|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 2, 2017 13:22:43 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. This is just outright wrong. Check league stats and you'll find the Rams were first or second in attendance almost annually until the Raiders moved to Los Angeles. That includes five or so seasons in which the Rams were just terrible. A consideration in the Rams attendance falling off after the Raiders came was the age of the Coliseum. The place was 55 years old by the time the Raiders came and hadn't been renovated so the Rams moved down to Anaheim and played in a stadium which was never intended for football. You lose cred when you talk out of your ass. Not that you had much anyway.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 2, 2017 13:34:42 GMT -8
So San Diego is willing to offer the Chargers $375M so long as the electorate approves it with a vote in 2018 or 2020. STL offered $450M without a vote last year and the NFL told them to pound sand.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jan 2, 2017 13:40:19 GMT -8
Chargers press conference at 1pm. Anyone listening?
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 2, 2017 13:43:21 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. This is just outright wrong. Check league stats and you'll find the Rams were first or second in attendance almost annually until the Raiders moved to Los Angeles. That includes five or so seasons in which the Rams were just terrible. A consideration in the Rams attendance falling off after the Raiders came was the age of the Coliseum. The place was 55 years old by the time the Raiders came and hadn't been renovated so the Rams moved down to Anaheim and played in a stadium which was never intended for football. You lose cred when you talk out of your ass. Not that you had much anyway. OK. I'll retract the never been qualifier. Do you believe LA is currently a good NFL City? Do you believe two teams is a good idea? Did you see the local ratings? Not sure why you're attacking credibility. Only two things I was quite declarative with. The big 12 was not going to expand and it was a dog and pony show. And Aztec fans who wanted SDSU West should have supported Measure C. The first played out. The second is playing out right now with SDSU involved with the current plan to build a shared stadium in MV
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 2, 2017 13:52:55 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. Please, with your all-powerful knowledge name me even one "more lucrative revenue generating opportunity" than a university. I'll save you the post Einstein; there isn't one. If SDSU WEST doesn't happen it will be because ugly politics & greed got in the way of what is in the best interest of the greater good of San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jan 2, 2017 13:55:35 GMT -8
You must know something no one else does if you think that. A shared facility is today just a dream unless you think Spanos wants to be MV and that the taxpayers have changed their minds since November and are willing now to fund it. How can you think that? Note: this is in response to bolt dude.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 2, 2017 13:58:11 GMT -8
This is just outright wrong. Check league stats and you'll find the Rams were first or second in attendance almost annually until the Raiders moved to Los Angeles. That includes five or so seasons in which the Rams were just terrible. A consideration in the Rams attendance falling off after the Raiders came was the age of the Coliseum. The place was 55 years old by the time the Raiders came and hadn't been renovated so the Rams moved down to Anaheim and played in a stadium which was never intended for football. You lose cred when you talk out of your ass. Not that you had much anyway. OK. I'll retract the never been qualifier. Do you believe LA is currently a good NFL City? Do you believe two teams is a good idea? Did you see the local ratings? Not sure why you're attacking credibility. Only two things I was quite declarative with. The big 12 was not going to expand and it was a dog and pony show. And Aztec fans who wanted SDSU West should have supported Measure C. The first played out. The second is playing out right now with SDSU involved with the current plan to build a shared stadium in MV I've thought for months that although being Kroenke's permanent tenant was a bad idea, there's no reason Spanos can't move to Inglewood and then explore building his own stadium somewhere in L.A. county. A good friend of mine lives in Walnut only a couplke miles from where the City of Industry stadium was being contemplated and he closely follows local activities. He hears that there's still political will in Industry to support a stadium and that area continues to grow so if I was Spanos, I would immediately court that city. Get a stadium built there and it's far enough from Inglewood to create a separate fan base from the Rams while because it's still in huge L.A. county there's no chance you would ever have another franchise any closer than two hours away in SD or four hours away in LV.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 2, 2017 14:01:09 GMT -8
You must know something no one else does if you think that. A shared facility is today just a dream unless you think Spanos wants to be MV and that the taxpayers have changed their minds since November and are willing now to fund it. How can you think that? Note: this is in response to bolt dude. From the article posted on the previous page. 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.
Yes, Spanos has said all along he wasn't interested in MV. But from today's reports it sounds like that is the current plan - doubling back to MV with the City, County and SDSU. I know - shocking, right? As for the tax payers - polling before the Chargers went to Measure C - had 60%+ in favor as long as no new taxes. The Mayor has always felt he could get 50+1
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 2, 2017 14:06:09 GMT -8
OK. I'll retract the never been qualifier. Do you believe LA is currently a good NFL City? Do you believe two teams is a good idea? Did you see the local ratings? Not sure why you're attacking credibility. Only two things I was quite declarative with. The big 12 was not going to expand and it was a dog and pony show. And Aztec fans who wanted SDSU West should have supported Measure C. The first played out. The second is playing out right now with SDSU involved with the current plan to build a shared stadium in MV I've thought for months that although being Kroenke's permanent tenant was a bad idea, there's no reason Spanos can't move to Inglewood and then explore building his own stadium somewhere in L.A. county. A good friend of mine lives in Walnut only a couplke miles from where the City of Industry stadium was being contemplated and he closely follows local activities. He hears that there's still political will in Industry to support a stadium and that area continues to grow so if I was Spanos, I would immediately court that city. Get a stadium built there and it's far enough from Inglewood to create a separate fan base from the Rams while because it's still in huge L.A. county there's no chance you would ever have another franchise any closer than two hours away in SD or four hours away in LV. If Spanos were ever going to build a stadium in the LA area, it should be in Orange County, as after all, 25% of their business comes from the OC. At least according to Fabiani. Allegedly.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 2, 2017 14:06:10 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. Devil is in the details. Show me the details. If it is good for SDSU & SDSU WEST will be minimally impacted then I may support it. If not; then go pound sand NFL!
