|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 18, 2015 9:35:20 GMT -8
Or the Chargers could get behind the proposal financially. The millions they claimed to have spent in Carson could have helped here in that regard. A significant contribution from the Chargers/NFL/Rams will be a must for any potential project. Just based on what has happened here so far, I don't see contributions from any of the 3 you mention, other than the $400 mil that has been mentioned as contributions from the Chargers and NFL for construction of any new stadium here. It would be nice if the Chargers would get behind anything involving a new stadium here, but it appears their intentions have been made quite clear. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 18, 2015 12:04:36 GMT -8
Geesus, you're so petty and pathetic, Bruce. hoobs - just read your own biased posts to see the loser in the mirror. I'm not sure how many times you've wet yourself reading some propaganda but it's time to do your laundry.  The only regret I have is telling you how to get Duke hoops tickets despite the fact you didn't donate enough to the Aztec hoops program. At the time, I thought you were at least a decent guy but now....SMA 1. I've never asked anyone for Duke hoops tix, so I have no idea what you're talking about. 2. I really think you should take a look at your own behavior before getting all judgmental about others. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 18, 2015 12:46:33 GMT -8
The losers are those who are still willfully paying to attend Charger games this season. But we know that at least half the Q is always full of the opponents' fans… Part of this too, is the Spanos fear of losing the LA market to the Rams. Not that anyone in LA gives a rat's ass about the Chargers to begin with. This will be like the Clippers moving to LA. The Chargers will always be the "runner up". The Spanoi should re-name their team the U.S. Chargers and play a "home" game in the stadiums of 8 different NFL teams per season. No need to build a new stadium that way and they could probably get sellout crowds every week!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 18, 2015 13:00:30 GMT -8
I think what's really amazing is just how divided everyone really is. Just this poll is 80/80 - 50% each. I'd have expected it to be 60/40 or better in one direction or another.
I'm at the point I'm over it. I think having the Chargers here, and being a major multi-pro sports town, is important but it wouldn't be the end of the world w/o them. I'm also not against the city footing some of the bill, but the deal has to be fair & not driven the by the city. Has to be a 2-way street.
I do just wish this soap opera would play out, one way or another, so SDSU can get out of limbo, be able take a stance & move on to greener & better pastures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2015 13:17:21 GMT -8
A significant contribution from the Chargers/NFL/Rams will be a must for any potential project. Just based on what has happened here so far, I don't see contributions from any of the 3 you mention, other than the $400 mil that has been mentioned as contributions from the Chargers and NFL for construction of any new stadium here. It would be nice if the Chargers would get behind anything involving a new stadium here, but it appears their intentions have been made quite clear. 400mil isn't chicken feed. Keep in mind this is all still up in the air. This is just my take but I don't think there's any way for the NFL to stop Kroenke and frankly, I don't think they want to. Additionally, I'm nearly certain that Kroenke neither wants nor does he need a partner. I think that behind the scenes now, the effort is one of finding a soft landing for the Chargers and the Raiders. The Chargers are the easiest. They can and will be bought with additional "re-location" funds and perhaps some other NFL delivered incentives to play nice and keep their team in SD. The Raiders are much more problematic. Not sure what's going to happen up there. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 18, 2015 14:38:32 GMT -8
Just based on what has happened here so far, I don't see contributions from any of the 3 you mention, other than the $400 mil that has been mentioned as contributions from the Chargers and NFL for construction of any new stadium here. It would be nice if the Chargers would get behind anything involving a new stadium here, but it appears their intentions have been made quite clear. 400mil isn't chicken feed. Keep in mind this is all still up in the air. This is just my take but I don't think there's any way for the NFL to stop Kroenke and frankly, I don't think they want to. Additionally, I'm nearly certain that Kroenke neither wants nor does he need a partner. I think that behind the scenes now, the effort is one of finding a soft landing for the Chargers and the Raiders. The Chargers are the easiest. They can and will be bought with additional "re-location" funds and perhaps some other NFL delivered incentives to play nice and keep their team in SD. The Raiders are much more problematic. Not sure what's going to happen up there. San Antonio could very well end up with a team, depending on just how desperate the Raiders or Chargers become. |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 18, 2015 15:06:06 GMT -8
I am thinking there is no way for the NFL to stop Kroenke from building in Inglewood and moving his team from St. Louis to LA.
