|
Post by AzTex on Jun 23, 2015 11:49:20 GMT -8
The Raiders should be the one dismissing a shared stadium. We know how well a baseball/football stadium works, especially for the football team. Dirt infield for the first part of the season and seats way too far away from the sidelines. Not to mention surprise scheduling problems if the baseball team makes the playoffs and World Series.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 23, 2015 12:03:46 GMT -8
I only raised the possibility of the Chargers going to Oakland in response to the question of whether they would have any other options besides SD, Carson or Inglewood. Although I don't think their moving to Oakland is very likely, it's definitely not outside the realm of possibility. In fact, considering how the Spanoi have farted around for 13 years whining and moaning about the building of a new stadium, I could see them continuing to not get anything done in SD while the Rams break ground on a stadium in Inglewood (which many think will occur just six months from now) and while the Raiders talk to the Rams and try to get NFL support for their being the Rams' tenant. As to hosting Super Bowls, that it irrelevant to a stadium in Oakland. If there are going to be Super Bowls in the Bay Area going forward, they will be at Levi's Stadium, which trails only Jerry's World in opulence. So really, they don't need a stadium holding more than 60K and last I heard, if a stadium was built in east Oakland just west of what I recall is I-280, redevelopment money should be available to help with the cost. Why won't the Raiders just build there? Because when it comes to NFL owners, Mark Davis is dirt poor. I still think San Antonio is a viable option, as they have a stadium that is currently better than either the Oakland Mausoleum (even though apparently Davis has no interest in moving there--allegedly), or Qualcomm Stadium, and apparently have the money to build a new facility. Yeah, probably akin to the chances of the Chargers moving to Oakland. Unlikely sure, but not outside the realm of possibility. That's particularly true considering, which I didn't know until 2003 posted the link, that the commissioner is authorized to adjust the relocation fee to encourage/discourage teams moving according to the wishes of the majority of owners.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 23, 2015 12:12:48 GMT -8
The Raiders should be the one dismissing a shared stadium. We know how well a baseball/football stadium works, especially for the football team. Dirt infield for the first part of the season and seats way too far away from the sidelines. Not to mention surprise scheduling problems if the baseball team makes the playoffs and World Series. They wouldn't actually be sharing a stadium, but the A's owner doesn't even want to deal with separate facilities close together (which I believe is part of the proposal).
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jun 28, 2015 23:23:45 GMT -8
www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/a...expansion.htmlActivist lawyer offers Plan B for stadium, center expansion ...Cory Briggs, the activist attorney intent on keeping city leaders from steering the town into murky legal waters, thinks he may have devised a course for the city that potentially could solve not only the stadium issue but the lingering Convention Center expansion and infrastructure-backlog problems, too. It's an idea still in flux, Briggs says, and it relies on the NFL indeed delaying its L.A. decision until 2017. But there are initiatives he believes will withstand legal scrutiny and even—imagine!—gain the support of the Chargers if 2016 is in play. Briggs envisions two distinct ballot measures for the June primary election. The first would ask voters to raise the city's transit-occupancy tax to 15.5 percent (from its present 10.5 percent) and eliminate the legally questionable, additional 2-percent hotel-room surcharge used to bankroll the Tourism Marketing District. This is not a new idea, but Briggs thinks the time is ripe for an increase. It is, as they say, a tax on visitors, not residents. And it would put San Diego on par with both Los Angeles and San Francisco and still below Anaheim's 17-percent lodging tax.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 29, 2015 5:43:15 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 6:13:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 29, 2015 6:15:57 GMT -8
And if one supposes there's merit in the following: "The league will conduct a special ownership meeting on August 11 to focus on the L.A. situation. And even if the entire process isn’t delayed, it remains possible that one team (like the Rams) would secure clearance to move to L.A. for 2016, with more time being given to the Chargers and Raiders to get a new stadium for one team in its current market — and for the other to then join the Rams in Inglewood."...Then you'd presume that it'd be the Chargers to LA in 2017, joining the Rams in Inglewood, while the Raiders stay in Oakland or relocate elsewhere (St. Louis?). Since no one in their right mind thinks the NFL wants 3 teams in SoCal, it's either that or Oakland moves to LA dependent upon the Chargers moving elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 6:18:03 GMT -8
