|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 18, 2016 15:03:10 GMT -8
. Why would Spanos ask for the option to come back to SD just to go to LA one week later? . So he has at least some leverage in his negotiations with Kroenke during their negotiations. Had he committed to playing in LA the night of the stadium vote he would have essentially been blindly agreeing to what ever Kroenke's terms were. Kroenke doesn't want the Raiders and their LA fan base to compete with when he could have the Chargers instead. As a result, Kroenke is motivated to get a deal done with Spanos.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 15:06:17 GMT -8
True--since the claim by the Rams that they have already sold something like 10,000 season seats for next year. Spanos is losing leverage by the minute. I'm not sure I want to be in his shoes right now. If he turns down Inglewood, the Raiders would probably swoop right in, making the Chargers the 3rd most popular NFL franchise in SoCal. Spanos can keep Davis out for one year at the minimum and that one year time frame can be extended if they have progress in a stadium deal here. Also, the mayor of Oakland just said that she can offer more land and parking for the Raiders. #leverageisworking Any delay by Spanos helps against Davis as it gives more time to Oakland to sweaten the pot as they appear to be doing and hope that Davis can't sit still for more than 2 minutes and jumps at a deal up there. Then it wouldn't matter if Deano took SD or LA as Davis would be out of the picture. Just spitballing here.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 15:13:28 GMT -8
. Why would Spanos ask for the option to come back to SD just to go to LA one week later? . So he has at least some leverage in his negotiations with Kroenke during their negotiations. Had he committed to playing in LA the night of the stadium vote he would have essentially been blindly agreeing to what ever Kroenke's terms were. Kroenke doesn't want the Raiders and their LA fan base to compete with when he could have the Chargers instead. As a result, Kroenke is motivated to get a deal done with Spanos. Actually Deano has less leverage in LA the longer this goes on. The more season tickets the Rams sell the stronger position he is in for advertisers, media and the whole ball of wax. BTW, Deano knew the terms before the vote so if he was on board he would have told the NFL to orchestrate a win-win announcement for both teams. Didn't happen because Deano has no hand (as they say in Seinfeld).
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 15:19:51 GMT -8
I am honestly happy for LA to get the Rams back as I always believed they should never have left, but the funny thing is in about 5 years, the fans will be screaming what a horrible owner Kroenke is and doesn't give a #^$% about the fans or putting a good product on the field. Of course the same will be said in SD or LA about Deano also.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 18, 2016 15:20:56 GMT -8
So he has at least some leverage in his negotiations with Kroenke during their negotiations. Had he committed to playing in LA the night of the stadium vote he would have essentially been blindly agreeing to what ever Kroenke's terms were. Kroenke doesn't want the Raiders and their LA fan base to compete with when he could have the Chargers instead. As a result, Kroenke is motivated to get a deal done with Spanos. Actually Deano has less leverage in LA the longer this goes on. The more season tickets the Rams sell the stronger position he is in for advertisers, media and the whole ball of wax. BTW, Deano knew the terms before the vote so if he was on board he would have told the NFL to orchestrate a win-win announcement for both teams. Didn't happen because Deano has no hand (as they say in Seinfeld). From all indications, the Rams people and Chargers people have been negotiating there asses off since the night inglewood was announced.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 18, 2016 15:21:02 GMT -8
True--since the claim by the Rams that they have already sold something like 10,000 season seats for next year. Spanos is losing leverage by the minute. I'm not sure I want to be in his shoes right now. If he turns down Inglewood, the Raiders would probably swoop right in, making the Chargers the 3rd most popular NFL franchise in SoCal. Spanos can keep Davis out for one year at the minimum and that one year time frame can be extended if they have progress in a stadium deal here. Also, the mayor of Oakland just said that she can offer more land and parking for the Raiders. #leverageisworking At a minimum? I was under the impression the Chargers had 1 year maximum to make a decision on Inglewood, then it would be up to the Raiders to go if Spanos said he wasn't going. That would sound like Spanos wouldn't have much leverage at that point.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 15:23:49 GMT -8
Actually Deano has less leverage in LA the longer this goes on. The more season tickets the Rams sell the stronger position he is in for advertisers, media and the whole ball of wax. BTW, Deano knew the terms before the vote so if he was on board he would have told the NFL to orchestrate a win-win announcement for both teams. Didn't happen because Deano has no hand (as they say in Seinfeld). From all indications, the Rams people and Chargers people have been negotiating there asses off since the night inglewood was announced. Could be, but if your "Indications" are named La Canfora or Roggin I wouldn't nessesarily take it to the bank just yet.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jan 18, 2016 16:05:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 18, 2016 16:16:23 GMT -8
