The fun part is that the Chargers will be playing in a MAC sized stadium for the two years until Kroenke's monstrosity is completed.

(01-12-2017 02:07 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The fun part is that the Chargers will be playing in a MAC sized stadium for the two years until Kroenke's monstrosity is completed.

coliseum???
rose bowl???

O WHERE O WHERE

The StubHub Center of the LA Galaxy. Holds 27,000. The Rose Bowl told the Rams to **** off last year so they're in the Coliseum.

(01-12-2017 02:13 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The StubHub Center of the LA Galaxy. Holds 27,000. The Rose Bowl told the Rams to **** off last year so they're in the Coliseum.

FOR REALS

(01-12-2017 12:40 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  As a resident of the LA area, I think it's awesome that even though we're known for being a liberal big government wasteful spending mecca, we've stuck to the principle of not wasting tax dollars subsidizing stadiums for billionaires. And in the end they still came back anyway and are spending billions of their own money to build a state of the art stadium for us. A big win for fiscal responsibility.

Completely unrelated to sports, but LA just got a new completely privately funded billion dollar museum, too, because Chicago and SF were dumb.

Chicago was not dumb. The public land was supposed to preserved and the proposed museum location was in violation of the trust.

Good for LA.

(01-12-2017 02:15 PM)green Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 02:13 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The StubHub Center of the LA Galaxy. Holds 27,000. The Rose Bowl told the Rams to **** off last year so they're in the Coliseum.

FOR REALS

USC's lease on the Coliseum says they only have to allow one NFL team to use the Coliseum.

(01-12-2017 02:23 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 02:15 PM)green Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 02:13 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The StubHub Center of the LA Galaxy. Holds 27,000. The Rose Bowl told the Rams to **** off last year so they're in the Coliseum.

FOR REALS

USC's lease on the Coliseum says they only have to allow one NFL team to use the Coliseum.

perhaps I'm misremembering ...
but didn't usc buy the coliseum ...

MEAN LANDLORD

(01-12-2017 01:53 PM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  Unfortunately the move now gives the NFL another hostage city just in case other cities don't meet their teams terms.

San Diego is dead to the NFL. And while stupid, the NFL is probably dead to St Louis. And Portland and San Antonio are blocked by the Seahawks and Cowboys. Maybe Sacramento blocked by 49ers.

Now that LA is filled up, there really aren't a lot of places for NFL franchises to move to in the country.

The new "threat" is probably going to be Mexico and England, even if those make no sense.

(01-12-2017 01:54 PM)green Wrote:  $500 million renovation

Confirming what I said. Miami can't support a $1-2B level private investment for a football stadium.

(01-12-2017 02:23 PM)lew240z Wrote:  USC's lease on the Coliseum says they only have to allow one NFL team to use the Coliseum.

I imagine something will get worked out. Money helps.

(01-12-2017 02:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 01:53 PM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  Unfortunately the move now gives the NFL another hostage city just in case other cities don't meet their teams terms.

San Diego is dead to the NFL. And while stupid, the NFL is probably dead to St Louis. And Portland and San Antonio are blocked by the Seahawks and Cowboys. Maybe Sacramento blocked by 49ers.

Now that LA is filled up, there really aren't a lot of places for NFL franchises to move to in the country.

The new "threat" is probably going to be Mexico and England, even if those make no sense.

(01-12-2017 01:54 PM)green Wrote:  $500 million renovation

Confirming what I said. Miami can't support a $1-2B level private investment for a football stadium.

(01-12-2017 02:23 PM)lew240z Wrote:  USC's lease on the Coliseum says they only have to allow one NFL team to use the Coliseum.

I imagine something will get worked out. Money helps.

Chargers' strange L.A. move includes a 2017-18 plan to play in a 27,000-seat soccer stadium

Not much about the San Diego Chargers’ move to Los Angeles makes sense, and that’s before you get to the Chargers’ home stadium plans for the next two seasons.

Chargers owner Dean Spanos officially announced the move Thursday morning. According to USA Today and Pro Football Talk, the Chargers plan to play at the StubHub Center in Carson in 2017 and 2018, before moving into Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s lavish Inglewood stadium in 2019. The StubHub Center is home to Major League Soccer’s Los Angeles Galaxy, and it has a capacity of 27,167.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/charge...in...42171.html

Well if it has been reported, then the plan is hereby set in stone forever and ever.

(01-12-2017 02:37 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 02:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 01:53 PM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  Unfortunately the move now gives the NFL another hostage city just in case other cities don't meet their teams terms.

