San Diego Chargers are staying put. Period.

[sandiego17]

This is why the rams are a done deal. All these rumors are really for the rams. If the articles said the rams are moving then the public in San Diego or the Raiders would sigh a relief knowing that their team is not moving.

It could be two teams that move an NFC and AFC team, so if the Rams build a stadium, could the Chargers or Raiders move as well? Also, if the Chargers don't move, where are they going to play in the not to distant future? I don't think they will stay at the Q for much longer (think ~5 years).

[TTK]

If the Rams build a stadium, why would Oakland or SD go in there just to pay rent? Would they be making any more money then they are now?

Also, just putting one team in LA would be difficult enough to get enough support, let alone two. There are still so many things about the LA stadium that just don't make sense.

[sandiego17]

If the Rams build a stadium, why would Oakland or SD go in there just to pay rent? Would they be making any more money then they are now?

Also, just putting one team in LA would be difficult enough to get enough support, let alone two. There are still so many things about the LA stadium that just don't make sense.

I think LA can support two NFL teams, it supports two of everything else. I believe that paying rent in a state of the art new stadium in the second largest media market is more lucrative than paying rent in Oakland and San Diego to play in shit holes. I sincerely hope we can get something done in SD or that the Chargers aren't going anywhere even if we don't. I'm not sure about the getting something done part, could go either way depending on the structure and opposition, but I'm pretty sure they will leave if something doesn't get done.

[TABF]

I think LA can support two NFL teams, it supports two of everything else. I believe that paying rent in a state of the art new stadium in the second largest media market is more lucrative than paying rent in Oakland and San Diego to play in shit holes. I sincerely hope we can get something done in SD or that the Chargers aren't going anywhere even if we don't. I'm not sure about the getting something done part, could go either way depending on the structure and opposition, but I'm pretty sure they will leave if something doesn't get done.

LA has already failed at supporting two teams.

...The topic not being discussed in support of the original poster is this (maybe). The Spanos talk of LA bringing roughly 30% of revenue. The LA they're talking about is the LA TV Market not LA Proper. The 30% of people and support are actually coming from OC and Riverside (Which unfortunately fall into the LA TV Market).

Riverside people don't claim LA and neither do OC people. Moving a team to LA (Rams/Raiders) wouldn't greatly affect the people that support the Chargers, but it may take a significant draw from the businesses that are from these area's that support the Chargers.

IF, an AFC team moves to LA, The chargers would lose a large TV market, in that geographically, they're the game of the week for LA and San Diego. That may be the 30% Spanos speaks of... But, none of this will matter once the NFL becomes a pay per view type deal anyway.

[Mister Hoarse]

The irony in all of this is the fact that Los Angeles has already failed to support all 3 teams being mentioned...

[Bolt-O]

I blame this mess on Al Davis. I believe LA would easily have supported the Rams, but the 'duhs diluted and polluted the market. No one wanted to build a stadium for the 'duhs, and the golddigger biatch offed her husband (allegedly) and took her team to St. Louis without even giving the area a chance to recover from the stench left by the 'duhs. Of course, both teams were hoping for one of them to leave, and for some reason, the city of LA has this romance for that ruin called the LA Colosseum. I won't mind the Rams going back to LA, just because they shouldn't have left in the first place, if not for Al and his greed.

[TTK]

I think LA can support two NFL teams, it supports two of everything else. I believe that paying rent in a state of the art new stadium in the second largest media market is more lucrative than paying rent in Oakland and San Diego to play in shit holes. I sincerely hope we can get something done in SD or that the Chargers aren't going anywhere even if we don't. I'm not sure about the getting something done part, could go either way depending on the structure and opposition, but I'm pretty sure they will leave if something doesn't get done.

The Chargers don't pay rent now.

LA isn't like the Jets and Giants stadium situation. I don't see two teams being able to share that stadium if only one owner is paying for it.

And no one in LA cares about the Chargers anyway.

[sandiego17]

The Chargers don't pay rent now.

LA isn't like the Jets and Giants stadium situation. I don't see two teams being able to share that stadium if only one owner is paying for it.

And no one in LA cares about the Chargers anyway.

I don't know, imo, the Chargers could make significantly more money in LA in a new stadium than they could if they don't get a new stadium in SD even if they do pay rent. Corporate sponsorship, suites, etc. alone will more than make up for any lease cost.

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/08/16/qualcomm-stadium/

The Chargers rank in the bottom quartile in the NFL in revenue. Teams share national television money, but local monies, such as those from TV and radio deals, suite sales, sponsorships and advertising, are kept by the individual teams. The Chargers are among the have-nots in this area.

For instance, if they sell all 113 of their suites at Qualcomm, at an average of $125,000 per suite, that totals just over $14 million. If Dallas sells out its 300 suites, at an average of $250,000, that’s $75 million for the Cowboys. In other words, suite sales alone amount to an advantage of more than $60 million in local revenue. Such differences affect how teams spend on their coaches and how they structure contracts for cash flow.

If sponsors 'owned' the suites in a new LA stadium for all events, having two teams makes those suites much, much more valuable. In the Rams/Chargers example, even if the Chargers accepted less than the Rams, they would get significantly more than they do today. None of this factors into the value of the franchise, its a pretty fair statement that a franchise is worth more in LA than San Diego or Oakland. Look at the Clippers. Ballmer was ready to move the Kings to Seattle in a heart beat, doubt he paid $2 billion to move the Clippers out of LA.

I just think if something doesn't get done, they'll eventually move.

[thelightningwill]

I don't know, imo, the Chargers could make significantly more money in LA in a new stadium than they could if they don't get a new stadium in SD even if they do pay rent. Corporate sponsorship, suites, etc. alone will more than make up for any lease cost.

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/08/16/qualcomm-stadium/

The Chargers rank in the bottom quartile in the NFL in revenue.

If sponsors 'owned' the suites in a new LA stadium for all events, having two teams makes those suites much, much more valuable. In the Rams/Chargers example, even if the Chargers accepted less than the Rams, they would get significantly more than they do today. None of this factors into the value of the franchise, its a pretty fair statement that a franchise is worth more in LA than San Diego or Oakland. Look at the Clippers. Ballmer was ready to move the Kings to Seattle in a heart beat, doubt he paid $2 billion to move the Clippers out of LA.

I just think if something doesn't get done, they'll eventually move.

The Chargers rank in the bottom quartile of Super Bowl wins. They are lucky we still follow them.