|
Post by aardvark on Aug 1, 2015 8:45:03 GMT -8
IMO, the "hopeless stadium prospects" for the Chargers and Raiders also include the Carson "plan". Why do you say that? It's an opinion. I don't think Carson is going to happen. I am also not alone in that opinion
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Aug 1, 2015 11:22:28 GMT -8
Wouldn't it be special if the Spanos' sold the team to an Aztecs friendly owner?
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 1, 2015 11:28:51 GMT -8
It's an opinion. I don't think Carson is going to happen. I am also not alone in that opinion Fair enough. I used to think Carson was not going to happen. IMO it is a very legitimate plan and a very real threat so long as the Raiders & Chargers are partners. It is already fully entitled and awaits remediation & prep of the site. The Raiders & Chargers will have 2 G-4 loans from the NFL, 2 sets of PSL's to sell, naming rights and have the support to move to LA from Goldman Sachs. They will also more than likely have the support from the NFL to relocate to LA.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 1, 2015 11:43:58 GMT -8
It's an opinion. I don't think Carson is going to happen. I am also not alone in that opinion Fair enough. I used to think Carson was not going to happen. IMO it is a very legitimate plan and a very real threat so long as the Raiders & Chargers are partners. It is already fully entitled and awaits remediation & prep of the site. The Raiders & Chargers will have 2 G-4 loans from the NFL, 2 sets of PSL's to sell, naming rights and have the support to move to LA from Goldman Sachs. They will also more than likely have the support from the NFL to relocate to LA. Unless the NFL just changed the rules recently, teams relocating are not eligible for G4 loans and of course, they'll be subject to a relocation fee. And Goldman Sachs isn't going to give the Chargers a low rate loan like the G4 loan is. In theory the PSL money would be higher there but it would also be a split market with the Raiders, who have much more popularity there. Naming rights would be higher but also split. That's a possible huge difference in money than having your own stadium in your (smaller) home market where you get to keep all of it. Your last statement is pure speculation. No one knows which owners would get more votes/support right now. We can all come up with theories and if one subscribes to the fact that the NFL's number one goal is making money, then that points to Kroenke being the man to be green lit to LA. Even most of the "experts" in the media who think the Chargers will leave for LA, think it will be as a tenant of Kroenke. It's hard to find anyone who believes Carson is legitimate. The only two I can think of are Fabiani and Vincent Bonsignore. Even the mayor of Carson himself admitted that they could be a pawn in all this, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 1, 2015 12:45:45 GMT -8
Fair enough. I used to think Carson was not going to happen. IMO it is a very legitimate plan and a very real threat so long as the Raiders & Chargers are partners. It is already fully entitled and awaits remediation & prep of the site. The Raiders & Chargers will have 2 G-4 loans from the NFL, 2 sets of PSL's to sell, naming rights and have the support to move to LA from Goldman Sachs. They will also more than likely have the support from the NFL to relocate to LA. Unless the NFL just changed the rules recently, teams relocating are not eligible for G4 loans and of course, they'll be subject to a relocation fee. And Goldman Sachs isn't going to give the Chargers a low rate loan like the G4 loan is. In theory the PSL money would be higher there but it would also be a split market with the Raiders, who have much more popularity there. Naming rights would be higher but also split. That's a possible huge difference in money than having your own stadium in your (smaller) home market where you get to keep all of it. Your last statement is pure speculation. No one knows which owners would get more votes/support right now. We can all come up with theories and if one subscribes to the fact that the NFL's number one goal is making money, then that points to Kroenke being the man to be green lit to LA. Even most of the "experts" in the media who think the Chargers will leave for LA, think it will be as a tenant of Kroenke. It's hard to find anyone who believes Carson is legitimate. The only two I can think of are Fabiani and Vincent Bonsignore. Even the mayor of Carson himself admitted that they could be a pawn in all this, LOL. As it stands now the Chargers & Raiders have very little chance of getting stadiums built in their home markets. That leaves LA as the only option. Unless one of the Chargers or Raiders share with the Rams in LA or one of the Chargers/Raiders move to St. Louis. Either way the Chargers are likely not remaining in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 1, 2015 17:10:26 GMT -8
Problems for Spanos: - No one believes the NFL will choose Carson over Inglewood. - The Raiders are the one with the hopeless stadium situation. Unless Davis sells the team to someone, their best bet is probably sucking it up and shacking up with the 49ers. - Spanos can't build a stadium on his own in LA. - Faulconer is making the Chargers look bad because they're successfully jumping through every hoop the Chargers throw up. - Kroenke's billions makes Spanos look like he shops at Walmart. Kroenke will get his way.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 1, 2015 18:40:18 GMT -8
