|
|
Post by ab on May 21, 2015 8:37:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ignoranus on May 21, 2015 9:04:41 GMT -8
All of this sets up perfectly for the Chargers move to LA. Dean hands off responsibility for running the team to his sons; one of whom is an USC guy. Meanwhile, he hires longtime friend Carmine Policy to "handle" the Carson situation; since he holds him in very high regard we can be certain that Carmine is NOT being given this assignment to "spin his wheels" in an elaborate smokescreen in order to get something done in SD. Rather, when the apples and oranges are finally compared as to absolute value for the franchise, a vote will be taken. Dean will vote for SD, Carmine and the sons will vote for LA and the team WILL be moving. SD loses the Chargers by a 3-1 margin.
Aftermath: Dean will say how disappointed he is and that he "always wanted to stay in SD". He will give generously to local charities and benefits, when asked, so that he may continue to live in semi-respectability in La Jolla. This will be a fine example well illustrating the governmental concept of "plausible deniability".
Carmine and the sons will not be living in SD and will be largely able to avoid the turmoil/fan rage that will follow the decision. Angelenos will be throwing rose petals at their feet to ease the pain of rejection from enraged San Diegans.
The Spanos family will become much richer.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 21, 2015 9:18:03 GMT -8
Dean is not a gambler or a risk taker. He always makes safe hires for coaches and GMs who conform to his thinking and in turn the team never makes big free agent splashes or big trades. It's always status quo. Moving to LA is not a slam dunk as far as being more profitable with relocation fees and privately funding a stadium and having to pay back a huge loan from Goldman Sachs. There's a huge risk in making such a move and I can't see someone like Dean taking that leap.
He has a poor reputation in San Diego and I think he wants his legacy to be finally getting a new stadium in San Diego and being the "hero" who saved the team. He doesn't want to be remembered as another Art Modell.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignoranus on May 21, 2015 9:20:36 GMT -8
He'd rather that the family became richer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 9:25:52 GMT -8
He'd rather that the family became richer. Yeah, if you look at it from a business perspective and the reality that the franchise will increase significantly in value after moving...well its not a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 21, 2015 9:42:10 GMT -8
All of this sets up perfectly for the Chargers move to LA. Dean hands off responsibility for running the team to his sons; one of whom is an USC guy. Meanwhile, he hires longtime friend Carmine Policy to "handle" the Carson situation; since he holds him in very high regard we can be certain that Carmine is NOT being given this assignment to "spin his wheels" in an elaborate smokescreen in order to get something done in SD. Rather, when the apples and oranges are finally compared as to absolute value for the franchise, a vote will be taken. Dean will vote for SD, Carmine and the sons will vote for LA and the team WILL be moving. SD loses the Chargers by a 3-1 margin. Aftermath: Dean will say how disappointed he is and that he "always wanted to stay in SD". He will give generously to local charities and benefits, when asked, so that he may continue to live in semi-respectability in La Jolla. This will be a fine example well illustrating the governmental concept of "plausible deniability". Carmine and the sons will not be living in SD and will be largely able to avoid the turmoil/fan rage that will follow the decision. Angelenos will be throwing rose petals at their feet to ease the pain of rejection from enraged San Diegans. The Spanos family will become much richer. Noticed you completely ignored the fact that both AG and John grew up, went to school and live in San Diego with their wives and kids who are from San Diego. AG also went to college in Mass. and John at Wake Forrest so perhaps we should watch those areas for a possible move also. John also sits on the UCSD Athletics board. So you are right, with so little personally invested in San Diego they are quick to move to LA. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 21, 2015 9:46:57 GMT -8
I can't believe we're still talking about Carson as a legitimate possibility but how much do you think the Chargers would have to borrow to move and build a stadium there?
Fabiani says they can get $500M in PSL sales. The fact that Fabiani said this makes it a joke in the first place. There's no way they'll even come close to that. They won't be able to get the $200M loan from the NFL because they're relocating, they're going to have a relocation fee and their ticket and merchandise sales are not going to be strong in LA. Some are speculating that the relocation fee could be $1B but even if it's on the lighter side $250M, that's more than they are saying they would contribute for a stadium here.
