Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

It's OFFICIAL: LOS ANGELES RAMS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Recommended Posts

On 1/13/2016 at 10:17 PM, SDSUfan said:

What would be the penalty?  You think those guys want to open this crap up all over again/  HELL no. Dean is officially Stan's ++++. Stan will keep up a facade in order to help Dean preserve the appearance of leverage for awhile.  But make no mistake, LA is over for the Chargers. The NFL slammed the door.

He could always sell the team.  That may be what he'll do.  I know there are folks here in SD that would overpay for it.  Two high profile names of SD residents you may see in the the conversation in the next few months either as deal-makers or potential suitors; Mitt Romney, Carlos Slim.

Kroenke had to present term sheets to the NFL prior to the relocation votes, stating general contract terms for Spanos or Davis to sign on either as an equity partner or tenant. The NFL wanted to make sure he would offer a fair deal. The league has also stated they will oversee future negotiations between the parties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Nickp1991 said:

If the Chargers do leave, SDSU should build a new football stadium on the Qualcomm site

That is already the plan...

 

Just waiting for the Chokers to move either downtown or more preferably out of town to LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Rosegreen said:

Kroenke will get game day revenue from a tenant, whether that's the Raiders or Chargers.

Spanos isn't going to go for that and he overplayed his hand. Chargers staying in SD is my prediction.

There are several reasons why I don't believe they will stay in SD...

 

1. Most importantly there is NO guaranteed stadium in San Diego.  The $1.1 billion estimate for a proposed Mission Valley stadium (where the Chargers don't want to be - they want downtown) is a low-ball figure.  As of now that proposal is asking for $350 million from the SD taxpayers from the general fund.  The Chargers will want a whole lot more than a 33% contribution from the taxpayers to subsidize the Chargers NFL stadium.  Bottom line - it is highly unlikely the citizens of SD vote to approve funds for an NFL stadium.

2. The long-term value of the Chargers in LA will be much more than the long-term value of the Chargers in SD.  If there is one thing everyone should have learned about the NFL is that everything revolves around money and how much revenue can be made

3. If the Chargers stay in SD the Raiders will have the opportunity to move to LA with the Rams.  This will saturate the Southern California NFL market with 3 teams and is something that strategically/defensively the Chargers likely won't allow to happen.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way the Chargers stay is if SD offers a top flight Downtown stadium. Problem is the Hoteliers in SD control politics and there is literally zero momentum for a downtown stadium. Too bad to because a waterfront stadium as part of a convention center expansion with the coronado bridge just across the water would look amazing on TV. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2016 at 4:42 PM, West Coast Football said:

Actually, you missed a few years.  The Lakers original home was the Minneapolis Auditorium and then the final year in Minnesota the team played in the Minneapolis Armory.  When the team moved to L.A. the Lakers home court was the Los Angeles Sports Arena.  It wasn't until 1967 that the Lakers moved to the Forum.

Hence the Lakers name.  Armory still exists too, though obviously the Wolves don't play there.

 

50 minutes ago, SDSU-Alum2003 said:

That is already the plan...

 

Just waiting for the Chokers to move either downtown or more preferably out of town to LA.

I hold a concern that if the Chargers get a downtown OK, it will hold SDSU in the negotiation.  The City would then have to decide how to pitch the public finance, and it would not surprise me to see them say "Well, the Aztecs will use it as well" for a selling point.

 

It's a much better consolation than playing in the Q, but not my first want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Hence the Lakers name.  Armory still exists too, though obviously the Wolves don't play there.

 

I hold a concern that if the Chargers get a downtown OK, it will hold SDSU in the negotiation.  The City would then have to decide how to pitch the public finance, and it would not surprise me to see them say "Well, the Aztecs will use it as well" for a selling point.

 

It's a much better consolation than playing in the Q, but not my first want.

Yeah. I hope that doesn't happen.  Sterk has said downtown is a non-starter but who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SDSU-Alum2003 said:

There are several reasons why I don't believe they will stay in SD...