San Diego is dead to the NFL. And while stupid, the NFL is probably dead to St Louis. And Portland and San Antonio are blocked by the Seahawks and Cowboys. Maybe Sacramento blocked by 49ers.

Now that LA is filled up, there really aren't a lot of places for NFL franchises to move to in the country.

The new "threat" is probably going to be Mexico and England, even if those make no sense.

(01-12-2017 01:54 PM)green Wrote:  $500 million renovation

Confirming what I said. Miami can't support a $1-2B level private investment for a football stadium.

(01-12-2017 02:23 PM)lew240z Wrote:  USC's lease on the Coliseum says they only have to allow one NFL team to use the Coliseum.

I imagine something will get worked out. Money helps.

Chargers' strange L.A. move includes a 2017-18 plan to play in a 27,000-seat soccer stadium

Not much about the San Diego Chargers’ move to Los Angeles makes sense, and that’s before you get to the Chargers’ home stadium plans for the next two seasons.

Chargers owner Dean Spanos officially announced the move Thursday morning. According to USA Today and Pro Football Talk, the Chargers plan to play at the StubHub Center in Carson in 2017 and 2018, before moving into Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s lavish Inglewood stadium in 2019. The StubHub Center is home to Major League Soccer’s Los Angeles Galaxy, and it has a capacity of 27,167.


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/charge...in...42171.html

I agree that the move to the StubHub Center as a temporary home really makes no sense. I literally thought it was a pie-in-the-sky joke when it was mentioned as a possibility yesterday.

However, we should separate this from whether the actual overall move by the Chargers from San Diego to LA makes sense. I've seen statements questioning whether it "makes sense" from many people throughout today, which really perplexes me. At the end of the day, the Chargers just *instantly* added at least $1 billion to their franchise value by moving from San Diego to LA. That seems to make perfect sense if you're the owner of the Chargers (as much as it blows for the fans). The Rams zoomed from one of the least valuable franchises in the NFL all the way to #6 in franchise value (ahead of venerable teams like the New York Jets, Chicago Bears and Philadelphia Eagles) simply by moving.

(01-12-2017 01:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 11:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'd love to see SDSU and an MLS team partner on something in the 40,000 range

MLS wants soccer-specific stadiums in the 2x,xxx seating range. And truth be told, for a small market like SD, I'm guessing 40k would be too much for an MLS team anyway.

(01-12-2017 11:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  At that point, you have to consider whether a pro sports team is actually a "public good" that warrants public financial support despite it being a private business.

This is just slightly the wrong tact.

It's not the franchise itself that's the public good -- though I know some cities have sued to "keep" "their" colors/logo/names, etc. from being used when the team moves (I think Sonics is the example that comes to mind?)

It's the STADIUM that's the public good. It's exactly the same thing as a public park. It's an amenity. It's not a necessity, but it's a nice thing to have. People want them. And they're willing to spend public dollars to get them.

This is how it's view in Mpls. The city/county/state built a public good, a stadium. The stadium belongs to the people. The Vikings just rent the stadium for a few events each year.


I can't see any valid argument against this viewpoint. Simply, if you don't want to pay for a nice thing ... then you don't get to have a nice thing. That's that.

(01-12-2017 11:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The Chargers will draw flies in LA. San Diegans make a point of not liking, and avoiding Los Angeles.

Doubt highly that the Chargers ticket sales model will be based on courting attendance from people who live in the SD metro area.

It'll be selling premium tickets (loge boxes, club seats, mini-suites, full suites, premium amenity access, etc etc etc) to businesses mostly and rich LA residents. Then filling the rest of the place up with appropriately priced tickets to LA area residents, to watch an NFL game.

Winning would help, obviously. But going to an NFL game in LA? That's an event. Like the Golden Globes, or something. It's a major to-do. A place to be seen. Who cares if the name of the team is the Chargers, or the Banjos, or the Taco Trucks. Whatever.

(01-12-2017 12:40 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  And in the end they still came back anyway and are spending billions of their own money to build a state of the art stadium for us.

Must be nice being one of only two markets in the entire country that a league needs, not wants. And they still made you wait 20 years.

Rams never should've left, frankly. Then maybe STL could've bid on and won the Jags in the first place, and had natural rivalries with Indy and Nashville.

(01-12-2017 12:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I still can't believe that they messed up a billion dollar-plus gift to the City of Chicago

Clearly you understand that he wasn't writing a billion dollar check to the city and saying "knock yourself out! Spend it on whatever you need".

