|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 27, 2015 6:29:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 27, 2015 7:28:54 GMT -8
The NFL is going to lock Spanos and Kroenke in a room in December. When they come out there will be a plan that will get the support of the other owners.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 28, 2015 7:06:36 GMT -8
Some owners actively opposing L.A. move by Rams profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/27/some-owners-actively-opposingl-an-l-a-move-by-rams/"As one source put it, Richardson and other owners view the Chargers and Raiders as more eligible to move under the league’s relocation policy, especially since it appears that St. Louis has cobbled together a viable plan for building a new stadium and keeping the Rams in the place they’ve been for the last 20 years. Also, a move by the Chargers, who have tried for more than a decade to build a new stadium in San Diego, is viewed as the least disruptive to existing fan bases."
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Sept 28, 2015 7:41:24 GMT -8
Not buying it, 2003. All of that depends on the viability of Carson, and most commentators with an ounce of common sense realize that is a joke, or at best, a modicum of leverage.
The Chargers haven't actually tried to build a new stadium in San Diego. If the NFL believes the 10/12/14 years garbage - which years have included no complete plans, no complete financing offers, and no attempts at legislation or initiatives - then to hell with them as well.
Sounds like Florio is still getting at least some of his info from Fibiani.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Sept 29, 2015 2:48:28 GMT -8
Last week, Florio said one thing, this week he says the complete opposite. Florio doesn't have a clue. He just wants the clicks.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Sept 29, 2015 6:14:38 GMT -8
Last week, Florio said one thing, this week he says the complete opposite. Florio doesn't have a clue. He just wants the clicks. The more likely explanation is that a few of his articles, the ones dubious of the Chargers moving to LA, do not have Fabiani as a source. The ones that try to make it look like the Chargers are headed to LA almost certainly do have Fabiani as a source.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Oct 1, 2015 21:26:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Oct 1, 2015 21:27:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Oct 1, 2015 21:37:36 GMT -8
Good ol' W Scott Bailey (whoever that is) with the hard hitting journalism. I'm pretty sure he knows what's going on in San Diego and LA all the way from San Antonio, lol.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Oct 1, 2015 21:55:34 GMT -8
There are a number of outcomes that would allow the Chargers to stay or go and the impact on the Aztecs can be either good or bad depending on a number of variables. The very most important variable is the performance of the football team and our ability to get people into the seats at what ever venue The Aztecs are attempting fill. If that is true, which I think it is, then the most important ball is in the court of SDSU leadership.
See, this is the post that no one seems to want to acknowledge.
I'll say it again. Up to now, the program, (notice I never say players), has been able to exist on a level of mediocrity and irrelevance that is, frankly, astounding. Can't ascend, but refuses to die. A 48 year old stadium and playing in the shadow of the Chargers has helped to maintain this scenario.
Now picture the Chargers gone, the Q imploded, Aztec football front-n-center, and millions spent on a new sports venue. With a new vested interest, how long would the community accept
the current status of Aztec football? Who would be smart enough to make necessary changes for the better? Current leadership??
In the immortal words of Mr. S'chn T'gai Spock, "after time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true".
|
|
|
Post by ab on Oct 2, 2015 9:09:11 GMT -8
Could.... Hell, the Aztecs could win this weekend too.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Oct 2, 2015 10:26:00 GMT -8
What actually makes the most sense is for the NFL to green-light Kroenke & Inglewood -- it's the better project. The Rams would have to pay a pretty steep relocation fee that could be reduced if they take on the Chargers as either a tenant or minor partner in LA.
The Chargers would also have to pay a substantial relocation fee to move to LA if they want a minor partnership in the stadium, reduced if they were to accept being a tenant.
The Raiders would benefit from both relocation fees as well as an increase in the G4 loan amount to help fund the building of a new stadium in Oakland/Alameda.
The NFL gets to have both San Diego and St Louis to dangle as either relocation or expansion markets for the next round of stadium negotiations. As it stands now, the stadium building boom is at a lull and will be for the next 5 years or so -- since just about everybody has a newer stadium (built within the last 10 years). Those teams that are closer to 20 years in their present stadium are most likely not leaving their present location.
The relocation fees paid by the Rams & Chargers would help the other teams with future stadium renovations or builds. LA could be the gift that keeps on giving to the NFL for a decade or more ...
