(01-01-2017 12:42 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 09:39 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You conveniently left out the part where STL was going to build the Rams a new billion dollar, riverfront stadium.


I get you're anti-stadium, fine.

But a *public* stadium is the same thing as a public park or public trail: the public own it, it is not a necessity but it is an amenity that people desire to have and are willing to pay for via taxes. Exactly the same thing.

No, I didn't forget about it. It was never going to happen. Kroenke didn't want it. Goodell didn't want it. The NFL owners didn't want it. They all wanted the Rams in Los Angeles. The value of the Rams doubled with the move. The Rams went from 28th to sixth in valuation. If 100% of the population of the state of Missouri had supported the new stadium, it still would have never been built. The Rams were gone before negotiations even began. If you look up the definition of bad faith negotiation, you will find the NFL logo.

The only point I'd argue about LA is... if LA meant that much to the NFL why did it allow the Rams to leave in the first place? Why was there no team put there for close to 20 years?

I think the only thing got LA hot on the NFL's mind was the sale of the Clippers for an INSANE PRICE. And that insane price paid for the Dodgers.

Along those same lines, if the NFL was so desparate to get back in LA, why didn't the NFL make sure that Stan Kronke got the Jacksonville Jaguars and let him move them to LA? Would have solved two problems at one time. For that matter, why doesn't NFL let Kronke by the Jaguars now and let him move them to LA too? It would be unprecedented , but you could have an NFL owner owning two teams in America's second largest metro.

(01-01-2017 08:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The Rams didn't leave so much because LA didn't support them as much as Georgia Frontiere got a sweetheart deal in St. Louis and left a crumbling stadium in Anaheim after a time of being the second team in the LA market after the Raiders. The Raiders also left because of the state of the Coliseum, so it was an amazing coincidence. But LA had two teams, they certainly had the market to support the NFL then and now.

You've got the history mostly right but the bolded part remains to be seen. The market certainly didn't support both teams well during their overlapping time here, but it's hard to say how much of that is a result of Georgia's terrible management of the Rams and Al's attempts to rip off citizens of the LA Metro. As we've discussed before, I'm doubtful the Chargers will be well supported in LA. The SD fans aren't terribly rabid, it's an awful drive, and they'll be royally pissed at Spanos for moving the team. And in LA? There just aren't that many Chargers fans and the team's not good enough to lure band wagoners on board. They're likely to be the Clippers for a long time - can Spanos afford that? Or is that the plan? Move, then sell the team when the valuation goes up simply because they're located in LA.

To that last point, I'm a little confused about the news reports this week, claiming the Chargers have a little more than a week to exercise their option to move to LA. I thought there was also an option to extend the deadline, but apparently that was only discussed but not actually given to Spanos? Doesn't mean they can't still give him one but it's getting pretty late. Most news reports are assuming he has to act by next weekend.

Speculation is that if the Raiders apply to move to Las Vegas this month, the NFL will extend the Chargers' Inglewood option ... if Spanos wants to extend it rather than making the move right away.

Practically, it would be inconvenient at best for the Coliseum to accommodate USC and two NFL teams in the same season, which provides some incentive for Spanos to string San Diego along for another year or two if he is so inclined.

There are 20 million+ people in SoCal, I'm sure the Rams will be fine long term unless joined by the Raiders or Chargers. And if it's the Raiders, they'll do real well at least, if not both.

Provides incentive for San Diego to build the downtown stadium that the Chargers and the people of San Diego deserve!!

(01-05-2017 04:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Provides incentive for San Diego to build the downtown stadium that the Chargers and the people of San Diego deserve!!

I love this word.

The people of San Diego have already decided they don't want (deserve?) a new downtown stadium - and the vote wasn't close. Spanos would, I imagine, be welcome to build it himself. Unfortunately, a few hundred million only gets you a nice college stadium these days...

When it's a fair vote, only requiring a simple majority, then the people of San Diego will get the public amenity that they desire (and deserve).

The "I hate taxes" people, who should just move to Mexico, will lose.

(01-06-2017 11:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  When it's a fair vote, only requiring a simple majority, then the people of San Diego will get the public amenity that they desire (and deserve).

The "I hate taxes" people, who should just move to Mexico, will lose.

Measure C: Downtown Stadium San Diego
100 % Precincts reporting
No 306,887 56%
Yes 237,597 44%

Moot point now.

But I would've responded -- and it would've been correct -- that if supports knew they "only" had to get a majority, rather than a hopeless (and unfair) 2/3rds, they would actually come out in full force.

(01-13-2017 09:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Moot point now.

But I would've responded -- and it would've been correct -- that if supports knew they "only" had to get a majority, rather than a hopeless (and unfair) 2/3rds, they would actually come out in full force.

Heh - is this intellectually consistent with your positions in the electoral college/popular vote threads in the Spin Room?

Regardless, you have no idea what popular sentiment is in San Diego.

Neither does anyone. It wasn't a fair vote.

Stadium supporters stayed home, because they knew an unfair 2/3rd majority was unreachable. Too bad for SD.