|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 19, 2015 10:11:33 GMT -8
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. I agree the LA market will certainly be less leverage with the Rams and a second team will be second fiddle, but a team that moves there from a mid-level market would still be an “LA” team (not Jacksonville or Buffalo) and thus the value of the franchise still doubles making it useful for the NFL to use as leverage. Ask the Clippers if they want to move back to San Diego? Also, I know everyone calling into the radio stations the last couple of days seems to think that Spanos will be on his knees to the mayor begging to stay, but I am here to tell you that Spanos still has the biggest leverage chip locally, he owns the team. Yes, IF the Rams go to LA, it does give SD additional leverage in dealing with the Chargers, but it doesn’t mean that the Chargers will be paying any more, in fact when this is all said and done, the city will end up giving up more than what is currently in the proposal (negotiations 101 – NEVER open with your best offer – the city knows it still has room to give – and expects the Chargers/NFL will do the same). While I have stated that it would be a bad move for the Chargers to move to another mid-level market (STL or SA), it certainly has the option to request relocation if they don’t get what they feel is a fair deal. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 19, 2015 10:22:15 GMT -8
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. I think if/when the Rams go to LA, Kroenke will agree to let the NFL use the 2nd team threat but it will just be that: a threat. First of all, because of what you said. Kroenke will never agree to a second team. Secondly, the team threatening to move won't want it as well. Owners don't want to share a stadium or market. LA will continued to be used as leverage just as it has for the past twenty years, even if the Rams are there. You're right. I don't understand what Spanos is doing because all signs are pointing to him having to crawl back to San Diego without any more options. But then again, Dean has never proven himself to be a savvy businessman. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 19, 2015 10:30:16 GMT -8
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. I agree the LA market will certainly be less leverage with the Rams and a second team will be second fiddle, but a team that moves there from a mid-level market would still be an “LA” team (not Jacksonville or Buffalo) and thus the value of the franchise still doubles making it useful for the NFL to use as leverage. Ask the Clippers if they want to move back to San Diego? Also, I know everyone calling into the radio stations the last couple of days seems to think that Spanos will be on his knees to the mayor begging to stay, but I am here to tell you that Spanos still has the biggest leverage chip locally, he owns the team. Yes, IF the Rams go to LA, it does give SD additional leverage in dealing with the Chargers, but it doesn’t mean that the Chargers will be paying any more, in fact when this is all said and done, the city will end up giving up more than what is currently in the proposal (negotiations 101 – NEVER open with your best offer – the city knows it still has room to give – and expects the Chargers/NFL will do the same). While I have stated that it would be a bad move for the Chargers to move to another mid-level market (STL or SA), it certainly has the option to request relocation if they don’t get what they feel is a fair deal. Sure, the city could give up more, but the more the city gives up, the fewer yes votes they would get from the electorate if this ever gets to the ballot. The only way the city could give more would be through a TOT increase, and that would call for a 2/3 voter approval. That is tough to get regardless of what it is being voted on. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 19, 2015 10:33:11 GMT -8
The Chargers have tons of leverage at the moment with the City of San Diego but have chosen to forego it in their quest of LA. By walking away from the SD stadium discussion when their leverage is greatest it has revealed their true intentions. Anyone who at this point thinks the Chargers are just using LA as leverage to get a new stadium in San Diego needs to get their head examined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 10:38:12 GMT -8
It's all leading up to a combined convention center expansion/stadium downtown.