I think the Chargers will take being 2nd banana to the Rams in Inglewood over returning to SD with their tails between their legs ... financially speaking it's cheaper than borrowing the money to build their own stadium in Carson.
I think that the Raiders will use the relocation fees paid by the Rams and Chargers to work with Oakland/Alameda to build a new stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 18, 2015 15:36:50 GMT -8
400mil isn't chicken feed. Keep in mind this is all still up in the air. This is just my take but I don't think there's any way for the NFL to stop Kroenke and frankly, I don't think they want to. Additionally, I'm nearly certain that Kroenke neither wants nor does he need a partner. I think that behind the scenes now, the effort is one of finding a soft landing for the Chargers and the Raiders. The Chargers are the easiest. They can and will be bought with additional "re-location" funds and perhaps some other NFL delivered incentives to play nice and keep their team in SD. The Raiders are much more problematic. Not sure what's going to happen up there. San Antonio could very well end up with a team, depending on just how desperate the Raiders or Chargers become. Let’s end this idea folks have about a move to STL, San Antonio or any other similar market that folks may bring up. There is a reason the Chargers want LA and that's the value of the franchise which doubles or triples with a simple U-Haul move of 1.5 hours. A move to any other market make ZERO sense for the Chargers for a few reasons (off the top of my head). 1) The City is willing to work to build a stadium, obviously lots of numbers to work out but the city wants to get it done and will find a way 2) A move to STL or SA would be a “lateral” move to an undeveloped market that already has established brands to compete with regardless if they are not playing in that market (Rams and Cowboys) and will simply throw away 50 years of cultivation of the SD market 3) Relocation Fee – Not only do they make a lateral move to another mid-level market but then they have to shell out millions to do so IF the Chargers were in a position that they just were not going to get a stadium (i.e. Oakland) then it would make sense to make a lateral move, however since they have a local government here that is willing to find a solution to keep them in a market they own (despite bad feelings) is would be just about the worst business decision an owner could make. It’s LA or SD bottom line and our mayor knows this. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 18, 2015 16:06:53 GMT -8
San Antonio could very well end up with a team, depending on just how desperate the Raiders or Chargers become. Let’s end this idea folks have about a move to STL, San Antonio or any other similar market that folks may bring up. There is a reason the Chargers want LA and that's the value of the franchise which doubles or triples with a simple U-Haul move of 1.5 hours. A move to any other market make ZERO sense for the Chargers for a few reasons (off the top of my head). 1) The City is willing to work to build a stadium, obviously lots of numbers to work out but the city wants to get it done and will find a way 2) A move to STL or SA would be a “lateral” move to an undeveloped market that already has established brands to compete with regardless if they are not playing in that market (Rams and Cowboys) and will simply throw away 50 years of cultivation of the SD market 3) Relocation Fee – Not only do they make a lateral move to another mid-level market but then they have to shell out millions to do so IF the Chargers were in a position that they just were not going to get a stadium (i.e. Oakland) then it would make sense to make a lateral move, however since they have a local government here that is willing to find a solution to keep them in a market they own (despite bad feelings) is would be just about the worst business decision an owner could make. It’s LA or SD bottom line and our mayor knows this. If they stay in San Diego it will ultimately be up to the voters of the citizens of San Diego approve to build any new stadium. IMO the voters will not approve public resources towards a stadium. The only chance it has is if it is a TOT tax. As everyone knows that has to garner a 2/3rds vote. Both are not slam dunks and the Chargers know this. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 18, 2015 17:03:25 GMT -8
Things we know for certain:
1. There will not be more than one stadium in the L.A. area.
2. There will not be more than two teams in the L.A. area.
3. A new stadium will be built in St. Louis.
4. A stadium already exists in San Antonio.
Things we know are a large probability:
1. A stadium will be built in Inglewood.
2. The Rams will move to that stadium.
Things we therefore know are a large improbability:
1. There will be a stadium built in Carson.
2. The Chargers and the Raiders will both move to the L.A. area.
Things which are therefore a possibility:
1. The Chargers will share an Inglewood stadium with the Rams.
2. The Raiders will share an Inglewood stadium with the Rams.
3. The Chargers will remain in San Diego.
4. The Raiders will remain in Oakland.
5. The Chargers will move to the new stadium in St. Louis.
6. The Raiders will move to the new stadium in St. Louis.
7. The Chargers will move to San Antonio.
8. The Raiders will move to San Antonio.
To me, at this late date, the first eight things are almost a waste of time to debate and only the final eight are worth arguing about.
