Quote:Sam Farmer
‏@LATimesfarmer

Chargers say they have concluded their first meeting with the Rams and both sides have agreed to not discuss any details publicly.

4:22 PM - 18 Jan 2016

IMO the Chargers need to push this process along as quickly as they can, so that they can start marketing themselves as the LA Chargers. The Rams are pressing the advantage of being first in LA as much as they can. They had a big media event with Kroenke and others last Friday, they started taking season ticket deposits today, they made a big deal about Magic Johnson being the first one to put down a deposit, etc. In other words, Farmer is probably on the mark with another comment that he made today:

Quote:Sam Farmer
‏@LATimesfarmer

With each passing hour, the cement hardens on Los Angeles being a one-NFL-team town.

11:57 AM - 18 Jan 2016

Spanos probably can't financially afford to whether the seasons in Dodger Stadium or LA Coliseum. But since the Chargers have effectively moved, he's not going to make any money staying in SD waiting for the Inglewood facility to open.

(01-18-2016 07:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:Sam Farmer
‏@LATimesfarmer

Chargers say they have concluded their first meeting with the Rams and both sides have agreed to not discuss any details publicly.

4:22 PM - 18 Jan 2016

IMO the Chargers need to push this process along as quickly as they can, so that they can start marketing themselves as the LA Chargers. The Rams are pressing the advantage of being first in LA as much as they can.

Yep. Heck, the Chargers would have been starting from behind even if they had agreed to join the Rams during the NFL meetings.

(01-18-2016 07:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Spanos probably can't financially afford to whether the seasons in Dodger Stadium or LA Coliseum. But since the Chargers have effectively moved, he's not going to make any money staying in SD waiting for the Inglewood facility to open.

I've been wondering about this - is Spanos taking this time because he needs a few weeks to make sure he can really get the financing to work? But as you point out, the guy is pretty screwed here. The longer he takes to make a decision, the poorer his (already poor) leverage is with SD. And his Inglewood leverage disappeared once the owners voted for Kroenke's plan.

Rich guy problems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote:Vincent Bonsignore
‏@DailyNewsVinny

Source: No further talks scheduled between #Rams and #Chargers at this point

4:45 PM - 18 Jan 2016

The first real deadline is March 23. That is the last day for the Chargers to notify the NFL that they will play their 2016 home games in LA. If they miss that deadline, they have to play in SD in 2016.

3 theories on what the Chargers are doing.

1. The Chargers have secretly agreed to take the Inglewood deal and will eventually move to LA, but do not have a place lined up to play in LA in 2016, so they may need to play 2016 in San Diego. So they need to keep the agreement secret.

2. The Chargers have decided they will stay in San Diego and have secretly turned down the Inglewood proposal. But they do not want to officially want to turn it down because they need it for leverage to negotiate with the city of San Diego. Plus it's in the mutual interest of both the Rams and Chargers to stall the Raiders move to LA, so they are not going to announce that the Chargers have turned it down until the very last day.

3. The Chargers have not decided what they want to do and want to keep their options open. I am not sure why they would keep that a secret.

(01-19-2016 07:26 AM)goofus Wrote:  3 theories on what the Chargers are doing.

1. The Chargers have secretly agreed to take the Inglewood deal and will eventually move to LA, but do not have a place lined up to play in LA in 2016, so they may need to play 2016 in San Diego. So they need to keep the agreement secret.

2. The Chargers have decided they will stay in San Diego and have secretly turned down the Inglewood proposal. But they do not want to officially want to turn it down because they need it for leverage to negotiate with the city of San Diego. Plus it's in the mutual interest of both the Rams and Chargers to stall the Raiders move to LA, so they are not going to announce that the Chargers have turned it down until the very last day.

3. The Chargers have not decided what they want to do and want to keep their options open. I am not sure why they would keep that a secret.

1. I think this is the most likely scenario
2. I think the area already made up their mind when they voted to renovate the convention center versus building a new stadium. The last proposal IMO was a presentation to demonstrate the SD is a viable NFL city, but aren't interested in working with Spanos.

3. I'm not sure what is gained by being indecisive at this point. Spanos had a losing hand and thought he could bluff his way to a win against Kroenke. He lost but being a sore loser will only make the situation worse.