Chicago has several very nice, even world-class museums. I'm not against more being built, in the slightest, but you hyperbole is a little ridiculous.

This, like I said earlier you will have a few salty people but it's not going to hurt anything. Many of the reasons you listed are exactly why they are moving. People forget, LA is a mega city that is home to many world known businesses and celebrities.

Not to mention there are nearly 4 million people in the city. Just to put things into perspective there are only about 4.9 million people in the entire state of Alabama....It's absurd to think they will draw flies.

And I HIGHLY doubt the season ticket holders will give up their tickets. I'm moving back to Cali in a few years and I have been on the waiting list for season tickets for over a year now.

Chargers season ticket holders will probably have to pay (one-time) an extra amount (beyond the cost of the tickets) to become owners of the seats' "license". It basically gives you the official ownership of the right to buy tickets for that seat, in the stadium.

So that could definitely deter some Chargers season ticket holders from renewing, beyond just the move itself.

(01-12-2017 11:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Ok they need to rebrand now. I like the los angles oilers and bring back the Houston oilers uniform which never should have gone away...there is actually lots of oil in LA. The green peace crowd might not like it though so maybe los angles seals, whales etc. Stars could work but the cowboys might veto it

Bring back the 1960 Los Angeles Chargers uniforms.

(01-12-2017 12:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  When you look at how many Oilers fans became fans of the Tennessee Titans, I doubt there will be any significant fall-off of fans.

I didn't stop being a Titans/Oilers fan until the Texans came into existence and even when they did, I stayed a Titans fan for a few seasons.

So the idea that Chargers fans are gonna ignore the team they've rooted for all their life that's now still only 2 hours away is unlikely.

(01-12-2017 02:13 PM)bronconick Wrote:  The StubHub Center of the LA Galaxy. Holds 27,000. The Rose Bowl told the Rams to **** off last year so they're in the Coliseum.

The Chargers will struggle to fill it.

No city that has lost a team, got another one back without ponying up for a brand new partially or wholly publicly financed stadium, other than LA. St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Houston, none of them got their teams back until they paid the piper. New(ish) cities to have teams, Nashville, Charlotte, Jacksonville, they all had to pony up and build stadiums (although Jax just remodeled an existing one).

To my knowledge, the Giants/Jets, 49ers, Patriots, Redskins, Cowboys, and the soon to be built Rams stadiums, are the only NFL stadiums I am aware of built with mostly private money. .Not sure how we classify Green Bay, since the city owns the team. Anyway, these are the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th, and 11th largest markets in the US. Atlanta's new stadium is as well, but since the citizens of Georgia are still paying for the last stadium, I am not ready to let them off the hook for that one. But the owner is paying for most of it. So if you add the Falcons (9) and Dolphins renovations (8), basically If you are not a top ten market, you have no chance of not paying up for a stadium.

(01-12-2017 03:54 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 11:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Ok they need to rebrand now. I like the los angles oilers and bring back the Houston oilers uniform which never should have gone away...there is actually lots of oil in LA. The green peace crowd might not like it though so maybe los angles seals, whales etc. Stars could work but the cowboys might veto it

Bring back the 1960 Los Angeles Chargers uniforms.

No way. They should simply switch to wearing the powder blue uniforms 100% of the time. It has never made sense to me that they only wear those clearly superior uniforms only a couple of times per year. I've never met anyone that likes the dark blue uniforms better. Those powder blue uniforms are among the best in the NFL.

(01-12-2017 01:53 PM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 08:06 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I have no connection to San Diego or the Chargers but I am legitimately very saddened to hear this news.

I sincerely believe this is a mistake for all concerned. I think this is a mistake for the Chargers, it's a mistake for the NFL, and it's a mistake for the city of San Diego.

I understand that they just couldn't make the financing work but I think that was a mistake too. I think Spanos should've gotten a minority investor to help him build that stadium. I think the city of San Diego should not have taunted him like it did and I think the NFL should have kicked in more from its reserve fund to ensure that it got built.

The Rams are not yet fully reentrenched in Los Angeles and to haphazardly throw a second team into that mix so soon is just not a good idea for anyone.

Unfortunately the move now gives the NFL another hostage city just in case other cities don't meet their teams terms.

Not a credible one. In order for taxpayer dollars to be used, the voters must approve it by a 2/3rds majority. They won't get it.

Could they put field turf down and share with USC, rams? The rebrand needs to happen. LA Earthquakes would be cool until the big one happens.