|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 17:55:23 GMT -8
The Chargers have tons of leverage at the moment with the City of San Diego but have chosen to forego it in their quest of LA. By walking away from the SD stadium discussion when their leverage is greatest it has revealed their true intentions. Anyone who at this point thinks the Chargers are just using LA as leverage to get a new stadium in San Diego needs to get their head examined. What they want doesn't mean jack. They can want to go to LA all they want but if the NFL prefers Inglewood, all they'll have is the SD proposal.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 17:58:20 GMT -8
Are there multiple home team locker rooms in Levi Stadium? I have no idea, but I believe that all three sides (49ers, Raiders, NFL) have publicly stated that the stadium could be home to both teams. I believe there are multiple home locker rooms but having them and using them are two completely different things. It's a cheap leverage option.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 17:59:04 GMT -8
IIRC, somebody estimated the current value of the Chargers to be ~$950M. And somebody also estimated the Chargers value to increase to ~$3B if they move to L.A. As Bruce basically said, if those figures are correct, Spanos would be nuts not to swallow his pride and become Kroenke's tenant. The value of their team COULD be $3B if they're the only team in town and they have their own stadium. Being the second team in town and a mere tenant of Kroenke, their value would be significantly lower.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 19, 2015 19:19:54 GMT -8
IIRC, somebody estimated the current value of the Chargers to be ~$950M. And somebody also estimated the Chargers value to increase to ~$3B if they move to L.A. As Bruce basically said, if those figures are correct, Spanos would be nuts not to swallow his pride and become Kroenke's tenant. The value of their team COULD be $3B if they're the only team in town and they have their own stadium. Being the second team in town and a mere tenant of Kroenke, their value would be significantly lower. So, like $2B? Still double the current value.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 19, 2015 19:28:28 GMT -8
A better question for sure, but anything the NFL would offer wouldn't be worth it for Kroenke IMO. He's more likely to "contribute" to the Chargers half of the SD stadium bill (which still might be the ultimate goal of Spanos/Fabiani). The more I think of it the more I am convinced that the NFL should just tell Spanos to quiet down and make his own market work. The key item I keep coming back to is that Grubman clearly stated that Spanos had NO title whatsoever to the LA market, and if that is the case he shouldn't get any special treatment if he can't win the bid outright. IMO Kroenke will not take tenant, a second stadium won't be built in LA and Spanos will be back to the table with SD by the end of the year. IIRC, the 49ers had no interest in making their new stadium suitable to accommodate a future potential "tenant," but the NFL forced (or, er, "encouraged") them to do so. So why wouldn't the same condition play out for Kroenke's playhouse? Kroenke has designed his stadium with two home locker rooms, two sets of offices and two owners suites. Charger Honks are apparently ignoring this fact as they just can't come to grips with reality.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 19:31:46 GMT -8
The value of their team COULD be $3B if they're the only team in town and they have their own stadium. Being the second team in town and a mere tenant of Kroenke, their value would be significantly lower. So, like $2B? Still double the current value. I'm not so sure their value would increase at all. A lot of the team's value correlates with their stadium. They don't have a stadium if they're a tenant of Kroenke. It's like renting an apartment. Their value increases a lot if they can be the solo team in LA and build a stadium in Carson but they'd have to borrow probably close to $2B to do it. Stadiums are a money loser. We all know that. That's why teams get their local governments to pay for some or most of it. That's the way the teams can make money off of it. And that's why the Chargers privately financing a stadium, especially in a market that doesn't want them, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Fabiani said they're banking on $800M in PSL money in LA, which is a joke. Even the Rams wouldn't get near that amount. They're either foolishly overestimating the market or this is all a desperate ploy to keep Kroenke out of LA and then trying to get the best deal here.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 19, 2015 19:36:34 GMT -8
The Chargers have tons of leverage at the moment with the City of San Diego but have chosen to forego it in their quest of LA. By walking away from the SD stadium discussion when their leverage is greatest it has revealed their true intentions. Anyone who at this point thinks the Chargers are just using LA as leverage to get a new stadium in San Diego needs to get their head examined. What they want doesn't mean jack. They can want to go to LA all they want but if the NFL prefers Inglewood, all they'll have is the SD proposal. Why would they come back to a s#!++y deal in SD when they can be a partner or tenant in Inglewood where their franchise value would double overnight? It' cracks me up that you think spanos will be forced back to San Diego...then again you thought the Chargers would love CSAGs proposal and there would be a vote on it by the end of the year.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 19:37:41 GMT -8
IIRC, the 49ers had no interest in making their new stadium suitable to accommodate a future potential "tenant," but the NFL forced (or, er, "encouraged") them to do so. So why wouldn't the same condition play out for Kroenke's playhouse? Kroenke has designed his stadium with two home locker rooms, two sets of offices and two owners suites. Charger Honks are apparently ignoring this fact as they just can't come to grips with reality. Putting a second set of lockers and a second owners suite is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. LA has been used as a relocation threat in over 20+ stadium deals. We're probably talking about $10B or more in money they've been able to blackmail out of cities. You don't think the NFL wants to keep that incredibly effective tactic going for such a minuscule price? The fact that Levi stadium and now Kroenke's palace both have these plans makes me think this is all part of the NFL's continuing strategy.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 19:39:56 GMT -8