...Then you'd presume that it'd be the Chargers to LA in 2017, joining the Rams in Inglewood, while the Raiders stay in Oakland or relocate elsewhere (St. Louis?). Since no one in their right mind thinks the NFL wants 3 teams in SoCal, it's either that or Oakland moves to LA dependent upon the Chargers moving elsewhere. This is how I'm reading it.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 29, 2015 7:36:02 GMT -8
And if one supposes there's merit in the following: "The league will conduct a special ownership meeting on August 11 to focus on the L.A. situation. And even if the entire process isn’t delayed, it remains possible that one team (like the Rams) would secure clearance to move to L.A. for 2016, with more time being given to the Chargers and Raiders to get a new stadium for one team in its current market — and for the other to then join the Rams in Inglewood."...Then you'd presume that it'd be the Chargers to LA in 2017, joining the Rams in Inglewood, while the Raiders stay in Oakland or relocate elsewhere (St. Louis?). Since no one in their right mind thinks the NFL wants 3 teams in SoCal, it's either that or Oakland moves to LA dependent upon the Chargers moving elsewhere. So the league is going to let the Rams move and to force the Chargers to stay even though they've been at the stadium game longer, St Louis is further along with a proposal to keep the Rams, have a much worse stadium than the Rams and the Chargers already claim LA as their secondary market? Not a chance. Going a year later to be a tenant in the Rams stadium would be devastating to the Chargers. The Chargers deal with Carson expires this April so a delay by the NFL puts that in jeopardy too. The only way Kroenke gets LA is if he goes rogue.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 29, 2015 8:20:44 GMT -8
I'm too lazy to link it but will summarize a couple key points in today's L.A. Times article by Sam Farmer, who is following this stuff as closely as anybody.
One is that in direct contrast to the Chargers and Raiders, the Rams have made absolutely no effort to get a new stadium built in their current location. That sure suggests to me that regardless of what the city of St. Louis may do, Kroenke is hell bent on moving his team to Inglewood. Another point is that word is the rest of the owners will push the Spanoi, Kroenke and Mark Davis toward concessions that none would presently agree to with the goal that a deal can be brokered which will ultimately make none of them happy but which will make all of them satisfied about the result. Farmer says there's no telling what might transpire but he named a few possibilities and the first one he listed was the Chargers sharing an Inglewood stadium with the Rams, something many of us have speculated for two or three months is the most likely result.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 29, 2015 8:32:05 GMT -8
I'm too lazy to link it but will summarize a couple key points in today's L.A. Times article by Sam Farmer, who is following this stuff as closely as anybody. One is that in direct contrast to the Chargers and Raiders, the Rams have made absolutely no effort to get a new stadium built in their current location. That sure suggests to me that regardless of what the city of St. Louis may do, Kroenke is hell bent on moving his team to Inglewood. Another point is that word is the rest of the owners will push the Spanoi, Kroenke and Mark Davis toward concessions that none would presently agree to with the goal that a deal can be brokered which will ultimately make none of them happy but which will make all of them satisfied about the result. Farmer says there's no telling what might transpire but he named a few possibilities and the first one he listed was the Chargers sharing an Inglewood stadium with the Rams, something many of us have speculated for two or three months is the most likely result. link: www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0629-nfl-stadium-q-and-a-20150629-story.html#page=1
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 29, 2015 8:40:28 GMT -8
I'm too lazy to link it but will summarize a couple key points in today's L.A. Times article by Sam Farmer, who is following this stuff as closely as anybody. One is that in direct contrast to the Chargers and Raiders, the Rams have made absolutely no effort to get a new stadium built in their current location. That sure suggests to me that regardless of what the city of St. Louis may do, Kroenke is hell bent on moving his team to Inglewood. Another point is that word is the rest of the owners will push the Spanoi, Kroenke and Mark Davis toward concessions that none would presently agree to with the goal that a deal can be brokered which will ultimately make none of them happy but which will make all of them satisfied about the result. Farmer says there's no telling what might transpire but he named a few possibilities and the first one he listed was the Chargers sharing an Inglewood stadium with the Rams, something many of us have speculated for two or three months is the most likely result. link: www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0629-nfl-stadium-q-and-a-20150629-story.html#page=1Thanks. Should have done it myself. (Takes shoe off foot and bangs it against head in true Spicoli fashion.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 8:44:30 GMT -8
The only way Kroenke gets LA is if he goes rogue. Which I think he will...
