller markets. They could afford it but at that point you'd be better off $$$ wise having your teams stay in the old dump. But you bring good point. What should be done is the G3 fund should be increased at least. $200M is a joke for what these stadiums cost and is BADLY outdated. If it was say $400M maybe you'd have a better shot of passing a vote in San Diego with $200M less in public money.
I know they don't want to set the precedent of privately funding smaller market stadiums but the could have used the excuse of super bowls in San Diego and said it will NEVER happen again. Or come up with the guise of the extra $$$ being money for the Rams invading Spanos "territory" even though LA is not wasn't his territory. With the backlash from this and the fact this is the 1st time the receiving city didn't want the team a one time exception should have been made. The public funding game could have been kept going even with a 1 time exception. Just absolute shortsightedness.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jan 14, 2017 9:59:17 GMT -6
If you look at how many billions each stadium now costs(1.2B minimum) it wouldn't pay off if you outright 100% privately financed every stadium in smaller markets. They could afford it but at that point you'd be better off $$$ wise having your teams stay in the old dump. But you bring good point. What should be done is the G3 fund should be increased at least. $200M is a joke for what these stadiums cost and is BADLY outdated. If it was say $400M maybe you'd have a better shot of passing a vote in San Diego with $200M less in public money. I know they don't want to set the precedent of privately funding smaller market stadiums but the could have used the excuse of super bowls in San Diego and said it will NEVER happen again. Or come up with the guise of the extra $$$ being money for the Rams invading Spanos "territory" even though LA is not wasn't his territory. With the backlash from this and the fact this is the 1st time the receiving city didn't want the team a one time exception should have been made. The public funding game could have been kept going even with a 1 time exception. Just absolute shortsightedness. right and you could justify it by making a major college football venue too., indoors it can be final 4, wrestlemania. it was short sighted to leave san diego. Oakland i get.
|
|