The value of the franchise would go up but they would also be sharing the market and stadium with the Raiders so that hurts their value. Considering the huge loan they would have to payback to Goldman Sachs, how much are they really going to gain in the end and is it worth the risk? People keep referencing the Clippers but it's not the same thing at all. The Clippers were able to move up there and start playing in an existing facility and it didn't matter if their sales and fan base were poor because they didn't have to privately finance a new stadium. And Sterling was fortunate that someone overpaid for the Clippers 30 years later. Also Sterling was forced to sell and the Spanos family has no interest in selling. Maybe in 30 years they might but John and AG may have sons and daughters who will be groomed to take over like they were.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 21, 2015 9:59:41 GMT -8
I can't believe we're still talking about Carson as a legitimate possibility but how much do you think the Chargers would have to borrow to move and build a stadium there? Fabiani says they can get $500M in PSL sales. The fact that Fabiani said this makes it a joke in the first place. There's no way they'll even come close to that. They won't be able to get the $200M loan from the NFL because they're relocating, they're going to have a relocation fee and their ticket and merchandise sales are not going to be strong in LA. Some are speculating that the relocation fee could be $1B but even if it's on the lighter side $250M, that's more than they are saying they would contribute for a stadium here. The value of the franchise would go up but they would also be sharing the market and stadium with the Raiders so that hurts their value. Considering the huge loan they would have to payback to Goldman Sachs, how much are they really going to gain in the end and is it worth the risk? People keep referencing the Clippers but it's not the same thing at all. The Clippers were able to move up there and start playing in an existing facility and it didn't matter if their sales and fan base were poor because they didn't have to privately finance a new stadium. And Sterling was fortunate that someone overpaid for the Clippers 30 years later. Also Sterling was forced to sell and the Spanos family has no interest in selling. Maybe in 30 years they might but John and AG may have sons and daughters who will be groomed to take over like they were. My continued reasoning as to why Carson will never happen is this: Q: What is the #1 priority for the NFL in LA? A: To MAKE SURE the team that moves to LA has the best possible solution created for it in order to succeed in that market. The NFL cannot afford another failure. So does the Carson site give the NFL the perfect situation in order to ensure the success of the NFL in LA? NO WAY!! - An area nobody wants to travel to, and on top of a toxic site (cleaned up or not) - Worst possible situation for success. An NFL team will likely end up in LA but it WONT be at the Carson site. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 10:02:19 GMT -8
I can't believe we're still talking about Carson as a legitimate possibility but how much do you think the Chargers would have to borrow to move and build a stadium there? Fabiani says they can get $500M in PSL sales. The fact that Fabiani said this makes it a joke in the first place. There's no way they'll even come close to that. They won't be able to get the $200M loan from the NFL because they're relocating, they're going to have a relocation fee and their ticket and merchandise sales are not going to be strong in LA. Some are speculating that the relocation fee could be $1B but even if it's on the lighter side $250M, that's more than they are saying they would contribute for a stadium here. The value of the franchise would go up but they would also be sharing the market and stadium with the Raiders so that hurts their value. Considering the huge loan they would have to payback to Goldman Sachs, how much are they really going to gain in the end and is it worth the risk? People keep referencing the Clippers but it's not the same thing at all. The Clippers were able to move up there and start playing in an existing facility and it didn't matter if their sales and fan base were poor because they didn't have to privately finance a new stadium. And Sterling was fortunate that someone overpaid for the Clippers 30 years later. Also Sterling was forced to sell and the Spanos family has no interest in selling. Maybe in 30 years they might but John and AG may have sons and daughters who will be groomed to take over like they were. If they are playing the long game...which they likely are...IMO you are a little too optimistic about the situation. How much do you think a valuation of the LA Chargers would be say 20 to 30 years from now? Also on the issue of the relocation fee, how is it to be paid? Over the course of years? And can the NFL decide to waive it at any time? I think the easy way for them is to stay, but the long term most profitable decision maybe relocation. If that's true then there is a chance they move the team based purely on the business/money aspect and how it will effect the Spanos family wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by ignoranus on May 21, 2015 10:11:31 GMT -8
Keep your eyes on where the football lands.
My secret source for this information says: LA.
The source, who must remain un-named, will heretofore be known as "Shallow Throat".