 

1. Most importantly there is NO guaranteed stadium in San Diego.  The $1.1 billion estimate for a proposed Mission Valley stadium (where the Chargers don't want to be - they want downtown) is a low-ball figure.  As of now that proposal is asking for $350 million from the SD taxpayers from the general fund.  The Chargers will want a whole lot more than a 33% contribution from the taxpayers to subsidize the Chargers NFL stadium.  Bottom line - it is highly unlikely the citizens of SD vote to approve funds for an NFL stadium.

2. The long-term value of the Chargers in LA will be much more than the long-term value of the Chargers in SD.  If there is one thing everyone should have learned about the NFL is that everything revolves around money and how much revenue can be made

3. If the Chargers stay in SD the Raiders will have the opportunity to move to LA with the Rams.  This will saturate the Southern California NFL market with 3 teams and is something that strategically/defensively the Chargers likely won't allow to happen.

.

Value of the Chargers won't be much if they move to LA. They won't reap game day revenue, and certainly won't own the stadium outright. Bottom line will affect franchise value, and reduce revenue for Spanos. 

Make no mistake, Kroenke is not going to give Spanos a sweetheart deal if the Chargers move to LA. Spanos will be treated by Kroenke as a servant or employee if you will. 

I don't believe Los Angeles is an option for Chargers or the Raiders. They were given a large sum of cash and for the Chargers a year to work out a deal for a new stadium. Those were to save face, because otherwise, Spanos and Davis got absolutely creamed by Kroenke and Co. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Hence the Lakers name.  Armory still exists too, though obviously the Wolves don't play there.

 

I hold a concern that if the Chargers get a downtown OK, it will hold SDSU in the negotiation.  The City would then have to decide how to pitch the public finance, and it would not surprise me to see them say "Well, the Aztecs will use it as well" for a selling point.

 

It's a much better consolation than playing in the Q, but not my first want.

Downtown would cost considerably more than $1.1B and would require a greater investment from the county in terms of moving the MTS facility. Financing would require the sale of both the Sports Arena and Qualcomm ... even then it may require a raise in the TOT. That is a lot to ask of the voters. If on top of all of that it requires the Aztecs to play downtown and the Q to be sold to someone other than SDSU then that would pit the Chargers against the university. Not sure where the hoteliers and convention center would come down on the issue, but my guess is they would be against it as well.

Chargers to LA just makes more financial sense for the team -- particularly if Spanos intends to sell part of the team to Iger.

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rosegreen said:

Value of the Chargers won't be much if they move to LA. They won't reap game day revenue, and certainly won't own the stadium outright. Bottom line will affect franchise value, and reduce revenue for Spanos.

Make no mistake, Kroenke is not going to give Spanos a sweetheart deal if the Chargers move to LA. Spanos will be treated by Kroenke as a servant or employee if you will.

I don't believe Los Angeles is an option for Chargers or the Raiders. They were given a large sum of cash and for the Chargers a year to work out a deal for a new stadium. Those were to save face, because otherwise, Spanos and Davis got absolutely creamed by Kroenke and Co.

LOL.

 

The day they move to LA the value will double from $1.5 billion to $3 billion.  If they stay in SD the value of the Chargers won't change much even with a new stadium.  They have 2 options in LA; to be a tenant or a 50% owner in the stadium.  The deal is to be brokered/mediated by the NFL.

 

Bottom line is it is unlikely the voters of SD even approve funds for an NFL stadium in San Diego and Dean knows this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, HighNTight_SD said:

Downtown would cost considerably more than $1.1B and would require a greater investment from the county in terms of moving the MTS facility. Financing would require the sale of both the Sports Arena and Qualcomm ... even then it may require a raise in the TOT. That is a lot to ask of the voters. If on top of all of that it requires the Aztecs to play downtown and the Q to be sold to someone other than SDSU then that would pit the Chargers against the university. Not sure where the hoteliers and convention center would come down on the issue, but my guess is they would be against it as well.

Chargers to LA just makes more financial sense for the team -- particularly if Spanos intends to sell part of the team to Iger.

