|
Post by aztecmouse on Jan 1, 2017 21:32:30 GMT -8
They aren't a source of civic pride right now and this short term snap shot is no where close to the historical lens of the Chargers relationship in San Diego. You know that. Totally unfair to pass any judgments from these last two years at Qualcomm. LA has never been a good NFL City. Don't think it's good for the NFL. Could end up working out for Spanos in the long run- can't disagree there. But it's just a bad look for a business that has been taking hit after hit recently. Ok, that's fair. I just think it's kinda unreasonable to ask for so much public money when the "benefits" are so few and far in between. Regardless, I truly believe it's time for the breakup. Spanos has pretty much destroyed the fan base in SD, so regardless of where he takes the team, he pretty much has to build the fan base up from the ground. He might as well start in the city with the much larger corporate base. Hopefully they make the right coaching hire this time around. I really want Rivers and Gates to get a super bowl.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Jan 1, 2017 21:36:15 GMT -8
Aztec fans are well aware of what direction those cameras point and how it can be deceiving. The thing is, for all this talk about how an NFL team is a civic asset and source of town pride, that's an awful lot of empty seats and red jerseys. Still, it's pretty sad to see where things are today. I honestly feel like it's in the best interest of everyone if the Chargers went for LA. Sure, they won't be packing stadiums right away, but in the long run I think it's the right move. Fan bases aren't static; they can grow in LA. Regardless, I hope they decide one way or another soon. All this uncertainty isn't helping out the team. Heck, if things go right, a move to LA could solidify them as SoCal's NFL team. We all know the Rams aren't much of a threat for that. Ain't gonna happen. LA has a lot of strong sports teams and one thing you can say about Spanos is that he's not a winner. 10 winning seasons in 30+ years. They'll never fill stadiums in LA. All it would take would be one year. Make the right coaching hire and catch lightning in a bottle (pun intended) and then BAM- the Chargers are this generation's LA team. Plus, the Chargers aren't THAT bereft talent. They really have to figure out how to stay healthy, but I feel like they're probably one solid draft away from being contenders again. But you're right though, having Spanos as the owner doesn't inspire much hope. All I'm saying is that all it would take would be one REALLY good year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 21:53:22 GMT -8
The city has a deficit going forward for at least three years, and is going to cut hours at libraries and the like again. And the pension deficit supposedly is approaching 3 billion. Yeah, with a B. The team won't get $#!+ from the city, and it shouldn't.
Not sure what the NFL is more concerned about. Another failure up in LA, or a city setting a precedent by telling an owner to f x x x off.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Jan 1, 2017 22:16:08 GMT -8
The city has a deficit going forward for at least three years, and is going to cut hours at libraries and the like again. And the pension deficit supposedly is approaching 3 billion. Yeah, with a B. The team won't get $#!+ from the city, and it shouldn't. Not sure what the NFL is more concerned about. Another failure up in LA, or a city setting a precedent by telling an owner to F X X X off. If "The city" you're referencing is San Diego, then why would civic leaders be so quick to turn MV over to SDSU if there are more lucrative revenue generating opportunities available? That will be the question if and when the Chargers pull up stakes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 22:19:53 GMT -8
Where did I say anything about the land going to sdsu?
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Jan 1, 2017 22:29:00 GMT -8
The city has a deficit going forward for at least three years, and is going to cut hours at libraries and the like again. And the pension deficit supposedly is approaching 3 billion. Yeah, with a B. The team won't get $#!+ from the city, and it shouldn't. Not sure what the NFL is more concerned about. Another failure up in LA, or a city setting a precedent by telling an owner to F X X X off. If "The city" you're referencing is San Diego, then why would civic leaders be so quick to turn MV over to SDSU if there are more lucrative revenue generating opportunities available? That will be the question if and when the Chargers pull up stakes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Well, if the civic leaders weren't in the pockets of anyone and got their collective heads out of their rear ends, they would understand that by allowing SDSU to develop the land the city would bring in more revenue via taxes without congesting Mission Valley beyond the cluster eff it already is.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 2, 2017 8:24:59 GMT -8
All they have to do is exercise the option to relocate. It was already approved last year, and the terms of the deal with Kroenke were approved recently. As for the Stadium Game, San Diego ain’t dead yet. It’s in the best interest of the NFL and the Spanoses to apply maximum heat. So, expect an announcement soon that the Chargers are filing relocation papers. Los Angeles doesn’t want the Bolts. And the relocation announcement won’t preclude further talks with San Diego City Hall. But playing the L.A. card via announcing intent, which also could expand the pool of coach candidates, was probably a fait accompli once San Diego voters rejected the hastily conceived, imperiously presented Chargers stadium initiative, the bloated Measure C, in November. www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/chargers/sd-sp-chargers-spanos-mccoy-chiefs-20170101-story.htmlAnd yes NFL - LA can totally support two teams. Going to be brilliant. If the Chargers exercise their option to move to L.A., they are done here. There would be no need to continue any discuss any issues with SD city hall. Tickets sold for the Rams game yesterday--80,729. It will be VERY interesting though to see just how many Angelinos re-up their season seats for next season. And you are correct--L.A. doesn't want the Chargers, but many apparently would rather have the Raiders. But Kroenke doesn't want the Raiders, and I really don't think the NFL wants two teams in L.A. The league has a problem on their hands.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jan 2, 2017 8:28:03 GMT -8
Once they open the new stadium games will be sold out for years.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Jan 2, 2017 9:18:58 GMT -8
