Also think he wants no part of dealing with Stan Kroenke...that and that huge relocation fee of $550 Million...from the article:


There is not an expert or anyone in the NFL that doesn’t agree the Chargers would be worth more and realize more revenue as a tenant in an L.A. stadium than they would as the only team in a new San Diego stadium.

Asked about his willingness to accept less money to stay in San Diego, Spanos said, “That’s nothing new. I like San Diego. I never said I didn’t like San Diego. It’s not L.A., not New York, not Chicago, not Dallas. It is what it is. I’ve never complained about the market size. Plus, I’ve been here 30-some years now.”

Of the flip from thinking there was no chance in San Diego to making one last run here, Spanos said, “Obviously, having options was important, and $100 million from the league is significant. It’s a great starting point. So there are a couple things. You step back and say, ‘It’s easily worth it to try to get something done here, so let’s give it a try.’ When you have an extended option like we have (in Inglewood), why wouldn’t you take the opportunity to try to get something done here? I mean, it’s more personal to me. I’ve always said I want to be here. So the option is the option, and I’m going to do the best I can to stay.”

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news.../?chargers

Yeah, it's a $650MM windfall. And it's notable that Fabiani will no longer be the team mouthpiece. He's been the cause of a lot of the tension between the city and the team.

Spanos is not declining his option in Inglewood (yet), so it seems like this is meant to convey to San Diego that he's sincere and not just maneuvering to get a better deal with Kroenke (which is impossible anyway). He's still got schedule problems, though. I don't know how a deal gets done before his option expires.

Chargers are better off in SD + got to be worried about moving to LA than have the Raiders move to SD. If the charger do get a new stadium in SD than got to think the raiders move to LA though.

(02-17-2016 11:07 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Chargers are better off in SD + got to be worried about moving to LA than have the Raiders move to SD. If the charger do get a new stadium in SD than got to think the raiders move to LA though.

My question with the Raiders moving anywhere even Los Angeles is does Mark Davis has the $$$ for any relocation fee...$550 Million isn't chump change...plus again dealing with Kroenke...if you think Kroenke is tough to deal with in regards to Spanos just image what kind of deal would he drive with Davis...he got into that market first and either the Chargers or Raiders would be just tenants..

I think if he financed the relocation fee, he'd probably break even on it (compared to the status quo) over 8-10 years, then profit tremendously from there. Now I don't know how that would compare to a similar deal in Santa Clara, which would be a similar, but not as large, income boost, without the relocation fee.

BTW, can we talk again about how well this will work for Kroenke? With him both owning the stadium and most of the development around it, two super bowls and two final fours (which he will probably get within the first ten years) might just pay for this whole thing. Then the rest is profit.

(02-17-2016 10:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Yeah, it's a $650MM windfall. And it's notable that Fabiani will no longer be the team mouthpiece. He's been the cause of a lot of the tension between the city and the team.

Spanos is not declining his option in Inglewood (yet), so it seems like this is meant to convey to San Diego that he's sincere and not just maneuvering to get a better deal with Kroenke (which is impossible anyway). He's still got schedule problems, though. I don't know how a deal gets done before his option expires.

IIRC, Spanos has the option to extend his option another year, and if he does that, then he has until January 2018 before he has to make a final decision on Inglewood.

(02-17-2016 12:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Yeah, it's a $650MM windfall. And it's notable that Fabiani will no longer be the team mouthpiece. He's been the cause of a lot of the tension between the city and the team.

Spanos is not declining his option in Inglewood (yet), so it seems like this is meant to convey to San Diego that he's sincere and not just maneuvering to get a better deal with Kroenke (which is impossible anyway). He's still got schedule problems, though. I don't know how a deal gets done before his option expires.

IIRC, Spanos has the option to extend his option another year, and if he does that, then he has until January 2018 before he has to make a final decision on Inglewood.

Really? I've only seen the one year option. Was that added?

(02-17-2016 11:46 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  BTW, can we talk again about how well this will work for Kroenke? With him both owning the stadium and most of the development around it, two super bowls and two final fours (which he will probably get within the first ten years) might just pay for this whole thing. Then the rest is profit.

I'm guessing he saw this coming all along. When you consider how cash poor the Chargers and Raiders are, this was always a possible, if not likely outcome.

Dude's a killer.

(02-17-2016 12:13 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Yeah, it's a $650MM windfall. And it's notable that Fabiani will no longer be the team mouthpiece. He's been the cause of a lot of the tension between the city and the team.

Spanos is not declining his option in Inglewood (yet), so it seems like this is meant to convey to San Diego that he's sincere and not just maneuvering to get a better deal with Kroenke (which is impossible anyway). He's still got schedule problems, though. I don't know how a deal gets done before his option expires.