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 18, 2015 17:40:31 GMT -8
Things we know are a large probability: 1. A stadium will be built in Inglewood. 2. The Rams will move to that stadium. Things we therefore know are a large improbability: 1. There will be a stadium built in Carson. 2. The Chargers and the Raiders will both move to the L.A. area. Funny you should mention odds...Chargers open up as the big favorite by a casino to be the team that relocates to LA. I'm not aware of any other betting sites posting odds like this. www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/18/chargers-rams-nfl-spanos-raiders-san-diego/ |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 18, 2015 18:04:37 GMT -8
Things we know for certain: 1. There will not be more than one stadium in the L.A. area. 2. There will not be more than two teams in the L.A. area. 3. A new stadium will be built in St. Louis. 4. A stadium already exists in San Antonio. Things we know are a large probability: 1. A stadium will be built in Inglewood. 2. The Rams will move to that stadium. Things we therefore know are a large improbability: 1. There will be a stadium built in Carson. 2. The Chargers and the Raiders will both move to the L.A. area. Things which are therefore a possibility: 1. The Chargers will share an Inglewood stadium with the Rams. 2. The Raiders will share an Inglewood stadium with the Rams. 3. The Chargers will remain in San Diego. 4. The Raiders will remain in Oakland. 5. The Chargers will move to the new stadium in St. Louis. 6. The Raiders will move to the new stadium in St. Louis. 7. The Chargers will move to San Antonio. 8. The Raiders will move to San Antonio. To me, at this late date, the first eight things are almost a waste of time to debate and only the final eight are worth arguing about. Good post but STL is struggling to finance its stadium WITH the rams, no chance STL builds one without a signed commitment from a new team which will create a chicken and egg situation. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 18, 2015 19:58:15 GMT -8
Things we know are a large probability: 1. A stadium will be built in Inglewood. 2. The Rams will move to that stadium. Things we therefore know are a large improbability: 1. There will be a stadium built in Carson. 2. The Chargers and the Raiders will both move to the L.A. area. Funny you should mention odds...Chargers open up as the big favorite by a casino to be the team that relocates to LA. I'm not aware of any other betting sites posting odds like this. www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/18/chargers-rams-nfl-spanos-raiders-san-diego/That should tell you that the Chargers are not going to be the team. Vegas likes to make money off of betters you know.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 18, 2015 19:58:30 GMT -8
@dsmithshow #FredRoggin stated today relationship w/ #Chargers/Carson fractured. Carson CC no showed to their presentation yesterday in LA.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 18, 2015 22:34:05 GMT -8
Things we know for certain: 1. There will not be more than one stadium in the L.A. area. 2. There will not be more than two teams in the L.A. area. 3. A new stadium will be built in St. Louis. 4. A stadium already exists in San Antonio. Things we know are a large probability: 1. A stadium will be built in Inglewood. 2. The Rams will move to that stadium. Things we therefore know are a large improbability: 1. There will be a stadium built in Carson. 2. The Chargers and the Raiders will both move to the L.A. area. Things which are therefore a possibility: 1. The Chargers will share an Inglewood stadium with the Rams. 2. The Raiders will share an Inglewood stadium with the Rams. 3. The Chargers will remain in San Diego. 4. The Raiders will remain in Oakland. 5. The Chargers will move to the new stadium in St. Louis. 6. The Raiders will move to the new stadium in St. Louis. 7. The Chargers will move to San Antonio. 8. The Raiders will move to San Antonio. To me, at this late date, the first eight things are almost a waste of time to debate and only the final eight are worth arguing about. This. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 18, 2015 22:39:42 GMT -8
