Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 15:10:13 GMT -8
Its sad that a team like the Chargers with an estimated worth of $995M under present conditions, would take on $1.7B in privately held debt to try and move to LA -- where they'd possibly be the the 5th most popular football team in the city behind the Rams, Raiders, Bruins and Trojans. For less than half that debt amount ($800M), they could have a new stadium in San Diego, where they claim that 75% of their fanbase exists. Let me ask you this. Had the Clippers stayed in San Diego do you think they'd be worth $2 billion? The inflationary value in LA would be much greater than SD in the long run. Whatever private debt that they incur today is cheap money and it becomes even less significant 10 years from now as their value increases. It's equity.
BTW do you really think the NFL would allow 3 teams to be in practically the same county, let alone two of which would be in the same conference? No way in hell.
They're not worth 2 billion now. Balmer overpaid because he can. He almost certainly couldn't get his money out if he had to sell to cover his Rent-A-Center payment.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Mar 9, 2015 17:09:27 GMT -8
Let me ask you this. Had the Clippers stayed in San Diego do you think they'd be worth $2 billion? The inflationary value in LA would be much greater than SD in the long run. Whatever private debt that they incur today is cheap money and it becomes even less significant 10 years from now as their value increases. It's equity.
BTW do you really think the NFL would allow 3 teams to be in practically the same county, let alone two of which would be in the same conference? No way in hell.
I think the NFL is more apt to allow the Rams move to Inglewood, than to force through the changes that will be needed to move the Chargers and Raiders to Carson and make the adjustments to the AFC and NFC accordingly. I think the NFL will do what makes the NFL the most money with the least amount of stress and bad publicity ... Kronenke building a stadium on his own dime solves a lot of their stress and opens up St. Louis for an expansion team. The Rams don't need to share their stadium, and if only 1 team is allowed to move to LA, would it be the Chargers or Raiders and where would they play if the Rams don't share? Would the NFL want to wait a few years before moving another team besides the Rams to LA (and what happens to the Raiders and Chargers while the NFL thinks about it?). As for the Clippers, they weren't worth anything close to what they are now when they moved from San Diego to LA, that is true ... but taking a team currently valued at $995M, and adding $1.7B of debt would result in an approximate net value of -$705M and an uncertain income based on whether the Rams move to LA, in addition to direct competition with the Raiders with whom they'd share a stadium ... What would the value of the Chargers be if they were moved to the NFC West with San Francisco, Seattle and Arizona? Would a loss of traditional rivalries affect the appeal of the team? How much of the Chargers value is based on them being in San Diego in the first place? How long if ever will it take the Chargers to replace 75% or more of their fanbase? The Raiders and Chargers sharing a stadium in Carson is a smokescreen. One or the other might move there, not both.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Mar 9, 2015 17:13:55 GMT -8
Let me ask you this. Had the Clippers stayed in San Diego do you think they'd be worth $2 billion? The inflationary value in LA would be much greater than SD in the long run. Whatever private debt that they incur today is cheap money and it becomes even less significant 10 years from now as their value increases. It's equity.
BTW do you really think the NFL would allow 3 teams to be in practically the same county, let alone two of which would be in the same conference? No way in hell.
They're not worth 2 billion now. Balmer overpaid because he can. He almost certainly couldn't get his money out if he had to sell to cover his Rent-A-Center payment. That's really not the point is it? He did and that's why Michael Jordon is now a billionaire. Keeping up with the Jones is what it caused.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 9, 2015 17:26:07 GMT -8
I think the NFL is more apt to allow the Rams move to Inglewood, than to force through the changes that will be needed to move the Chargers and Raiders to Carson and make the adjustments to the AFC and NFC accordingly. I think the NFL will do what makes the NFL the most money with the least amount of stress and bad publicity ... Kronenke building a stadium on his own dime solves a lot of their stress and opens up St. Louis for an expansion team. The Rams don't need to share their stadium, and if only 1 team is allowed to move to LA, would it be the Chargers or Raiders and where would they play if the Rams don't share? Would the NFL want to wait a few years before moving another team besides the Rams to LA (and what happens to the Raiders and Chargers while the NFL thinks about it?). As for the Clippers, they weren't worth anything close to what they are now when they moved from San Diego to LA, that is true ... but taking a team currently valued at $995M, and adding $1.7B of debt would result in an approximate net value of -$705M and an uncertain income based on whether the Rams move to LA, in addition to direct competition with the Raiders with whom they'd share a stadium ... What would the value of the Chargers be if they were moved to the NFC West with San Francisco, Seattle and Arizona? Would a loss of traditional rivalries affect the appeal of the team? How much of the Chargers value is based on them being in San Diego in the first place? How long if ever will it take the Chargers to replace 75% or more of their fanbase? The Raiders and Chargers sharing a stadium in Carson is a smokescreen. One or the other might move there, not both. I agree with you ... If the Chargers threat to leave SD using a stadium in Carson is to be accepted, then $1.7B price tag for that stadium would be born by the Chargers alone, if not shared by the Raiders. From what I can tell the Raiders can only afford to bring an increase to the $200M G4 loan from the NFL anyway. They could possibly influence PSL sales, but I am not sure that LA Raider fans would significantly contribute to that either. If the Rams move first, I am not sure the NFL would want to loan any money for a competing NFL stadium so close to one that is already being built. So that leaves either the Raiders or Chargers to make nice with the Rams who don't need to share their stadium in Inglewood, unless that is a condition of the NFL for accepting the Rams move in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 17:26:51 GMT -8