Problems for Spanos: - No one believes the NFL will choose Carson over Inglewood. - The Raiders are the one with the hopeless stadium situation. Unless Davis sells the team to someone, their best bet is probably sucking it up and shacking up with the 49ers. - Spanos can't build a stadium on his own in LA. - Faulconer is making the Chargers look bad because they're successfully jumping through every hoop the Chargers throw up. - Kroenke's billions makes Spanos look like he shops at Walmart. Kroenke will get his way. The fact is in the end the voters of San Diego will have to approve any financing plan. As of now that includes hundreds of millions from the general fund. Even if it passes a city vote (which it won't - if it even makes it on the ballot) it will still have to pass a county vote. An NFL stadium in San Diego is not going to happen unless some alternate financing plan is created which is highly unlikely. The 2015-2016 season will likely be the Chargers last in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Aug 1, 2015 22:10:04 GMT -8
Problems for Spanos: - No one believes the NFL will choose Carson over Inglewood. - The Raiders are the one with the hopeless stadium situation. Unless Davis sells the team to someone, their best bet is probably sucking it up and shacking up with the 49ers. - Spanos can't build a stadium on his own in LA. - Faulconer is making the Chargers look bad because they're successfully jumping through every hoop the Chargers throw up. - Kroenke's billions makes Spanos look like he shops at Walmart. Kroenke will get his way. Spanoi greed 15 years ago is what killed them...to bad the economy went belly up. Unlike places like St. Louis, Seattle, etc...we have better things to do than watch a mediocre team play in a billion dollar hole in the ground...
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 1, 2015 22:16:17 GMT -8
Problems for Spanos: - No one believes the NFL will choose Carson over Inglewood. - The Raiders are the one with the hopeless stadium situation. Unless Davis sells the team to someone, their best bet is probably sucking it up and shacking up with the 49ers. - Spanos can't build a stadium on his own in LA. - Faulconer is making the Chargers look bad because they're successfully jumping through every hoop the Chargers throw up. - Kroenke's billions makes Spanos look like he shops at Walmart. Kroenke will get his way. The fact is in the end the voters of San Diego will have to approve any financing plan. As of now that includes hundreds of millions from the general fund. Even if it passes a city vote (which it won't - if it even makes it on the ballot) it will still have to pass a county vote. An NFL stadium in San Diego is not going to happen unless some alternate financing plan is created which is highly unlikely. The 2015-2016 season will likely be the Chargers last in San Diego. First off, I don't believe a vote will happen in January. I don't see the Chargers returning to the negotiating table until after the relocation vote. So whether anyone thinks a vote will pass or not is really irrelevant to what the NFL is going to vote on in January. This all goes back to who the NFL is going to vote in. It's not a sympathy vote. This is all about MONEY and how the NFL can get more of it.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 2, 2015 0:12:08 GMT -8
The fact is in the end the voters of San Diego will have to approve any financing plan. As of now that includes hundreds of millions from the general fund. Even if it passes a city vote (which it won't - if it even makes it on the ballot) it will still have to pass a county vote. An NFL stadium in San Diego is not going to happen unless some alternate financing plan is created which is highly unlikely. The 2015-2016 season will likely be the Chargers last in San Diego. First off, I don't believe a vote will happen in January. I don't see the Chargers returning to the negotiating table until after the relocation vote. So whether anyone thinks a vote will pass or not is really irrelevant to what the NFL is going to vote on in January. This all goes back to who the NFL is going to vote in. It's not a sympathy vote. This is all about MONEY and how the NFL can get more of it. Actually, the only vote that does matter is the citizens of the city and county of San Diego. In the end they will have the final say on any stadium in San Diego as it should be. If a vote happens in January it won't pass. If it doesn't happen it would effectively be the same result for the Chargers/NFL; no stadium. The NFL has made it clear there will be no extension of the deadline and in fact the NFL wants to expedite the relocation process. Vote or no vote it will be the same result for the Chargers; no stadium option in San Diego. So, do you believe either the NFL will extend the timeline or that the NFL will deny the Chargers request for relocation to LA (even with no stadium option in San Diego) and force them back to the bargaining table they walked away from long ago? This is about money; and a big part of NFL money is getting public subsidies for new revenue generating stadiums for their teams. Both San Diego and Oakland have bleak stadium solutions in their home markets. The NFL will not leave those teams without options in their home markets. After all, the NFL works for the teams and will do what is in their best interests. San Diego and Oakland are unlikely to have stadium options. Los Angeles and St. Louis will. So, 3 teams for 2 cities; the Rams, Raiders and Chargers will be split in some combination between them. Two in LA and one in St. Louis. What combination is anyones guess. Both San Diego and Oakland will be without the NFL soon. Having an NFL team or teams in Los Angeles matters more than what team is in LA. The NFL stands the benefit tremendously regardless of what team or teams are in LA. What they won't do is alienate a team and leave them with no options.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 2, 2015 6:18:55 GMT -8