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 19, 2015 10:43:03 GMT -8
It's all leading up to a combined convention center expansion/stadium downtown. Yep, all that's missing is the Chargers having a shred of interest in San Diego. |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 19, 2015 10:43:21 GMT -8
I agree the LA market will certainly be less leverage with the Rams and a second team will be second fiddle, but a team that moves there from a mid-level market would still be an “LA” team (not Jacksonville or Buffalo) and thus the value of the franchise still doubles making it useful for the NFL to use as leverage. Ask the Clippers if they want to move back to San Diego? Also, I know everyone calling into the radio stations the last couple of days seems to think that Spanos will be on his knees to the mayor begging to stay, but I am here to tell you that Spanos still has the biggest leverage chip locally, he owns the team. Yes, IF the Rams go to LA, it does give SD additional leverage in dealing with the Chargers, but it doesn’t mean that the Chargers will be paying any more, in fact when this is all said and done, the city will end up giving up more than what is currently in the proposal (negotiations 101 – NEVER open with your best offer – the city knows it still has room to give – and expects the Chargers/NFL will do the same). While I have stated that it would be a bad move for the Chargers to move to another mid-level market (STL or SA), it certainly has the option to request relocation if they don’t get what they feel is a fair deal. Sure, the city could give up more, but the more the city gives up, the fewer yes votes they would get from the electorate if this ever gets to the ballot. The only way the city could give more would be through a TOT increase, and that would call for a 2/3 voter approval. That is tough to get regardless of what it is being voted on. I agree, every dollar it gives is a dollar tougher to sell on a ballot. However, the give and take doesn’t always have to been on terms that will affect the vote, or the entire dynamics of the proposal can change if the conditions change. Say the Chargers tell the city they want to work it out locally and we now have more time (they will still give a false deadline), the city and Chargers can put downtown back on the table (which is where I always believed this was heading) thus creating an entirely new set of conditions that the public may agree to give more money too (the attachment of a center expansion). Unfortunately the “real” negotiations won’t start until we have a first team in LA announcement, so it’s more hurry up and wait. |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 19, 2015 11:03:24 GMT -8
The Chargers have tons of leverage at the moment with the City of San Diego but have chosen to forego it in their quest of LA. By walking away from the SD stadium discussion when their leverage is greatest it has revealed their true intentions. Anyone who at this point thinks the Chargers are just using LA as leverage to get a new stadium in San Diego needs to get their head examined. I don’t think it’s all about leverage here, but also trying to keep LA open as what the NFL considers a secondary market for the Chargers. The Chargers are going on the offensive to block anyone trying to relocate there. In fairness, their “move” to Carson is the only reason this city is doing anything in the first place, so the tactic can’t be condemned completely (but I am still as mad as anyone at how this has been handled). You can’t create a viable threat unless those you use it against believe you are fully committed to act on it. Time will tell if it was a threat or intended, but both need to look the same if you are going to pull it off. So saying something is obvious is not accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 19, 2015 11:12:42 GMT -8
Sure, the city could give up more, but the more the city gives up, the fewer yes votes they would get from the electorate if this ever gets to the ballot. The only way the city could give more would be through a TOT increase, and that would call for a 2/3 voter approval. That is tough to get regardless of what it is being voted on. I agree, every dollar it gives is a dollar tougher to sell on a ballot. However, the give and take doesn’t always have to been on terms that will affect the vote, or the entire dynamics of the proposal can change if the conditions change. Say the Chargers tell the city they want to work it out locally and we now have more time (they will still give a false deadline), the city and Chargers can put downtown back on the table (which is where I always believed this was heading) thus creating an entirely new set of conditions that the public may agree to give more money too (the attachment of a center expansion). Unfortunately the “real” negotiations won’t start until we have a first team in LA announcement, so it’s more hurry up and wait. I don't think the Chargers are willing to wait the years it would take to get any downtown project up and running. In the meantime, they will end up playing at the Q (while it continues to deteriorate around them) and continue to make roughly $40 mil/year in income while paying no rent, and the Aztecs will continue playing in a venue that really does nothing for them financially. |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 19, 2015 11:27:02 GMT -8