What they want doesn't mean jack. They can want to go to LA all they want but if the NFL prefers Inglewood, all they'll have is the SD proposal. Why would they come back to a s#!++y deal in SD when they can be a partner or tenant in Inglewood where their franchise value would double overnight? It' cracks me up that you think spanos will be forced back to San Diego...then again you thought the Chargers would love CSAGs proposal and there would be a vote on it by the end of the year. I don't recall ever saying that, especially not after the actual proposal came out. The initial proposal is going to be a lowball proposal. Why would the Chargers come out and say that they like the initial proposal? That's negotiating 101. Also, they can't just strike a deal with Kroenke. They have to be voted in by the other owners. That's the whole reason there is all this drama with a three team race to LA.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 19, 2015 19:40:49 GMT -8
IIRC, the 49ers had no interest in making their new stadium suitable to accommodate a future potential "tenant," but the NFL forced (or, er, "encouraged") them to do so. So why wouldn't the same condition play out for Kroenke's playhouse? Kroenke has designed his stadium with two home locker rooms, two sets of offices and two owners suites. Charger Honks are apparently ignoring this fact as they just can't come to grips with reality. Which probably won't matter too much, since if (when) the Rams are the team that goes to LA first and reestablish themselves in the LA area and the Chargers eventually play in Kroenke's new stadium, they could probably close the upper deck for Charger games.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 19, 2015 19:43:23 GMT -8
So, like $2B? Still double the current value. I'm not so sure their value would increase at all. A lot of the team's value correlates with their stadium. They don't have a stadium if they're a tenant of Kroenke. It's like renting an apartment. Their value increases a lot if they can be the solo team in LA and build a stadium in Carson but they'd have to borrow probably close to $2B to do it. . The Clippers are a tenant at the Staples Center and share the LA market with the Lakers yet sold for $2 billion. Poof goes that claim. What's an NFL franchise worth in La? $3 billion?
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 19, 2015 19:45:31 GMT -8
What they want doesn't mean jack. They can want to go to LA all they want but if the NFL prefers Inglewood, all they'll have is the SD proposal. Why would they come back to a s#!++y deal in SD when they can be a partner or tenant in Inglewood where their franchise value would double overnight? It' cracks me up that you think spanos will be forced back to San Diego...then again you thought the Chargers would love CSAGs proposal and there would be a vote on it by the end of the year. The Chargers may just have to stay here a few more years, unless the NFL can get another venue to house them temporarily in the LA area. And how the team and league would have to spin that outcome to keep them from being a lame-duck team would be quite interesting. Maybe they could have Carmen Policy tell us how great it would be for the Chargers to be here a few more years, even thought they are "100% committed to LA".
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 19, 2015 19:47:17 GMT -8
Why would they come back to a s#!++y deal in SD when they can be a partner or tenant in Inglewood where their franchise value would double overnight? It' cracks me up that you think spanos will be forced back to San Diego...then again you thought the Chargers would love CSAGs proposal and there would be a vote on it by the end of the year. I don't recall ever saying that, especially not after the actual proposal came out. The initial proposal is going to be a lowball proposal. Why would the Chargers come out and say that they like the initial proposal? That's negotiating 101. Also, they can't just strike a deal with Kroenke. They have to be voted in by the other owners. That's the whole reason there is all this drama with a three team race to LA. Is it really a 3 team race any more? The Raiders are quickly becoming an afterthought.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 19, 2015 19:49:29 GMT -8
Why would they come back to a s#!++y deal in SD when they can be a partner or tenant in Inglewood where their franchise value would double overnight? It' cracks me up that you think spanos will be forced back to San Diego...then again you thought the Chargers would love CSAGs proposal and there would be a vote on it by the end of the year. Also, they can't just strike a deal with Kroenke. They have to be voted in by the other owners. That's the whole reason there is all this drama with a three team race to LA. Ok, so Kroenke can do whatever he wants but Spanos needs to be voted in? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 20:17:52 GMT -8
Also, they can't just strike a deal with Kroenke. They have to be voted in by the other owners. That's the whole reason there is all this drama with a three team race to LA. Ok, so Kroenke can do whatever he wants but Spanos needs to be voted in? LOL. No, that's not what I said. I was referring to this quote by you: "Why would they come back to a s#!++y deal in SD when they can be a partner or tenant in Inglewood where their franchise value would double overnight? " You're the one making it sound like, Spanos can just agree to a deal with Kroenke and LA is all settled. If the Chargers get denied in January, they'll have to wait until Jan 2017 to try to get voted in again, if the NFL would even allow applications for relocation at that time (remember, they didn't allow relocation applications last year). Also, you have to consider the dynamics here. The rumor is that Kroenke and Spanos already had a deal a couple of years ago but there was a falling out for some reason (maybe it was Kroenke's plan to string along Spanos and then dump him and take LA for himself, who knows?). This is a billion dollar plus deal they're fighting over and whoever loses is not going to be a happy camper. If Spanos loses, he's going to have to go back crawling to someone, either Faulconer or Kroenke. It would probably be much easier to go back to Faulconer.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Aug 20, 2015 3:51:33 GMT -8
There's nothing in it for the hotel industry to have the Chargers downtown...the convention center expansion is the only thing that matters to the hotels. That's where the real money is. The stadium downtown (with a retractable roof) is part of a convention center expansion plan. All that bull$#!+ about contiguous is nothing but that. Run a monorail between the two and it's contiguous. My question is why they don't build the convention center taller if they want more space? There can't possibly be a height restriction when you consider the Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt are all on the water and way taller than the convention center. It's probably related more to architectural issues of going vertical with huge open spaces than anything else....you never really see large convention centers more than a few stories tall. LOL monorail!