Unless he is blocked from SD by the owners, my guess is outside Oakland, SD would be his first choice as he has a HUGE!!!!! built in fanbase already and only about 20+ million to draw from regionally. SA is great destination for the NFL also and they will eventually get a team, but he would need much more work to build his local audience, plus he has 2 of the strongest owners in the NFL in Texas that would probably not be happy about Davis poaching some of their fans. The last part of your argument (except the strongest owners part) fit like a glove for keeping the Raiders out of SD, as there would be 2 franchises who would be very concerned about a team taking some of THEIR fans. Houston is 200 miles from San Antonio, and Dallas is 275 miles away from SA, while Inglewood is only about 125 miles away from San Diego. It's known the NFL doesn't want three franchises in SoCal. Which is among the reasons the NFL doesn't want the Raiders moving to Inglewood to join the Rams. Which is among the reasons they gave the Chargers rather than the Raiders the first right of refusal and that there's speculation that assuming the Rams exercise their option and move that the NFL may then take the $100M "stay at home" money offered to the Chargers and give it to the Raiders as further incentive to remain in Oakland. However, there's also speculation Jerry Jones used all his chips to convince the other owners that a stadium in Inglewood was better than one in Carson so as much as he doesn't want another franchise in San Antonio, at least right now he may not have the juice to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 18, 2016 16:33:13 GMT -8
Two problems with the logic of that link. One, as you've already been told, it would be totally foolish to get a deal done to move to L.A. while playing in SD this season and hoping taxpayers approve of a new stadium deal. If Spanos has already announced he has a deal done to move to L.A., he's going to get trounced in the election. My guess would be by something like 65-35 against. The other problem is the writer has cut off the revenue stream difference at 30 years. Neither the Spanoi if they decide to keep the team long term nor prospective purchasers of the franchise if they contemplate selling would do that. Nope. The value of the franchise is going to be viewed way beyond just 30 years and for every decade whomever owns it, its value will increase in L.A. over what it would be in SD. If Spanos all of a sudden decides he cares about SD fans, which he never has shown he does, he will keep the team in SD. Or if he decides he wants to keep being a rich big fish in a smallish pond rather than a smaller but much, much richer fish in a big pond, he will keep the team in SD. However, finances will never, ever be a reason to remain in SD.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 18, 2016 16:39:39 GMT -8
I am honestly happy for LA to get the Rams back as I always believed they should never have left, but the funny thing is in about 5 years, the fans will be screaming what a horrible owner Kroenke is and doesn't give a #^$% about the fans or putting a good product on the field. Of course the same will be said in SD or LA about Deano also. Maybe. However, unlike the Lakers, who are playing in just a run of the mill home, the Rams will be playing ball in a stadium which will rival Jerry's Palace in Dallas for being the best facility in the league. The Rams will therefore not only have as much money to spend on free agents as do the Lakers, they will have a house to play in which will entice free agents. Plus the Rams don't have an over the hill superstar with an absurd contract handing around their neck. So although I expect the Rams to be lousy for a couple years while playing in the Coliseum, just wait until they move into the new place in Inglewood. I also expect that by then, Jeff Fisher - whose archaic offense really hurts the team - will be replaced by a top-notch coach. So although I love your moniker, Fred, I think you're much too pessimistic about how fans will feel about Kroenke five years from now.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 18, 2016 16:41:22 GMT -8
Do San Diegans love Dean Spanos or what?
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jan 18, 2016 16:55:08 GMT -8
. Why would Spanos ask for the option to come back to SD just to go to LA one week later? . So he has at least some leverage in his negotiations with Kroenke during their negotiations. Had he committed to playing in LA the night of the stadium vote he would have essentially been blindly agreeing to what ever Kroenke's terms were. Kroenke doesn't want the Raiders and their LA fan base to compete with when he could have the Chargers instead. As a result, Kroenke is motivated to get a deal done with Spanos. That's if you believe Kroenke wants a second team at all. I just listened to an interview from Daniel Kapalan (Sports Business Journal) and he thinks Kroenke wants the entire market for himself. It make his franchise that much more valuable and he doesn't need to fill an extra ten dates with Charger or Raider games. He's going to have events happening there all year round, just like Jerry's World. I tend to agree. I think the mention of a second team at the Rams press conference was done intentionally to get that reaction from the crowd. Why was Kroenke, Mayor Butts and the Rams COO laughing at it the entire time it was happening? And why would NFL.com make a big deal of it on the website? Seems like an odd thing to do, promoting fans booing a 2nd team in LA, if that's what the NFL and Kroenke really wants. Everyone already knows that LA doesn't care about the Chargers. Why would they even promote that thinking even more? The NFL is supposedly "heavily involved" in these negotiations but I take those reports with a grain of salt. This is Kroenke we're talking about. He's not going to play nice especially since he and Spanos don't like each other and what can the NFL do at this point about it? He's got all the leverage here. Spanos has zero leverage in this whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 18, 2016 17:02:11 GMT -8