I agree, every dollar it gives is a dollar tougher to sell on a ballot. However, the give and take doesn’t always have to been on terms that will affect the vote, or the entire dynamics of the proposal can change if the conditions change. Say the Chargers tell the city they want to work it out locally and we now have more time (they will still give a false deadline), the city and Chargers can put downtown back on the table (which is where I always believed this was heading) thus creating an entirely new set of conditions that the public may agree to give more money too (the attachment of a center expansion). Unfortunately the “real” negotiations won’t start until we have a first team in LA announcement, so it’s more hurry up and wait. I don't think the Chargers are willing to wait the years it would take to get any downtown project up and running. In the meantime, they will end up playing at the Q (while it continues to deteriorate around them) and continue to make roughly $40 mil/year in income while paying no rent, and the Aztecs will continue playing in a venue that really does nothing for them financially. “IF” the Chargers really prefer downtown (only they know), they will wait the extra couple of years to get it done (and don’t believe the 5-7 years garbage about relocating the bus yard, pure hogwash propaganda). The mayor has shown he can handle some of the hurdles that will come up and expedite processes. The key issue will be to get the SDTA and the SDCCC on board with a little arm twisting. If the hospitality industry decides they need to buy in, then there are some other financing options that will be available and more voices to push the initiative. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 19, 2015 11:27:14 GMT -8
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. I think if/when the Rams go to LA, Kroenke will agree to let the NFL use the 2nd team threat but it will just be that: a threat. First of all, because of what you said. Kroenke will never agree to a second team. Secondly, the team threatening to move won't want it as well. Owners don't want to share a stadium or market. LA will continued to be used as leverage just as it has for the past twenty years, even if the Rams are there. You're right. I don't understand what Spanos is doing because all signs are pointing to him having to crawl back to San Diego without any more options. But then again, Dean has never proven himself to be a savvy businessman. Does he? The way Spanos has handled this thing is reminiscent of Al Davis during the last several years of his life. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 19, 2015 11:35:23 GMT -8
I don't think the Chargers are willing to wait the years it would take to get any downtown project up and running. In the meantime, they will end up playing at the Q (while it continues to deteriorate around them) and continue to make roughly $40 mil/year in income while paying no rent, and the Aztecs will continue playing in a venue that really does nothing for them financially. “IF” the Chargers really prefer downtown (only they know), they will wait the extra couple of years to get it done (and don’t believe the 5-7 years garbage about relocating the bus yard, pure hogwash propaganda). The mayor has shown he can handle some of the hurdles that will come up and expedite processes. The key issue will be to get the SDTA and the SDCCC on board with a little arm twisting. If the hospitality industry decides they need to buy in, then there are some other financing options that will be available and more voices to push the initiative. If the city told the Chargers that they would build them a stadium in Mission Valley that wouldn't cost them anything, the Chargers would prefer that even more. The less money the Spanoi have to spend on a stadium is directly proportionate to the level of preference they would have for any stadium project. Although, the Chargers playing downtown would be a boon to the Aztecs and SDSU, but I think a football stadium of any kind downtown is a huge mistake. IMO, the only other sports venue that should be downtown is a new arena. Mission Valley has proven to be, and always will be, the best location for a football stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 19, 2015 11:47:51 GMT -8
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. You going to tell me that you didn't go to the Aztecs/Duke game in Durham a few years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Aug 19, 2015 11:48:57 GMT -8
I don't think the Chargers are willing to wait the years it would take to get any downtown project up and running. In the meantime, they will end up playing at the Q (while it continues to deteriorate around them) and continue to make roughly $40 mil/year in income while paying no rent, and the Aztecs will continue playing in a venue that really does nothing for them financially. “IF” the Chargers really prefer downtown (only they know), they will wait the extra couple of years to get it done (and don’t believe the 5-7 years garbage about relocating the bus yard, pure hogwash propaganda). The mayor has shown he can handle some of the hurdles that will come up and expedite processes. The key issue will be to get the SDTA and the SDCCC on board with a little arm twisting. If the hospitality industry decides they need to buy in, then there are some other financing options that will be available and more voices to push the initiative. There's nothing in it for the hotel industry to have the Chargers downtown...the convention center expansion is the only thing that matters to the hotels. That's where the real money is. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 19, 2015 11:48:47 GMT -8