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 29, 2015 8:49:03 GMT -8
Right as usual, Andre. Kroenke has already purchased 300 acres of land without getting the approval of the rest of the owners and it's speculated he's going to break ground on it as early as December whether or not they've approved of it. So according to the tea leaves, he's going to present his peers with a fait accompli. Which is part of the reason I think the Chargers will end up sharing the stadium with him. Kroenke may not want that but it will be the price he will be assessed for going rogue.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 29, 2015 9:07:56 GMT -8
Right as usual, Andre. Kroenke has already purchased 300 acres of land without getting the approval of the rest of the owners and it's speculated he's going to break ground on it as early as December whether or not they've approved of it. So according to the tea leaves, he's going to present his peers with a fait accompli. Which is part of the reason I think the Chargers will end up sharing the stadium with him. Kroenke may not want that but it will be the price he will be assessed for going rogue. Kroenke also has the advantage of a franchise with a semblance of history and legacy fanbase in LA... PLUS a fat enough wallet combined with what resembles a decently put-together team as-is so that a good product can be put on the field from Day 1 and be expected to remain at least a frequent playoff contender (critical to optimize the LA fanbase for the league).
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 29, 2015 9:12:24 GMT -8
Right as usual, Andre. Kroenke has already purchased 300 acres of land without getting the approval of the rest of the owners and it's speculated he's going to break ground on it as early as December whether or not they've approved of it. So according to the tea leaves, he's going to present his peers with a fait accompli. Which is part of the reason I think the Chargers will end up sharing the stadium with him. Kroenke may not want that but it will be the price he will be assessed for going rogue. Sam Farmer says people close to Kroenke insist he won't go rogue. www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfl-la-memo-20150209-story.html"If a team were to move without the league’s blessing — and people close to Kroenke insist he would not be inclined to do so — the NFL could withhold stadium financing and choose not to award Super Bowls to the new venue as a disincentive." Also, as I've mentioned before, Silent Stan could be using LA to get the best deal out of Missouri. He wanted a $700M renovation to the Edward Jones Dome in 2013 which was rejected and was countered at $200M. Since he's bought land in LA and announced plans St. Louis has been working its ass off to keep them and currently has a $400M offer plus public land on the table for him. A ruling is expected soon as to whether there needs to be a public vote for the funding. That ruling will be very important in the race to LA. Here's what Silent Stan said when he became majority owner of the Rams in 2010 and people thought he'd move the team: "I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at the time. His full name — Enos Stanley Kroenke — was inspired by St. Louis Cardinals legends Enos Slaughter and Stan Musial. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years," Kroenke continued. "People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy." www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-stadium-stan-kroenke-20150118-story.html#page=1
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jun 29, 2015 9:44:43 GMT -8
Those comments from the two articles regarding Kroenke, were quotes from eons ago, when it comes to the relocation samba. See: Fabiani,Douche
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 29, 2015 9:47:49 GMT -8