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 2, 2017 14:07:28 GMT -8
I've thought for months that although being Kroenke's permanent tenant was a bad idea, there's no reason Spanos can't move to Inglewood and then explore building his own stadium somewhere in L.A. county. A good friend of mine lives in Walnut only a couplke miles from where the City of Industry stadium was being contemplated and he closely follows local activities. He hears that there's still political will in Industry to support a stadium and that area continues to grow so if I was Spanos, I would immediately court that city. Get a stadium built there and it's far enough from Inglewood to create a separate fan base from the Rams while because it's still in huge L.A. county there's no chance you would ever have another franchise any closer than two hours away in SD or four hours away in LV. Find that highly unlikely, but guess it's a possibility. Would Spanos have the stroke to build a stadium on his own? That would be some serious debt service.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 2, 2017 14:11:05 GMT -8
I think we missed the boat for all concerned by not passing Prop C. Now I have to ask if it would be better to play in a joint stadium that is currently too big for SDSU or one that would be too small if built by the small thinking folks at SDSU?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 14:16:42 GMT -8
This is just outright wrong. Check league stats and you'll find the Rams were first or second in attendance almost annually until the Raiders moved to Los Angeles. That includes five or so seasons in which the Rams were just terrible. A consideration in the Rams attendance falling off after the Raiders came was the age of the Coliseum. The place was 55 years old by the time the Raiders came and hadn't been renovated so the Rams moved down to Anaheim and played in a stadium which was never intended for football. You lose cred when you talk out of your ass. Not that you had much anyway. OK. I'll retract the never been qualifier. Do you believe LA is currently a good NFL City? Do you believe two teams is a good idea? Did you see the local ratings? Not sure why you're attacking credibility. Only two things I was quite declarative with. The big 12 was not going to expand and it was a dog and pony show. And Aztec fans who wanted SDSU West should have supported Measure C. The first played out. The second is playing out right now with SDSU involved with the current plan to build a shared stadium in MV You always are so sure with your statements which is part of the reason you get so much push back from people here... that, and the fact that you are clearly here to push your 'chargers stay in SD' agenda. That aside, because neither you nor anyone else can predict the future or what might have happened, there is absolutely no way anyone could be sure that had Aztec fans supported Measure C it would have passed... not only that, had it passed, all of the obstacles you and all of the SDSU West naysayers point out would still be there. Isn't that correct? And come to think of it, if things are, as you say, 'playing out right now with SDSU getting involved' with the latest push to a shared stadium in MV... perhaps it is working out exactly like SDSU fans and SDSU would want. I mean you have been talking about a shared stadium with some sort of shared advert and parking revenue, plus having some element of SDSU West and a park all on the current Qualcomm site, right?... isn't that closer to what SDSU wants rather than nothing??? Which is what you keep telling us is going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 2, 2017 14:26:43 GMT -8
You always are so sure with your statements which is part of the reason you get so much push back from people here... that, and the fact that you are clearly here to push your 'chargers stay in SD' agenda. That aside, because neither you nor anyone else can predict the future or what might have happened, there is absolutely no way anyone could be sure that had Aztec fans supported Measure C it would have passed... not only that, had it passed, all of the obstacles you and all of the SDSU West naysayers point out would still be there. Isn't that correct? And come to think of it, if things are, as you say, 'playing out right now with SDSU getting involved' with the latest push to a shared stadium in MV... perhaps it is working out exactly like SDSU fans and SDSU would want. I mean you have been talking about a shared stadium with some sort of shared advert and parking revenue, plus having some element of SDSU West and a park all on the current Qualcomm site, right?... isn't that closer to what SDSU wants rather than nothing??? Which is what you keep telling us is going to happen. Don't feel like there is a lot of push back here aside from a couple posters. Never said it would have passed if Aztec fans voted for it. I said the Aztec fans who were so excited for SDSU West and a smaller stadium for yourselves would have been better off voting for C vs. opposing it. Wouldn't have met the super majority threshold regardless, but that wasn't the point. And yes, I have been saying all along my opinion is SDSU administration would be in favor of a shared NFL stadium and not having to take on the brunt of the massive expense doing it alone. And yes, if today's news is accurate, that is how it appears to be playing out. Not sure I am following what you're accusing me of here. Lastly, I am making no predictions how this will play out. Whether the Chargers will be gone and totally out of the picture in 13 days or whether we're going to be going through this garbage for another two years waiting for the 2018 ballot. Just won't be surprised if the final outcome is doubling back to MV with all parties involved. Maybe there is a scaled down version of SDSU West to bridge the development? Who knows. We'll soon find out.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 2, 2017 14:36:07 GMT -8