The last part of your argument (except the strongest owners part) fit like a glove for keeping the Raiders out of SD, as there would be 2 franchises who would be very concerned about a team taking some of THEIR fans. Houston is 200 miles from San Antonio, and Dallas is 275 miles away from SA, while Inglewood is only about 125 miles away from San Diego. It's known the NFL doesn't want three franchises in SoCal. Which is among the reasons the NFL doesn't want the Raiders moving to Inglewood to join the Rams. Which is among the reasons they gave the Chargers rather than the Raiders the first right of refusal and that there's speculation that assuming the Rams exercise their option and move that the NFL may then take the $100M "stay at home" money offered to the Chargers and give it to the Raiders as further incentive to remain in Oakland. However, there's also speculation Jerry Jones used all his chips to convince the other owners that a stadium in Inglewood was better than one in Carson so as much as he doesn't want another franchise in San Antonio, at least right now he may not have the juice to stop it. True, but the NFL could be in a tough spot should the Chargers decide to remain here, and the Raiders go ahead and exercise their option (given to them by the NFL) to move to Inglewood.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jan 18, 2016 17:24:53 GMT -8
It's known the NFL doesn't want three franchises in SoCal. Which is among the reasons the NFL doesn't want the Raiders moving to Inglewood to join the Rams. Which is among the reasons they gave the Chargers rather than the Raiders the first right of refusal and that there's speculation that assuming the Rams exercise their option and move that the NFL may then take the $100M "stay at home" money offered to the Chargers and give it to the Raiders as further incentive to remain in Oakland. However, there's also speculation Jerry Jones used all his chips to convince the other owners that a stadium in Inglewood was better than one in Carson so as much as he doesn't want another franchise in San Antonio, at least right now he may not have the juice to stop it. True, but the NFL could be in a tough spot should the Chargers decide to remain here, and the Raiders go ahead and exercise their option (given to them by the NFL) to move to Inglewood. The Raiders aren't going to LA. The NFL could make it impossible for them to go if they want to. And I'm still of the belief that they only want one team in LA (for the foreseeable future).
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 18, 2016 17:31:49 GMT -8
So he has at least some leverage in his negotiations with Kroenke during their negotiations. Had he committed to playing in LA the night of the stadium vote he would have essentially been blindly agreeing to what ever Kroenke's terms were. Kroenke doesn't want the Raiders and their LA fan base to compete with when he could have the Chargers instead. As a result, Kroenke is motivated to get a deal done with Spanos. I just listened to an interview from Daniel Kapalan (Sports Business Journal) and he thinks Kroenke wants the entire market for himself. It make his franchise that much more valuable and he doesn't need to fill an extra ten dates with Charger or Raider games. He's going to have events happening there all year round, just like Jerry's World. I tend to agree. Smh. Of course Kroenke wants all of L.A.! But he couldn't get the approval of the rest of the owners without agreeing to share it. As such, the point is 100% moot! Not just smh actually. Lmao off. You two Charger honks' grasping at straws has become the highlight of this board.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 18, 2016 17:49:22 GMT -8
True, but the NFL could be in a tough spot should the Chargers decide to remain here, and the Raiders go ahead and exercise their option (given to them by the NFL) to move to Inglewood. The Raiders aren't going to LA. The NFL could make it impossible for them to go if they want to. And I'm still of the belief that they only want one team in LA (for the foreseeable future). They gave the Raiders the option if the Chargers choose not to go, but the NFL would then say no? Yeah, you're probably right. After all, this is the NFL we're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 18:05:36 GMT -8
I just listened to an interview from Daniel Kapalan (Sports Business Journal) and he thinks Kroenke wants the entire market for himself. It make his franchise that much more valuable and he doesn't need to fill an extra ten dates with Charger or Raider games. He's going to have events happening there all year round, just like Jerry's World. I tend to agree. Smh. Of course Kroenke wants all of L.A.! But he couldn't get the approval of the rest of the owners without agreeing to share it. As such, the point is 100% moot! Not just smh actually. Lmao off. You two Charger honks' grasping at straws has become the highlight of this board. So word on the street is that this meeting was not really about contract details and no Kroenke or Spanos...sounds like a done deal to me. Give me a break, if Spanos was going, his team would be wrapping up the legalese right now to get into the market asap. Not saying they are staying here, but everything I see right now points to no deal.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jan 18, 2016 19:52:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ourtime on Jan 18, 2016 20:01:41 GMT -8
The Raiders aren't going to LA. The NFL could make it impossible for them to go if they want to. And I'm still of the belief that they only want one team in LA (for the foreseeable future). They gave the Raiders the option if the Chargers choose not to go, but the NFL would then say no? Yeah, you're probably right. After all, this is the NFL we're talking about. While it seems absurd the NFL would do that, don't underestimate the long memories of some owners. When Al Davis moved the Raiders to LA back in the early 80's it was extremely contentious, and resulted in a protracted legal battle between Davis and the NFL. Pete Rozelle and Davis went at it in the press. Why did the NFL give the Chargers first crack to be the 2nd team in LA, when the Raiders have an even worse stadium situation? There is no deal on the table in Oakland and they didn't have a lease for next year. They can say it's because they didn't want three teams in So. Cal but in the process they stuck it to Mark Davis. Families like the Mara's, Rooney's, Hunt's got some retribution. We'll see if they're done twisting the knife.
|
|