Once they open the new stadium games will be sold out for years. Only if they require multi-year commitments, and almost certainly only for the Rams. It's the reason why the Rams sell so many tickets now - people are buying now so they can get priority on the new stadium. The Chargers will have to win if they want to sell seats; they have no brand in LA. They may have a grace period of a max two years. On the other side, the Clippers did not sell out the Staples Center when they first moved in, took them 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 2, 2017 10:11:47 GMT -8
Chargers' fate up to NFL, other ownersIf the Chargers leave San Diego, it will because the NFL believes the region’s leaders did too little, too late and the league is not willing to do any more. In the final days of 2016, local officials came up with what both sides deem to be a real best offer for public contribution toward construction of a new stadium.Now, whether ‘16 was the Chargers’ final season in San Diego is apparently being decided outside San Diego. Essentially, the decision on where the team plays next season and beyond is being made in New York and Dallas and Washington and other points around the NFL. Chargers Chairman Dean Spanos has all but determined he has no choice but to go to Los Angeles, according to several people who have spoken to him recently. But Spanos remains anguished by that conclusion and has appealed to the NFL for help to remain in San Diego. League sources said over the past week, including Monday morning, that possible solutions are being discussed at “the league level” and “ownership level.” That help could come, several people around the NFL say. If it doesn’t, those people and others predict, it is all but certain the Chargers will join the Rams in L.A. Spanos has until Jan. 15 to decide to accept an option his fellow owners gave him last January when they rejected a bid by the Chargers and Raiders to build a stadium in Carson while approving the Rams’ stadium project in Inglewood. The City of San Diego, along with the county and San Diego State, has made what the Chargers believe is their final collective offer. Significantly, the Chargers believe that money is real, as opposed to the funding proposed early last year. However, the $375 million those entities say they can provide, is more than $100 million less than what the Chargers were seeking. Thus, the message being delivered is that the team’s fate hinges on what further support the NFL can provide. The league last year pledged an additional $100 million toward construction of a stadium in San Diego, bringing the NFL’s total commitment to $300 million. The Chargers were to contribute $350 million in their Measure C proposal, a sum that included the sale of naming rights and seat licenses. A projected total contribution of $1.025 billion is as much as $175 million less than the team’s estimates of the cost of a stadium in Mission Valley. The sides have also talked about the team continuing a quest for a downtown venue. Any proposal involving public money would have to go to a public vote, either in 2018 or 2020.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jan 2, 2017 10:16:56 GMT -8
If it goes to a vote of the people it's never passing.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 2, 2017 10:19:49 GMT -8
If it goes to a vote of the people it's never passing. Could not disagree more. If the City/County/SDSU/Chargers/Hoteliers are all on the same page and endorsing it - getting 50+1 is a virtual lay up IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 10:31:12 GMT -8
If it goes to a vote of the people it's never passing. Could not disagree more. If the City/County/SDSU/Chargers/Hoteliers are all on the same page and endorsing it - getting 50+1 is a virtual lay up IMO. Could not disagree more. People here are so over this franchise.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Jan 2, 2017 10:32:16 GMT -8
If it goes to a vote of the people it's never passing. Could not disagree more. If the City/County/SDSU/Chargers/Hoteliers are all on the same page and endorsing it - getting 50+1 is a virtual lay up IMO. I'm okay with this as long as the Chargers actually share ad and parking revenue with SDSU, the Aztecs get significant say in the design of the stadium, and SDSU still gets to develop a significant portion of the land. I think a mixed university/business/nfl entertainment center would be pretty cool. Also, leave the riverfront portion as park space.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jan 2, 2017 10:38:26 GMT -8
I do not believe that "parking authorities", freeway widening, ramping, roads, "parks" and other "public amenities", environmental clean up, need a vote. That could be the city's contribution, which could come to several hundred million.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 2, 2017 10:57:22 GMT -8
I'm okay with this as long as the Chargers actually share ad and parking revenue with SDSU, the Aztecs get significant say in the design of the stadium, and SDSU still gets to develop a significant portion of the land. I think a mixed university/business/nfl entertainment center would be pretty cool. Also, leave the riverfront portion as park space. With vision - there is definitely a very cool joint use project to be built on that land. Ton of possibility and enough space to give everyone something.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Jan 2, 2017 11:27:29 GMT -8
I'm okay with this as long as the Chargers actually share ad and parking revenue with SDSU, the Aztecs get significant say in the design of the stadium, and SDSU still gets to develop a significant portion of the land. I think a mixed university/business/nfl entertainment center would be pretty cool. Also, leave the riverfront portion as park space. With vision - there is definitely a very cool joint use project to be built on that land. Ton of possibility and enough space to give everyone something. Yeah. Either way, I hope they make a final decision soon. The absolute last thing anyone needs is more uncertainty. Nobody will benefit from them dragging this crap on for two more years.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jan 2, 2017 11:34:30 GMT -8
No public vote is required if 2/3 approved by city council.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Jan 2, 2017 12:27:31 GMT -8
No public vote is required if 2/3 approved by city council. San Diego would demand for Faulconer's head on a stake (along with every other council rep that approved such a move) if that ever happened. Instant political career death.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jan 2, 2017 12:55:25 GMT -8
Stick a fork in em.
|
|