Can USC, Rams and chargers all play at the Coliseum? The only other option would be the rose bowl if they are moving to LA...that probably isn't a a bad option to carve out a niche. I can't see the baseball teams allowing a NFL team to ruin their field.

(01-19-2016 11:36 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Can USC, Rams and chargers all play at the Coliseum? The only other option would be the rose bowl if they are moving to LA...that probably isn't a a bad option to carve out a niche. I can't see the baseball teams allowing a NFL team to ruin their field.

It's being reported that USC has agreed to allow both teams to play in 2016. This is interesting - AD Pat Haden (a former Ram, remember) has expressed a lot of concern about the condition of the field. They've ruled out use of the field for practice. I have no inside information but something tells me this isn't a done deal yet.

And the Rose Bowl has already said no once. I'm sure they'll get approached again, especially if the Coliseum says no to either team. But you're right, there really isn't another good football stadium nearby. Baseball stadiums are terrible for football, and StubHub is a soccer facility that seats less than 30K.

The Chargers have as of today applied for the trademark of the Los Angeles Chargers/LA Chargers as being reported by the LA Times...can't link it from my phone

(01-19-2016 03:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  The Chargers have as of today applied for the trademark of the Los Angeles Chargers/LA Chargers as being reported by the LA Times...can't link it from my phone

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-c...story.html

Quote:The Chargers applied to trademark “Los Angeles Chargers” and “LA Chargers” two days after NFL owners approved the Rams’ relocation to L.A. last week.

Signed by A.G. Spanos, the Chargers’ president of business operations, the applications seek to cover a sprawling array of products including football helmets, ear muffs and golf balls.

Anastasia Danias, a senior vice president for the NFL, is listed as the attorney of record.

The Raiders once had a plan to play in San Antonio for 2 years if they were moving to a new stadium in LA.

Maybe the Chargers could take the same deal in San Antonio. Although if the whole point of moving is to get to LA ASAP, then that plan won't work. In fact that's probably a worse plan than just playing in San Diego until 2018.

They might as well just play in San Diego until 2018.

(01-18-2016 07:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  They had a big media event with Kroenke and others last Friday, they started taking season ticket deposits today, they made a big deal about Magic Johnson being the first one to put down a deposit, etc.

First one to get Magic always wins.

(01-19-2016 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 03:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  The Chargers have as of today applied for the trademark of the Los Angeles Chargers/LA Chargers as being reported by the LA Times...can't link it from my phone

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-c...story.html

Quote:The Chargers applied to trademark “Los Angeles Chargers” and “LA Chargers” two days after NFL owners approved the Rams’ relocation to L.A. last week.

Signed by A.G. Spanos, the Chargers’ president of business operations, the applications seek to cover a sprawling array of products including football helmets, ear muffs and golf balls.

Anastasia Danias, a senior vice president for the NFL, is listed as the attorney of record.

The Chargers used to be from LA. Why wouldn't they still have the the license?

(01-20-2016 07:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 03:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  The Chargers have as of today applied for the trademark of the Los Angeles Chargers/LA Chargers as being reported by the LA Times...can't link it from my phone

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-c...story.html

Quote:The Chargers applied to trademark “Los Angeles Chargers” and “LA Chargers” two days after NFL owners approved the Rams’ relocation to L.A. last week.

Signed by A.G. Spanos, the Chargers’ president of business operations, the applications seek to cover a sprawling array of products including football helmets, ear muffs and golf balls.

Anastasia Danias, a senior vice president for the NFL, is listed as the attorney of record.

The Chargers used to be from LA. Why wouldn't they still have the the license?

You have to renew a trademark periodically, and they only played in LA for one year, 50 years ago. If they ever did apply for the trademark (and it's easy to imagine they did not), it wouldn't surprise me if they dropped it.

This action by Spanos doesn't mean much. It's cheap and easy. He's just reserving his rights.

They should move to San Antonio. I'd love for them to keep the "San" third tier, large state city theme going.

I like the name California Chargers with this uniform

http://www.chargers.com/sites/chargers.c...1437161034

(01-20-2016 01:16 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I like the name California Chargers with this uniform

http://www.chargers.com/sites/chargers.c...1437161034

Spanos hates the power blue