IIRC, Spanos has the option to extend his option another year, and if he does that, then he has until January 2018 before he has to make a final decision on Inglewood.

Really? I've only seen the one year option. Was that added?

From http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-...story.html

Quote:The Chargers have until Jan. 15, 2017, to exercise a one-year option to move to L.A. The team can ask for the option to be extended one year if San Diego voters approve public financing for a stadium there. Should the Chargers remain in San Diego, the Oakland Raiders have the right to share the Inglewood stadium.

(02-17-2016 12:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:13 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 10:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Yeah, it's a $650MM windfall. And it's notable that Fabiani will no longer be the team mouthpiece. He's been the cause of a lot of the tension between the city and the team.

Spanos is not declining his option in Inglewood (yet), so it seems like this is meant to convey to San Diego that he's sincere and not just maneuvering to get a better deal with Kroenke (which is impossible anyway). He's still got schedule problems, though. I don't know how a deal gets done before his option expires.

IIRC, Spanos has the option to extend his option another year, and if he does that, then he has until January 2018 before he has to make a final decision on Inglewood.

Really? I've only seen the one year option. Was that added?

From http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-...story.html

Quote:The Chargers have until Jan. 15, 2017, to exercise a one-year option to move to L.A. The team can ask for the option to be extended one year if San Diego voters approve public financing for a stadium there. Should the Chargers remain in San Diego, the Oakland Raiders have the right to share the Inglewood stadium.

Can't believe I missed (or forgot) that. But it explains a lot about why/how Spanos can still attempt to make a deal with San Diego.

I don't get why the chargers can extend the LA option for 1 year if voters in SD approve a new stadium...wouldn't that end the need for the charges to move to LA? My guess for the raiders is the NFL wants them in santa clara or new stadium in oakland. If the raiders were settled into either of those, than the chargers probably do move to LA.

(02-17-2016 12:54 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I don't get why the chargers can extend the LA option for 1 year if voters in SD approve a new stadium...wouldn't that end the need for the charges to move to LA?

The extra year is so that even after the money for a new stadium is secured, the Chargers can still hold onto the Inglewood option for another year in case some anti-stadium folks file a lawsuit to challenge the package approved by the San Diego voters.

^exactly.

LA only really needs one team anyway. Best case for all is Rams alone in LA, Chargers stay in SD in a new stadium there and Raiders get to Las Vegas in the new stadium being built there. Everybody wins.

Don't give me any stuff about the NFL being in Vegas as being immoral--look who plays and runs the teams and league. The NFL belongs in Vegas more than anywhere.



NFL says no rule against Raiders move to Vegas

January 31, 2016 3:19 PM

New York (AFP) - An NFL memo sent to clubs in the wake of Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis visiting Las Vegas says there is no rule against moving a team to any city.

The note, made public over the weekend, leaves open the door to the possibility of relocating the Raiders, or any club, to the US gambling center despite the NFL's hard stance against any betting associations to preserve credibility of results.

The Raiders have no lease for next season after being thwarted in a bid to relocate to Los Angeles starting next season.

Las Vegas has long sought a top-level pro sports team but thus far has been snubbed by the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League, although an NHL expansion bid from Las Vegas for a new arena under construction there is being studied by league officials.

The memo, sent to 32 NFL team public relations directors, mentioned the reports of a plan by Las Vegas Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson to build a $1 billion domed stadium, a 65,000-seater on the University of Nevada-Las vegas campus that could be built even without an NFL team as a tenant.

"If your club owner or executives are asked about this, there is no need to comment," the NFL memo said.

It noted that all relocation decisions require 75 percent support from the 32 club owners and that no proposal has been made to the league for relocation to Las Vegas......

(02-17-2016 03:50 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

Look when he first registered the domain name.

(02-17-2016 04:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 03:50 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

Look when he first registered the domain name.

Christmas Day--nice touch. Guess he wasn't too busy that day.

1998--planning ahead?

His father was always interested in Las Vegas for the Raiders...interesting you don't hear about San Antonio anymore...it Oakland, Las Vegas or a distant 3rd San Diego

I think those owner's meetings reminded him of how powerful Jones and McNair are. If he is a smart man, he probably realizes San Antonio will not happen on their watch.

Sorry Maize, but I have to call out your spelling in thread title:

Artist: CW McCall
Album: Black Bear Road
Cut: "Convoy"
November 1975 MGM Records

(02-17-2016 07:02 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Sorry Maize, but I have to call out your spelling in thread title:

Artist: CW McCall
Album: Black Bear Road
Cut: "Convoy"
November 1975 MGM Records

Lol...