Silent Stan will end up staying in St. Louis and is playing them like a fiddle to get the best stadium deal possible. So Stan doesn't want to make more money? Why would Spanos go to LA to make more money but Stan would not? Stan was born and raised in Missouri and is even named after St Louis players. I think he's using LA as leverage just like other owners have done for the past 20 years. Spanos needs LA desperately as his franchise value and stadium odds take a big hit if another team moves into his secondary market. Now if Dean was named Winslow Fouts Spanos and had been born and raised in San Diego I might think differently.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 2, 2015 10:14:24 GMT -8
So Stan doesn't want to make more money? Why would Spanos go to LA to make more money but Stan would not? Stan was born and raised in Missouri and is even named after St Louis players. I think he's using LA as leverage just like other owners have done for the past 20 years. Spanos needs LA desperately as his franchise value and stadium odds take a big hit if another team moves into his secondary market. Now if Dean was named Winslow Fouts Spanos and had been born and raised in San Diego I might think differently. Does he? Spanos has no intention of selling the team since he just passed control to it to his two sons so franchise value for them isn't as important as people make it out to be. I do think they want to make more money (who doesn't?) but the costs of moving to LA and financing the stadium privately, they won't see a return on that probably until they "need" a new stadium again in 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 2, 2015 10:25:36 GMT -8
So Stan doesn't want to make more money? Why would Spanos go to LA to make more money but Stan would not? Stan was born and raised in Missouri and is even named after St Louis players. I think he's using LA as leverage just like other owners have done for the past 20 years. Spanos needs LA desperately as his franchise value and stadium odds take a big hit if another team moves into his secondary market. Now if Dean was named Winslow Fouts Spanos and had been born and raised in San Diego I might think differently. Yes, Kroenke was named after St Louis players. Baseball players. The difference in Kroenke using LA is the NFL team he owns has a long history in LA, and it would benefit him (and the league) greatly in moving that club back to the LA area. If St Louis goes ahead and builds a new stadium, I would think either the Raiders or Chargers would move there, and whichever team is left will eventually join Kroenke in his stadium in Inglewood.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 2, 2015 14:47:11 GMT -8
First off, I don't believe a vote will happen in January. I don't see the Chargers returning to the negotiating table until after the relocation vote. So whether anyone thinks a vote will pass or not is really irrelevant to what the NFL is going to vote on in January. This all goes back to who the NFL is going to vote in. It's not a sympathy vote. This is all about MONEY and how the NFL can get more of it. Actually, the only vote that does matter is the citizens of the city and county of San Diego. In the end they will have the final say on any stadium in San Diego as it should be. If a vote happens in January it won't pass. If it doesn't happen it would effectively be the same result for the Chargers/NFL; no stadium. The NFL has made it clear there will be no extension of the deadline and in fact the NFL wants to expedite the relocation process. Vote or no vote it will be the same result for the Chargers; no stadium option in San Diego. So, do you believe either the NFL will extend the timeline or that the NFL will deny the Chargers request for relocation to LA (even with no stadium option in San Diego) and force them back to the bargaining table they walked away from long ago? This is about money; and a big part of NFL money is getting public subsidies for new revenue generating stadiums for their teams. Both San Diego and Oakland have bleak stadium solutions in their home markets. The NFL will not leave those teams without options in their home markets. After all, the NFL works for the teams and will do what is in their best interests. San Diego and Oakland are unlikely to have stadium options. Los Angeles and St. Louis will. So, 3 teams for 2 cities; the Rams, Raiders and Chargers will be split in some combination between them. Two in LA and one in St. Louis. What combination is anyones guess. Both San Diego and Oakland will be without the NFL soon. Having an NFL team or teams in Los Angeles matters more than what team is in LA. The NFL stands the benefit tremendously regardless of what team or teams are in LA. What they won't do is alienate a team and leave them with no options.You're describing the Raiders situation right there. The Chargers have options. The Rams have options. They're choosing to ignore those options right now. The Raiders have NO options.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 2, 2015 16:02:39 GMT -8