Things we know for certain: 1. There will not be more than one stadium in the L.A. area. 2. There will not be more than two teams in the L.A. area. 3. A new stadium will be built in St. Louis. 4. A stadium already exists in San Antonio. Things we know are a large probability: 1. A stadium will be built in Inglewood. 2. The Rams will move to that stadium. Things we therefore know are a large improbability: 1. There will be a stadium built in Carson. 2. The Chargers and the Raiders will both move to the L.A. area. Things which are therefore a possibility: 1. The Chargers will share an Inglewood stadium with the Rams. 2. The Raiders will share an Inglewood stadium with the Rams. 3. The Chargers will remain in San Diego. 4. The Raiders will remain in Oakland. 5. The Chargers will move to the new stadium in St. Louis. 6. The Raiders will move to the new stadium in St. Louis. 7. The Chargers will move to San Antonio. 8. The Raiders will move to San Antonio. To me, at this late date, the first eight things are almost a waste of time to debate and only the final eight are worth arguing about. Good post but STL is struggling to finance its stadium WITH the rams, no chance STL builds one without a signed commitment from a new team which will create a chicken and egg situation. IF St Louis builds a new stadium. Their financing plan calls for $400-450 mil coming from the league and whatever team that ends up playing there--so for that stadium to be built, they would have to have assurances that a team would move to St Louis to play there. Pretty big gamble. But hey--maybe the state will just kick in the rest of the money and build it anyway. After all, it's only taxpayer money.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 0:18:05 GMT -8
Good post but STL is struggling to finance its stadium WITH the rams, no chance STL builds one without a signed commitment from a new team which will create a chicken and egg situation. IF St Louis builds a new stadium. Their financing plan calls for $400-450 mil coming from the league and whatever team that ends up playing there--so for that stadium to be built, they would have to have assurances that a team would move to St Louis to play there. Pretty big gamble. But hey--maybe the state will just kick in the rest of the money and build it anyway. After all, it's only taxpayer money. If the Raiders got relocation approval, couldn't they play in the existing stadium in St. Louis while they build the new one. I assume that's the plan if the Rams stay. Also, there's a lot of assumption going on that the St. Louis stadium is a done deal. There's already lawsuits planning on being filed based on the judge's decision to ignore the existing law that was passed by the taxpayers. This could need some time to be resolved if not shot down. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 19, 2015 8:35:05 GMT -8
Things we know are a large probability: 1. A stadium will be built in Inglewood. 2. The Rams will move to that stadium. Things we therefore know are a large improbability: 1. There will be a stadium built in Carson. 2. The Chargers and the Raiders will both move to the L.A. area. Funny you should mention odds...Chargers open up as the big favorite by a casino to be the team that relocates to LA. I'm not aware of any other betting sites posting odds like this. www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/18/chargers-rams-nfl-spanos-raiders-san-diego/Keep in mind I've been predicting for weeks that the Chargers will share the Inglewood stadium with the Rams. |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 19, 2015 9:11:00 GMT -8
That should tell you that the Chargers are not going to be the team. Vegas likes to make money off of betters you know. The key point of this article in my mind. Book-It this is where the NFL will end up, Rams in LA (telling Kroenke behind closed doors that the market is all his) and then squeezing teams for the next 25 years using "the second team" threat. "By moving only one team to a home for two, the NFL could still use the L.A. threat to try to squeeze other cities into building stadiums for their NFL teams." Here is your answer on LA |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 19, 2015 9:40:47 GMT -8
That should tell you that the Chargers are not going to be the team. Vegas likes to make money off of betters you know. The key point of this article in my mind. Book-It this is where the NFL will end up, Rams in LA (telling Kroenke behind closed doors that the market is all his) and then squeezing teams for the next 25 years using "the second team" threat. "By moving only one team to a home for two, the NFL could still use the L.A. threat to try to squeeze other cities into building stadiums for their NFL teams." Here is your answer on LA I think The League's leverage to use LA as a possible destination for other teams drops dramatically when the Rams move back to LA--or else The League is really going to have to make it worth Kroenke's while to allow a second team to eventually play in his stadium. In the meantime--the Rams reestablish themselves as LA's team. Also, all I see right now is the Chargers backing themselves deeper into a corner--they will either be second fiddle in LA, all by themselves in a new/different (and very possibly less lucrative) market, or having to pay more than they ever thought they would have to, to stay in San Diego. |
|