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 20, 2015 4:48:45 GMT -8
The stadium downtown (with a retractable roof) is part of a convention center expansion plan. All that bull$#!+ about contiguous is nothing but that. Run a monorail between the two and it's contiguous. My question is why they don't build the convention center taller if they want more space? There can't possibly be a height restriction when you consider the Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt are all on the water and way taller than the convention center. It's probably related more to architectural issues of going vertical with huge open spaces than anything else....you never really see large convention centers more than a few stories tall. LOL monorail!
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 20, 2015 6:20:13 GMT -8
But will Kroenke "buy off" the rest of the NFL owners if they push him to take Dino? Pretty much all I know is what I read and what I read is that we're not talking the Raiders and the Davises here. Both Kroenke and Spanos are quite popular with the rest of the owners and I think they're therefore likely to want to placate both guys to some extent. There's no business case for 2 teams flooding the market up there. If the owners want to do Dean a solid, they'll kick him some cash. I think that's exactly what they'll do. You may also see something like the NFL allowing regional broadcast of both teams into the LA/OC market Maybe. However, what about the possible precedent that will set? For example, what happens when the next middling team wants to share L.A. with the Rams if it can't get the city its presently located to whore itself out to them for a new stadium? You know, maybe some team like the Raiders?
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 20, 2015 6:32:04 GMT -8
A better question for sure, but anything the NFL would offer wouldn't be worth it for Kroenke IMO. He's more likely to "contribute" to the Chargers half of the SD stadium bill (which still might be the ultimate goal of Spanos/Fabiani). The more I think of it the more I am convinced that the NFL should just tell Spanos to quiet down and make his own market work. The key item I keep coming back to is that Grubman clearly stated that Spanos had NO title whatsoever to the LA market, and if that is the case he shouldn't get any special treatment if he can't win the bid outright. IMO Kroenke will not take tenant, a second stadium won't be built in LA and Spanos will be back to the table with SD by the end of the year. IIRC, the 49ers had no interest in making their new stadium suitable to accommodate a future potential "tenant," but the NFL forced (or, er, "encouraged") them to do so. So why wouldn't the same condition play out for Kroenke's playhouse? Nobody except Roger Goodell wants to see the Raiders play all the way down in Santa Clara: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi's_Stadium#Oakland_Raiders_as_possible_co-tenants Although the Spanoi have said they have no interest in sharing a stadium with the Rams, assuming SD taxpayers aren't dumb enough to build them a stadium downtown, I think that's going to be their only option. Here's what it looked like the last time the Chargers played at the Rams' house: www.google.com/search?q=la+chargers+at+the+coliseum+1960&biw=1366&bih=608&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDQQ7AlqFQoTCO7twfrvt8cCFQKXiAodl1ADHg#imgrc=7A9JDispNpa5vM%3A
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 20, 2015 6:38:27 GMT -8
So, like $2B? Still double the current value. I'm not so sure their value would increase at all. A lot of the team's value correlates with their stadium. They don't have a stadium if they're a tenant of Kroenke. It's like renting an apartment. Their value increases a lot if they can be the solo team in LA and build a stadium in Carson but they'd have to borrow probably close to $2B to do it. Stadiums are a money loser. We all know that. That's why teams get their local governments to pay for some or most of it. That's the way the teams can make money off of it. And that's why the Chargers privately financing a stadium, especially in a market that doesn't want them, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Fabiani said they're banking on $800M in PSL money in LA, which is a joke. Even the Rams wouldn't get near that amount. They're either foolishly overestimating the market or this is all a desperate ploy to keep Kroenke out of LA and then trying to get the best deal here. Last time I looked, the Clippers were still playing in the Lakers' house. Maybe the Lakers don't own it but everybody considers it their home. Indeed, when it was being conceived there was talk of the Clippers moving down to the Honda Center.
|
|