|
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 21, 2015 10:17:06 GMT -8
I can't believe we're still talking about Carson as a legitimate possibility but how much do you think the Chargers would have to borrow to move and build a stadium there? Fabiani says they can get $500M in PSL sales. The fact that Fabiani said this makes it a joke in the first place. There's no way they'll even come close to that. They won't be able to get the $200M loan from the NFL because they're relocating, they're going to have a relocation fee and their ticket and merchandise sales are not going to be strong in LA. Some are speculating that the relocation fee could be $1B but even if it's on the lighter side $250M, that's more than they are saying they would contribute for a stadium here. The value of the franchise would go up but they would also be sharing the market and stadium with the Raiders so that hurts their value. Considering the huge loan they would have to payback to Goldman Sachs, how much are they really going to gain in the end and is it worth the risk? People keep referencing the Clippers but it's not the same thing at all. The Clippers were able to move up there and start playing in an existing facility and it didn't matter if their sales and fan base were poor because they didn't have to privately finance a new stadium. And Sterling was fortunate that someone overpaid for the Clippers 30 years later. Also Sterling was forced to sell and the Spanos family has no interest in selling. Maybe in 30 years they might but John and AG may have sons and daughters who will be groomed to take over like they were. My continued reasoning as to why Carson will never happen is this: Q: What is the #1 priority for the NFL in LA? A: To MAKE SURE the team that moves to LA has the best possible solution created for it in order to succeed in that market. The NFL cannot afford another failure. So does the Carson site give the NFL the perfect situation in order to ensure the success of the NFL in LA? NO WAY!! - An area nobody wants to travel to, and on top of a toxic site (cleaned up or not) - Worst possible situation for success.An NFL team will likely end up in LA but it WONT be at the Carson site. Isn't MetLife Stadium also built on a toxic waste dump? It's also in New Jersey and not New York -- it would appear that the NFL has already proven that a stadium built in an undesireable location on a toxic waste dump can be successful. |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 21, 2015 10:18:08 GMT -8
Keep your eyes on where the football lands. My secret source for this information says: LA. The source, who must remain un-named, will heretofore be known as "Shallow Throat". Would this happen to be the same source "Hacksaw Hamilton" used to get his info from? |
|
|
|
Post by ignoranus on May 21, 2015 10:23:13 GMT -8
NO!
I have some reason to suspect/believe that Shallow Throat may be personally acquainted with each of these individuals. (Not to say that Hacksaw isn't.)
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 21, 2015 10:24:31 GMT -8
I can't believe we're still talking about Carson as a legitimate possibility but how much do you think the Chargers would have to borrow to move and build a stadium there? Fabiani says they can get $500M in PSL sales. The fact that Fabiani said this makes it a joke in the first place. There's no way they'll even come close to that. They won't be able to get the $200M loan from the NFL because they're relocating, they're going to have a relocation fee and their ticket and merchandise sales are not going to be strong in LA. Some are speculating that the relocation fee could be $1B but even if it's on the lighter side $250M, that's more than they are saying they would contribute for a stadium here. The value of the franchise would go up but they would also be sharing the market and stadium with the Raiders so that hurts their value. Considering the huge loan they would have to payback to Goldman Sachs, how much are they really going to gain in the end and is it worth the risk? People keep referencing the Clippers but it's not the same thing at all. The Clippers were able to move up there and start playing in an existing facility and it didn't matter if their sales and fan base were poor because they didn't have to privately finance a new stadium. And Sterling was fortunate that someone overpaid for the Clippers 30 years later. Also Sterling was forced to sell and the Spanos family has no interest in selling. Maybe in 30 years they might but John and AG may have sons and daughters who will be groomed to take over like they were. If they are playing the long game...which they likely are...IMO you are a little too optimistic about the situation. How much do you think a valuation of the LA Chargers would be say 20 to 30 years from now? Also on the issue of the relocation fee, how is it to be paid? Over the course of years? And can the NFL decide to waive it at any time? I think the easy way for them is to stay, but the long term most profitable decision maybe relocation. If that's true then there is a chance they move the team based purely on the business/money aspect and how it will effect the Spanos family wealth. The relocation fee is not something that needs to be paid up front but can be paid over the years. I doubt the NFL would waive it. It's never happened before and it's split between the other owners. That's incentive for them to raise the relocation fee and the other owners aren't going to let another team just waltz into a market like LA for free. Goodell has been pushing the international/London thing for a while now. I think that's his ultimate dream. Two new franchises in London and LA would bring in so much more money for the league. Probably $2-3B buy in for each team. That's why I will never buy the idea of the NFL approving the Chargers sharing a stadium with the Rams and Kroenke would never go for it anyway. What value does the Chargers bring to moving to LA? A $250M reloacation fee? Peanuts. This is all about shaking down SD/Oak/STL for new stadiums. I think Kroenke is the only one who has the money, the power and the backing of the NFL to make the move. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 10:31:06 GMT -8