“IF” the Chargers really prefer downtown (only they know), they will wait the extra couple of years to get it done (and don’t believe the 5-7 years garbage about relocating the bus yard, pure hogwash propaganda). The mayor has shown he can handle some of the hurdles that will come up and expedite processes. The key issue will be to get the SDTA and the SDCCC on board with a little arm twisting. If the hospitality industry decides they need to buy in, then there are some other financing options that will be available and more voices to push the initiative. If the city told the Chargers that they would build them a stadium in Mission Valley that wouldn't cost them anything, the Chargers would prefer that even more. The less money the Spanoi have to spend on a stadium is directly proportionate to the level of preference they would have for any stadium project. Although, the Chargers playing downtown would be a boon to the Aztecs and SDSU, but I think a football stadium of any kind downtown is a huge mistake. IMO, the only other sports venue that should be downtown is a new arena. Mission Valley has proven to be, and always will be, the best location for a football stadium. My bet is that Spanos prefers that $3 Billion valuation in LA over $900 million + in San Diego wherever the stadium is. It's up to the NFL to decide. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 19, 2015 11:51:43 GMT -8
“IF” the Chargers really prefer downtown (only they know), they will wait the extra couple of years to get it done (and don’t believe the 5-7 years garbage about relocating the bus yard, pure hogwash propaganda). The mayor has shown he can handle some of the hurdles that will come up and expedite processes. The key issue will be to get the SDTA and the SDCCC on board with a little arm twisting. If the hospitality industry decides they need to buy in, then there are some other financing options that will be available and more voices to push the initiative. There's nothing in it for the hotel industry to have the Chargers downtown...the convention center expansion is the only thing that matters to the hotels. That's where the real money is. The stadium downtown (with a retractable roof) is part of a convention center expansion plan. All that bull$#!+ about contiguous is nothing but that. Run a monorail between the two and it's contiguous. My question is why they don't build the convention center taller if they want more space? There can't possibly be a height restriction when you consider the Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt are all on the water and way taller than the convention center. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 19, 2015 11:52:40 GMT -8
If the city told the Chargers that they would build them a stadium in Mission Valley that wouldn't cost them anything, the Chargers would prefer that even more. The less money the Spanoi have to spend on a stadium is directly proportionate to the level of preference they would have for any stadium project. Although, the Chargers playing downtown would be a boon to the Aztecs and SDSU, but I think a football stadium of any kind downtown is a huge mistake. IMO, the only other sports venue that should be downtown is a new arena. Mission Valley has proven to be, and always will be, the best location for a football stadium. My bet is that Spanos prefers that $3 Billion valuation in LA over $900 million + in San Diego wherever the stadium is. It's up to the NFL to decide. Another valid point. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 19, 2015 12:13:46 GMT -8
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. You going to tell me that you didn't go to the Aztecs/Duke game in Durham a few years ago? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Aug 19, 2015 12:40:17 GMT -8
My bet is that Spanos prefers that $3 Billion valuation in LA over $900 million + in San Diego wherever the stadium is. It's up to the NFL to decide. Another valid point. And honestly I don’t blame him, I probably would have been gone years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 19, 2015 12:58:36 GMT -8
If the city told the Chargers that they would build them a stadium in Mission Valley that wouldn't cost them anything, the Chargers would prefer that even more. The less money the Spanoi have to spend on a stadium is directly proportionate to the level of preference they would have for any stadium project. Although, the Chargers playing downtown would be a boon to the Aztecs and SDSU, but I think a football stadium of any kind downtown is a huge mistake. IMO, the only other sports venue that should be downtown is a new arena. Mission Valley has proven to be, and always will be, the best location for a football stadium. My bet is that Spanos prefers that $3 Billion valuation in LA over $900 million + in San Diego wherever the stadium is. It's up to the NFL to decide. Yep. One article I read - maybe linked by you? - indicated the money Ballmer (over)paid for the Clippers definitely got Dino's attention. |
|