So Stan doesn't want to make more money? Why would Spanos go to LA to make more money but Stan would not? Stan was born and raised in Missouri and is even named after St Louis players. I think he's using LA as leverage just like other owners have done for the past 20 years. Spanos needs LA desperately as his franchise value and stadium odds take a big hit if another team moves into his secondary market. Now if Dean was named Winslow Fouts Spanos and had been born and raised in San Diego I might think differently. Keep in mind he owns both the Avalanche and Nuggets in Denver and has been rumored to have interest in the Broncos so geography will not be an issue for Stan.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 2, 2015 17:44:04 GMT -8
Actually, the only vote that does matter is the citizens of the city and county of San Diego. In the end they will have the final say on any stadium in San Diego as it should be. If a vote happens in January it won't pass. If it doesn't happen it would effectively be the same result for the Chargers/NFL; no stadium. The NFL has made it clear there will be no extension of the deadline and in fact the NFL wants to expedite the relocation process. Vote or no vote it will be the same result for the Chargers; no stadium option in San Diego. So, do you believe either the NFL will extend the timeline or that the NFL will deny the Chargers request for relocation to LA (even with no stadium option in San Diego) and force them back to the bargaining table they walked away from long ago? This is about money; and a big part of NFL money is getting public subsidies for new revenue generating stadiums for their teams. Both San Diego and Oakland have bleak stadium solutions in their home markets. The NFL will not leave those teams without options in their home markets. After all, the NFL works for the teams and will do what is in their best interests. San Diego and Oakland are unlikely to have stadium options. Los Angeles and St. Louis will. So, 3 teams for 2 cities; the Rams, Raiders and Chargers will be split in some combination between them. Two in LA and one in St. Louis. What combination is anyones guess. Both San Diego and Oakland will be without the NFL soon. Having an NFL team or teams in Los Angeles matters more than what team is in LA. The NFL stands the benefit tremendously regardless of what team or teams are in LA. What they won't do is alienate a team and leave them with no options.You're describing the Raiders situation right there. The Chargers have options. The Rams have options. They're choosing to ignore those options right now. The Raiders have NO options. The Raiders will be in LA or St. Louis; or even possibly with the 49ers. The only option the Chargers will have is LA (most likely) or St. Louis.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 2, 2015 18:00:50 GMT -8
You're describing the Raiders situation right there. The Chargers have options. The Rams have options. They're choosing to ignore those options right now. The Raiders have NO options. The Raiders will be in LA or St. Louis; or even possibly with the 49ers. The only option the Chargers will have is LA (most likely) or St. Louis. Two of the Raider scenarios (LA, SF) require being a tenant of another owner, which is not a desired outcome. The other one (St. Louis) almost guarantees a sale of a portion of the team, which is also not a desired outcome. The Chargers LA scenario is a total wild-card. Carson has a low percentage chance of happening and they can't do it alone without the Raiders. They could be a partner of Kroenke but more likely would be a tenant or not accepted by Kroenke at all. St. Louis is a possibility but doesn't really make any sense since it's only a slightly bigger market. It seems like a total lateral or even backwards move over staying here. The Jaguars moving to St. Louis in the next decade could make a lot more sense. Their owner, Khan has some midwest connections and they are the least profitable team in the league right now.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 2, 2015 21:20:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 3, 2015 8:28:19 GMT -8
It's an opinion. I don't think Carson is going to happen. I am also not alone in that opinion Fair enough. I used to think Carson was not going to happen. IMO it is a very legitimate plan and a very real threat so long as the Raiders & Chargers are partners. It is already fully entitled and awaits remediation & prep of the site. The Raiders & Chargers will have 2 G-4 loans from the NFL, 2 sets of PSL's to sell, naming rights and have the support to move to LA from Goldman Sachs. They will also more than likely have the support from the NFL to relocate to LA. I don't see it happening but as somebody who hates the Raiders and doesn't give a damn about the Chargers but thinks the Spanoi and Fibiani are a joke, I hope it does. Carson is a porta-potty and therefore the perfect venue for those teams.
|
|
|
Post by FLAztec4Life on Aug 3, 2015 8:35:26 GMT -8
The Chargers will go to whoever shows the most $$$$. Even if we build a new stadium for them, it wouldn't be enough.
|
|