If they are playing the long game...which they likely are...IMO you are a little too optimistic about the situation. How much do you think a valuation of the LA Chargers would be say 20 to 30 years from now? Also on the issue of the relocation fee, how is it to be paid? Over the course of years? And can the NFL decide to waive it at any time? I think the easy way for them is to stay, but the long term most profitable decision maybe relocation. If that's true then there is a chance they move the team based purely on the business/money aspect and how it will effect the Spanos family wealth. The relocation fee is not something that needs to be paid up front but can be paid over the years. I doubt the NFL would waive it. It's never happened before and it's split between the other owners. That's incentive for them to raise the relocation fee and the other owners aren't going to let another team just waltz into a market like LA for free. Goodell has been pushing the international/London thing for a while now. I think that's his ultimate dream. Two new franchises in London and LA would bring in so much more money for the league. Probably $2-3B buy in for each team. That's why I will never buy the idea of the NFL approving the Chargers sharing a stadium with the Rams and Kroenke would never go for it anyway. What value does the Chargers bring to moving to LA? A $250M reloacation fee? Peanuts. This is all about shaking down SD/Oak/STL for new stadiums. I think Kroenke is the only one who has the money, the power and the backing of the NFL to make the move. Wait, so you don't think this is about bringing football back to the 2nd largest US market? I agree it certainly is helping pressure each city. But it would seem like a sound business decision by the NFL as a whole to have 1 if not 2 LA teams to ensure that market is being maximized. On top of that if the NFL has looked at the Lakers/Clippers situation and realize those 2 twos carry well in the OC and SD...well to me it looks like they are taking a page out of the NBA's play book. |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 21, 2015 10:34:27 GMT -8
If they are playing the long game...which they likely are...IMO you are a little too optimistic about the situation. How much do you think a valuation of the LA Chargers would be say 20 to 30 years from now? Also on the issue of the relocation fee, how is it to be paid? Over the course of years? And can the NFL decide to waive it at any time? I think the easy way for them is to stay, but the long term most profitable decision maybe relocation. If that's true then there is a chance they move the team based purely on the business/money aspect and how it will effect the Spanos family wealth. The relocation fee is not something that needs to be paid up front but can be paid over the years. I doubt the NFL would waive it. It's never happened before and it's split between the other owners. That's incentive for them to raise the relocation fee and the other owners aren't going to let another team just waltz into a market like LA for free. Goodell has been pushing the international/London thing for a while now. I think that's his ultimate dream. Two new franchises in London and LA would bring in so much more money for the league. Probably $2-3B buy in for each team. That's why I will never buy the idea of the NFL approving the Chargers sharing a stadium with the Rams and Kroenke would never go for it anyway. What value does the Chargers bring to moving to LA? A $250M reloacation fee? Peanuts. This is all about shaking down SD/Oak/STL for new stadiums. I think Kroenke is the only one who has the money, the power and the backing of the NFL to make the move. All speculation regarding relocation fees and stadium loans for the LA projects are completely dependent on what the owners vote to do ... they can waive or enforce anything they want -- what they will decide upon is what will be more profitable to them in the long run. Penetration into the LA market could well be worth the waiving or reduction of relocation fees and/or the awarding of stadium construction loans. The NFL as an organization will do what ever benefits them the most. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 21, 2015 11:01:15 GMT -8
I think Kroenke is the only one who has the money, the power and the backing of the NFL to make the move. Money yes. Power and backing of the NFL... that is very much in question. There is at least a split in the evidence on this, if not a plurality suggesting that the Raiders/Chargers deal has more "power and backing" among fellow owners. If St Louis puts a very team-friendly deal on the table, it's potentially very bad business for the NFL to allow the Rams to walk away from that... it sets a potentially VERY bad precedent to other mid-market cities... "don't bother trying to build a new stadium, your team can just leave for a better deal / bigger market elsewhere... just like the Rams." No, I think the NFL has an interest in forcing a deal for the Rams to stay in STL as long as it is a very team-friendly deal. |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 21, 2015 11:05:01 GMT -8
No way all the other owners let that fee get waived, if they want the 2nd largest market, a new team(s) will pay through the nose, guaranteed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 11:09:47 GMT -8
No way all the other owners let that fee get waived, if they want the 2nd largest market, a new team(s) will pay through the nose, guaranteed. And if they realize the move would bring them increased TV revenue quickly? Why slow the pace with a potential fee? |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 21, 2015 11:11:16 GMT -8
I think Kroenke is the only one who has the money, the power and the backing of the NFL to make the move. Money yes. Power and backing of the NFL... that is very much in question. There is at least a split in the evidence on this, if not a plurality suggesting that the Raiders/Chargers deal has more "power and backing" among fellow owners. If St Louis puts a very team-friendly deal on the table, it's potentially very bad business for the NFL to allow the Rams to walk away from that... it sets a potentially VERY bad precedent to other mid-market cities... "don't bother trying to build a new stadium, your team can just leave for a better deal / bigger market elsewhere... just like the Rams." No, I think the NFL has an interest in forcing a deal for the Rams to stay in STL as long as it is a very team-friendly deal. Looking again at what will help the LA market succeed for the NFL, I think Kroenke is the perfect owner for LA, deep pockets, a maverick with a desire to get things done. I think the Spanos family is too passive for such a big market and Davis is just an knucklehead who will sell the team at some point anyway after running it into the ground. I think honestly the NFL would love Kroenke to have the market but they also can’t have him making the NFL look bad, so my guess is some plan is in place to facilitate both. |
|