I don't disagree. The Chargers office aren't going to get any benefit of the doubt, or will be able to pitch transformative redevelopment like the Pet Co project was able to.  My concern is that SDSU will continue to be a pawn between the City and the Chargers org.  And it is more time that we could be attempting to raise funds that is in limbo (at least corporate sponsor wise).  I hope they just leave us out of any new Charger conversation, but I find it hard to believe that would be the case, and I find it hard to believe pitching two stadiums, on lands not owned by either entity, as having a positive outlook. Even though SDSU should have the opportunity unfettered, if the Chargers and City wanted to get a deal done, it would be silly to not use SDSU football as an added selling point.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HighNTight_SD said:

Downtown would cost considerably more than $1.1B and would require a greater investment from the county in terms of moving the MTS facility. Financing would require the sale of both the Sports Arena and Qualcomm ... even then it may require a raise in the TOT. That is a lot to ask of the voters. If on top of all of that it requires the Aztecs to play downtown and the Q to be sold to someone other than SDSU then that would pit the Chargers against the university. Not sure where the hoteliers and convention center would come down on the issue, but my guess is they would be against it as well.

Chargers to LA just makes more financial sense for the team -- particularly if Spanos intends to sell part of the team to Iger.

Actually there is a way. The MTS yard could be moved to the Miramar landfill sight. The existing MTS site in Kearny Mesa could be merged into the landfill site and sold. Satellite MTS yards could be set up at Pershing (20th/B) or Chollas (another former landfill site). Through a series of swaps the downtown MTS site could be acquired by trade. No additional land would need to be purchased. The downtown site would generate more revenue through higher use and would be available for additional convention space. The convention expansion could still take place, and a downtown arena could also be built as part of the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SDDean said:

Actually there is a way. The MTS yard could be moved to the Miramar landfill sight. The existing MTS site in Kearny Mesa could be merged into the landfill site and sold. Satellite MTS yards could be set up at Pershing (20th/B) or Chollas (another former landfill site). Through a series of swaps the downtown MTS site could be acquired by trade. No additional land would need to be purchased. The downtown site would generate more revenue through higher use and would be available for additional convention space. The convention expansion could still take place, and a downtown arena could also be built as part of the project.

The major problem you will run into here is you are attempting to relocate County property onto City property ... that will cost money to either the City or County (possibly both). The landfill at Miramar (City Landfill) is still active and a replacement has not been identified. In order to use the property at 20th/B (City Public Works) as a satellite MTS yard, the City would have to relocate all activities currently in use on the site. Every time you displace something it costs more and more money to relocate the displaced party and each time you do so you are having to add demo and construction costs to make the site suitable for its new use. All of these funds would still have to come out of both City and County coffers and would be considered supplemental to the stadium budget.

Quote

Jablonski made these points:

  • - The busyard cannot be transferred to the Chargers or anyone else without MTS board approval, and federal grants used to develop the site may constrain what is legal.
  •  
  • - A new busyard would have to be found and developed -- steps that could "take a considerable amount of time, anywhere from five to seven years" -- before stadium construction could begin.
  •  
  • - Two sites identified six years ago may not be available today: 10 to 12 acres next to the MTS rail yard, part of which has in the meantime been developed as a new site for the Monarch School for homeless children, and the city public works yard at 20th and B streets. The yard occupies a portion of Balboa Park and would require two-thirds voter approval to remove its dedicated parkland designation.
  •  
  • - The cost and funding for a new site could cost between $75 million and $100 million, not counting land costs, and the value of the current site is estimated at $50 million, not counting any toxic waste cleanup costs stemming from its decades use as a busyard. Numerous state and federal regulations are involved.
  •  
  • -The new location will likely raise "environmental justice" issues and "community opposition to the new [MTS] site could delay the project further."
     
  • - See more at: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/feb/24/stadium-mts-bus-downtown/#sthash.gbsVgHE2.dpuf

 

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure partnering in a stadium is wise move. The conventional wisdom is that  football stadiums are money losers. The associated development  surrounding the new venue is the profitable component.. Also, there's this:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rams-wont-get-as-much-from-la-as-the-lakers-and-dodgers-do/

 

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FalesGoesB4Carr said:

IMHO the Chargers leaving for LA is good for the SDSU/Fresno rivalry. With fewer distractions and only one football team San Diegans will remember their hate for California's country folk and maybe elevate the rivalry to it's prior status. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...