I think the NFL is more apt to allow the Rams move to Inglewood, than to force through the changes that will be needed to move the Chargers and Raiders to Carson and make the adjustments to the AFC and NFC accordingly. I think the NFL will do what makes the NFL the most money with the least amount of stress and bad publicity ... Kronenke building a stadium on his own dime solves a lot of their stress and opens up St. Louis for an expansion team. The Rams don't need to share their stadium, and if only 1 team is allowed to move to LA, would it be the Chargers or Raiders and where would they play if the Rams don't share? Would the NFL want to wait a few years before moving another team besides the Rams to LA (and what happens to the Raiders and Chargers while the NFL thinks about it?). As for the Clippers, they weren't worth anything close to what they are now when they moved from San Diego to LA, that is true ... but taking a team currently valued at $995M, and adding $1.7B of debt would result in an approximate net value of -$705M and an uncertain income based on whether the Rams move to LA, in addition to direct competition with the Raiders with whom they'd share a stadium ... What would the value of the Chargers be if they were moved to the NFC West with San Francisco, Seattle and Arizona? Would a loss of traditional rivalries affect the appeal of the team? How much of the Chargers value is based on them being in San Diego in the first place? How long if ever will it take the Chargers to replace 75% or more of their fanbase? The Raiders and Chargers sharing a stadium in Carson is a smokescreen. One or the other might move there, not both. I'm not a big Chargers fan so it matters not to me what happens but I absolutely agree with you on this one.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 9, 2015 17:32:18 GMT -8
They're not worth 2 billion now. Balmer overpaid because he can. He almost certainly couldn't get his money out if he had to sell to cover his Rent-A-Center payment. That's really not the point is it? He did and that's why Michael Jordon is now a billionaire. Keeping up with the Jones is what it caused. It would be interesting to conjecture as to what the value of the Clippers would be today had they stayed in San Diego -- factoring in what they could have gotten out of the City in terms of a new arena, the rise in income over that period of time and other factors. Then there's the question of how much of the Clippers and Dodgers value was aided by the fact that there has not been an NFL team in Los Angeles in quite sometime. Conversely, would the Chargers value be $995M if there was a 3rd professional team in San Diego competing for entertainment dollars? So Many Variables ...
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 9, 2015 20:04:38 GMT -8
I still think that's the ultimate goal for the Spanos family, but if you notice that the past 14 years of asking 7 mayors nicely has gotten literally zero done, at some point you need to turn up the heat. Honestly, I wouldn’t have been so patient. It has not been 14 years and 7 mayors of asking nicely ... it's been decades of demands, extortion and deceit. From ticket guarantees, to failing to provide net income verification when demanding a new stadium just a few years after the city funded an expansion (for which we are still to this day paying for), to failing to perform due diligence in past stadium proposals (Chula Vista, Oceanside, Downtown and Mission Valley) where the team shows off pretty water colors of a new stadium concept and pays for PR, but never completes the EIR (environmental impact report) or EVS (economic viability study) when floating an estimated cost (in this case original $800M) for a stadium. It would have been a simple matter for the Chargers to follow up with the MTS as to the cost in both money and time to relocate the bus yard to make way for a downtown stadium ($150M & 7 years), something they have been touting as their preference since 2009. In that time (since 2009) they have tried to use the sale of the Q (which the city only owns half of) and Sports Arena to fund a downtown stadium, yet never addressed the costs of the infrastructure needs that stadium would create and that cost to the city. They have never disclosed any agreement between the Padres and themselves regarding use of tailgate park on days when both Petco Park and a Downtown stadium are in use at the same time. The problem is that the Chargers have gone about this in a way that is not nice or honest and this is where we find ourselves again, 14 years and 7 mayors later ... the main difference being the value of the team has risen consistently in that time while the city paid for ticket guarantees and now pays them to play at the Q. I don't think Tailgate Park would be a problem, as I thought that the Charger "proposal" of a convention center annex/stadium was situated ON Tailgate Park. Which brings up another interesting problem, as I believe the Padres have control of Tailgate Park for quite a few years in the MOU between the team and the city.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 9, 2015 20:09:10 GMT -8
The Raiders and Chargers sharing a stadium in Carson is a smokescreen. One or the other might move there, not both. I agree with you ... If the Chargers threat to leave SD using a stadium in Carson is to be accepted, then $1.7B price tag for that stadium would be born by the Chargers alone, if not shared by the Raiders. From what I can tell the Raiders can only afford to bring an increase to the $200M G4 loan from the NFL anyway. They could possibly influence PSL sales, but I am not sure that LA Raider fans would significantly contribute to that either. If the Rams move first, I am not sure the NFL would want to loan any money for a competing NFL stadium so close to one that is already being built. So that leaves either the Raiders or Chargers to make nice with the Rams who don't need to share their stadium in Inglewood, unless that is a condition of the NFL for accepting the Rams move in the first place. I think the reason the NFL said no team is moving to LA in 2015 is The League is frantically negotiating with Kroenke to have another team play in his stadium--whether it is the Chargers OR Raiders is to be determined. I don't think there is any way that The League allows 3 teams up there, and with that, I don't think there is any way the Chargers stay in San Diego.
|
|