I've thought for months that although being Kroenke's permanent tenant was a bad idea, there's no reason Spanos can't move to Inglewood and then explore building his own stadium somewhere in L.A. county. A good friend of mine lives in Walnut only a couplke miles from where the City of Industry stadium was being contemplated and he closely follows local activities. He hears that there's still political will in Industry to support a stadium and that area continues to grow so if I was Spanos, I would immediately court that city. Get a stadium built there and it's far enough from Inglewood to create a separate fan base from the Rams while because it's still in huge L.A. county there's no chance you would ever have another franchise any closer than two hours away in SD or four hours away in LV. Find that highly unlikely, but guess it's a possibility. Would Spanos have the stroke to build a stadium on his own? That would be some serious debt service. Ed Roski was the essence of that deal. Roski is minority owner of the Lakers and the L.A. Kings and would want part of the Chargers in order to get the deal done. If what the pundits say is true, Dean's sons are more concerned about making money than where the team plays and with each passing year, they become more important in the equation. Given that the team would have to be in Inglewood for a decade or so, Dean would be pushing 80 by the time a new stadium would be ready so he wouldn't be calling the shots anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 14:37:46 GMT -8
You always are so sure with your statements which is part of the reason you get so much push back from people here... that, and the fact that you are clearly here to push your 'chargers stay in SD' agenda. That aside, because neither you nor anyone else can predict the future or what might have happened, there is absolutely no way anyone could be sure that had Aztec fans supported Measure C it would have passed... not only that, had it passed, all of the obstacles you and all of the SDSU West naysayers point out would still be there. Isn't that correct? And come to think of it, if things are, as you say, 'playing out right now with SDSU getting involved' with the latest push to a shared stadium in MV... perhaps it is working out exactly like SDSU fans and SDSU would want. I mean you have been talking about a shared stadium with some sort of shared advert and parking revenue, plus having some element of SDSU West and a park all on the current Qualcomm site, right?... isn't that closer to what SDSU wants rather than nothing??? Which is what you keep telling us is going to happen. Don't feel like there is a lot of push back here aside from a couple posters. Never said it would have passed if Aztec fans voted for it. I said the Aztec fans who were so excited for SDSU West and a smaller stadium for yourselves would have been better off voting for C vs. opposing it. Wouldn't have met the super majority threshold regardless, but that wasn't the point. And yes, I have been saying all along my opinion is SDSU administration would be in favor of a shared NFL stadium and not having to take on the brunt of the massive expense doing it alone. And yes, if today's news is accurate, that is how it appears to be playing out. Not sure I am following what you're accusing me of here. Lastly, I am making no predictions how this will play out. Whether the Chargers will be gone and totally out of the picture in 13 days or whether we're going to be going through this garbage for another two years waiting for the 2018 ballot. Just won't be surprised if the final outcome is doubling back to MV with all parties involved. Maybe there is a scaled down version of SDSU West to bridge the development? Who knows. We'll soon find out. I'm not accusing you of anything. My post is pretty clear, I'm sorry you can't follow. Aztec fans supporting or not supporting Measure C was not the issue for Aztec fans... only for you, a charger fan. As for how it is playing out now... SDSU administration is simply reacting to the situation presented. If the chargers leave there will be another reaction. The one thing I agree with you on is... no one knows what will happen. And, hopefully, we will soon find out.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 2, 2017 15:20:54 GMT -8
Yeah, hopefully we will soon find out. However, they've been doing this dance for 15 years with no resolution. They are halfway to this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War and Las Vegas is laying just 30-1 they'll match it.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 2, 2017 17:06:51 GMT -8
Acees latest column says coming back for one more shot at a vote in 2018 or 2020 would require the Chargers to cede their LA option to the Raiders. That would pretty much go against everything Mark Fabiani said the last few years about being locked out of LA with no certainty of a stadium in San Diego. Also, the $375M would be general fund dollars.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 2, 2017 17:34:19 GMT -8
Acees latest column says coming back for one more shot at a vote in 2018 or 2020 would require the Chargers to cede their LA option to the Raiders. That would pretty much go against everything Mark Fabiani said the last few years about being locked out of LA with no certainty of a stadium in San Diego. Also, the $375M would be general fund dollars. As Fabiani once said, "stuck in San Diego...". But I also thought that the NFL wasn't real keen on having 3 teams in Southern California.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jan 2, 2017 17:34:25 GMT -8
Acees latest column says coming back for one more shot at a vote in 2018 or 2020 would require the Chargers to cede their LA option to the Raiders. That would pretty much go against everything Mark Fabiani said the last few years about being locked out of LA with no certainty of a stadium in San Diego. Also, the $375M would be general fund dollars. It that is the case, this will never happen.
|
|