Right as usual, Andre. Kroenke has already purchased 300 acres of land without getting the approval of the rest of the owners and it's speculated he's going to break ground on it as early as December whether or not they've approved of it. So according to the tea leaves, he's going to present his peers with a fait accompli. Which is part of the reason I think the Chargers will end up sharing the stadium with him. Kroenke may not want that but it will be the price he will be assessed for going rogue. Sam Farmer says people close to Kroenke insist he won't go rogue. www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfl-la-memo-20150209-story.html"If a team were to move without the league’s blessing — and people close to Kroenke insist he would not be inclined to do so — the NFL could withhold stadium financing and choose not to award Super Bowls to the new venue as a disincentive." Also, as I've mentioned before, Silent Stan could be using LA to get the best deal out of Missouri. He wanted a $700M renovation to the Edward Jones Dome in 2013 which was rejected and was countered at $200M. Since he's bought land in LA and announced plans St. Louis has been working its ass off to keep them and currently has a $400M offer plus public land on the table for him. A ruling is expected soon as to whether there needs to be a public vote for the funding. That ruling will be very important in the race to LA. Here's what Silent Stan said when he became majority owner of the Rams in 2010 and people thought he'd move the team: "I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at the time. His full name — Enos Stanley Kroenke — was inspired by St. Louis Cardinals legends Enos Slaughter and Stan Musial. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years," Kroenke continued. "People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy." www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-stadium-stan-kroenke-20150118-story.html#page=1I remember that article but that was almost five months ago and in the interim the city of St. Louis has been emulating SD in trying to put together a stadium deal yet Kroenke hasn't expressed any interest and I just can't see him managing to become an NFL bigshot as he apparently desires to be if he remains in SL. As to what hoobs said, my shoot from the hip guess as to how L.A. county residents who are NFL fans would prioritize the three teams would be this: Rams 50% Raiders 45% Chargers 5% It's interesting but hardly surprising that an unnamed existing venue or venues won't allow the Raiders to be their temporary tenant. Without saying why except it has nothing to do with UCLA, I can virtually guarantee one such venue is the Rose Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jun 29, 2015 9:56:48 GMT -8
As I have said many times before, the best recipe for success in LA (business decision), is for Kroenke and the Rams to be the key team in that market. The NFL NEEDS to get this right and putting a team in LA just because it has been "a good boy” or thinks it owns the market (Spanos/Chargers – BTW the Chargers had no rights to that market 20 years ago) or because it is a charity case (Raiders challenge to get a stadium on Oakland) is not what’s best for that market and could ultimately lead to another failure.
1) Rams have the most saleable brand for that market (only an expansion franchise would sell as well) 2) Strong ownership to succeed in that market – Kroenke (Spanos and Davis are not strong owners) 3) Cash – Kroenke has the capital to make it work in LA
Not saying that the Rams WILL end up in LA, just that the Rams (or an expansion) are the team that market wants and will support.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jun 29, 2015 11:52:49 GMT -8
As I have said many times before, the best recipe for success in LA (business decision), is for Kroenke and the Rams to be the key team in that market. The NFL NEEDS to get this right and putting a team in LA just because it has been "a good boy” or thinks it owns the market (Spanos/Chargers – BTW the Chargers had no rights to that market 20 years ago) or because it is a charity case (Raiders challenge to get a stadium on Oakland) is not what’s best for that market and could ultimately lead to another failure. 1) Rams have the most saleable brand for that market (only an expansion franchise would sell as well) 2) Strong ownership to succeed in that market – Kroenke (Spanos and Davis are not strong owners) 3) Cash – Kroenke has the capital to make it work in LA Not saying that the Rams WILL end up in LA, just that the Rams (or an expansion) are the team that market wants and will support. Yep, all logic points to the Rams being the only team in LA for this to be a success. The NFL can't screw up LA (again), especially after all the attention this issue has gotten. If they put the wrong team(s) in LA and it flops, what an embarrassment and disaster that would be.
|
|