|
|
|
Post by ab on Oct 2, 2015 12:00:03 GMT -8
What actually makes the most sense is for the NFL to green-light Kroenke & Inglewood -- it's the better project. The Rams would have to pay a pretty steep relocation fee that could be reduced if they take on the Chargers as either a tenant or minor partner in LA. The Chargers would also have to pay a substantial relocation fee to move to LA if they want a minor partnership in the stadium, reduced if they were to accept being a tenant. The Raiders would benefit from both relocation fees as well as an increase in the G4 loan amount to help fund the building of a new stadium in Oakland/Alameda. The NFL gets to have both San Diego and St Louis to dangle as either relocation or expansion markets for the next round of stadium negotiations. As it stands now, the stadium building boom is at a lull and will be for the next 5 years or so -- since just about everybody has a newer stadium (built within the last 10 years). Those teams that are closer to 20 years in their present stadium are most likely not leaving their present location. The relocation fees paid by the Rams & Chargers would help the other teams with future stadium renovations or builds. LA could be the gift that keeps on giving to the NFL for a decade or more ... Why worry about getting the facts right? Year Stadiums Opened-- Buffalo - 1973 Miami - 1987 New England - 2002 Baltimore - 1998 Cincinnati - 2000 Cleveland - 1999 Pittsburgh - 2001 Houston - 2002 Jacksonville - 1995 Tennessee - 1999 Denver - 2001 Kansas City - 1972 Philadelphia - 2003 Washington - 1997 Chicago - 2003 Detroit - 2002 Green Bay - 1957 Tampa Bay - 1998 St Louis - 1995 Seattle - 2002 Plus San Diego and Oakland. Chicago remodeled, Green Bay added the Atrium and Suites, KC did some remodeling but it appears that 2/3 of the NFL Stadiums are OLDER than 10 years old.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Oct 2, 2015 12:32:43 GMT -8
What actually makes the most sense is for the NFL to green-light Kroenke & Inglewood -- it's the better project. The Rams would have to pay a pretty steep relocation fee that could be reduced if they take on the Chargers as either a tenant or minor partner in LA. The Chargers would also have to pay a substantial relocation fee to move to LA if they want a minor partnership in the stadium, reduced if they were to accept being a tenant. The Raiders would benefit from both relocation fees as well as an increase in the G4 loan amount to help fund the building of a new stadium in Oakland/Alameda. The NFL gets to have both San Diego and St Louis to dangle as either relocation or expansion markets for the next round of stadium negotiations. As it stands now, the stadium building boom is at a lull and will be for the next 5 years or so -- since just about everybody has a newer stadium (built within the last 10 years) . Those teams that are closer to 20 years in their present stadium are most likely not leaving their present location.
The relocation fees paid by the Rams & Chargers would help the other teams with future stadium renovations or builds. LA could be the gift that keeps on giving to the NFL for a decade or more ... Why worry about getting the facts right? Year Stadiums Opened-- Buffalo - 1973, Miami - 1987, New England - 2002, Baltimore - 1998, Cincinnati - 2000, Cleveland - 1999, Pittsburgh - 2001, Houston - 2002, Jacksonville - 1995, Tennessee - 1999, Denver - 2001, Kansas City - 1972, Philadelphia - 2003, Washington - 1997, Chicago - 2003, Detroit - 2002, Green Bay - 1957, Tampa Bay - 1998, St Louis - 1995, Seattle - 2002 Plus San Diego and Oakland. Chicago remodeled, Green Bay added the Atrium and Suites, KC did some remodeling but it appears that 2/3 of the NFL Stadiums are OLDER than 10 years old. Using facts works both ways ... and Seattle recently finished an expansion, Buffalo announced a slate of improvements in 2014, and so on and so forth -- Washington has made "upgrades" recently and are currently in the midst of a campaign for a new stadium. You were so anxious to point out the stadiums more than 10 years old that you completely skipped the next 2 sentences (which I have highlighted). I will admit that a stadium expansion or renovation is not the same as a "newer" stadium -- but improvements are still a commitment to that stadium and that community.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Oct 2, 2015 19:41:48 GMT -8
www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-chargers-marriage-for-inglewood-site-may-not-work/article_4b000071-4bd7-54b4-9f32-be4223d3d057.html"In 2013, Spanos approached Kroenke about pairing up on the Inglewood/Hollywood Park site, according to league sources speaking on the condition of anonymity. It’s the same general area the Oakland Raiders and even the NFL itself had previously considered as a stadium site. Initially, Kroenke was not aware the 60-acre tract owned by Wal-Mart was available, according to sources. In any event, Spanos didn’t hear back from Kroenke for weeks. Spanos later learned that Kroenke had excluded Spanos and purchased the land himself. With that in mind, it’s difficult to imagine Spanos wishing to now join forces with Kroenke in Inglewood." 1) Kronke isn't going to lose LA to a idiot like Spanos. He's outsmarted him every step of the way. 2) Hell will freeze over before these guys team up now. There were rumors about an ugly "breakup" between Spanos and Kroenke and now we know the REAL reason why Spanos refuses be a tenant (besides the obvious financial reasons).
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Oct 4, 2015 5:59:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ourtime on Oct 4, 2015 7:32:10 GMT -8
Enticing headline. Did you bother to read the article? If you did, did you skip over the first sentence of the third paragraph?
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Oct 4, 2015 7:48:12 GMT -8
Still lots of moving parts. Anything can happen in LA. One thing I am confident in is that the citizens of San Diego will not support the use of public resources to build the Chargers a new stadium in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Oct 4, 2015 7:49:18 GMT -8
Spanos isn't going to share a stadium with Kroenke after what transpired back in 2013.
Bottom line, Kroenke's going to LA either in 2016 or 2017. Spanos better buy some kneepads for when he has to come crawling back to Faulconer.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Oct 4, 2015 8:24:07 GMT -8
Enticing headline. Did you bother to read the article? If you did, did you skip over the first sentence of the third paragraph? Yes, I read the whole thing. If Spanos has the option of being a part owner in Inglewood or being shut out of LA he will hold his nose and partner with Kroenke. This is just another obstacle that has been overcome in the road to LA for the Chargers.
|
|