New stadium in LA

[TTK]

Fabiani is lying through his teeth about the Chargers being able to finance a stadium in Carson without the Raiders. Even with the Raiders, I can't believe it.

Rumors are the relocation fee to LA could be a billion dollars. If the team needs to play at the Coliseum, they're going to request renovation fees that could add hundreds of millions more. Add in the $1.7 billion stadium and you're look at over $3 billion dollars. All in a market that doesn't care about the Chargers at all.

The only real threat IMO is moving in with Kroenke but you're still going to be the B team to Kroenke's Rams in LA. But I don't think Kroenke wants to share the market even if it's with someone like the Chargers who no one cares about there. He's proposing the stadium to be able to accommodate two teams just to appease the NFL, who can keep the threat of another team moving into LA in the future. The NFL doesn't want two teams moving immediately into LA so it's the perfect win-win scenario for the NFL. The only thing that doesn't make sense is what they said this week in that they feel So Cal can only support two teams, which is a ridiculous statement because So Cal used to have three teams and lumping in San Diego with LA is as ignorant as one can be.

[TABF]

Florio blows a lot of hot air just like Hacksaw.

Florio seems to be a day late and a dollar short on his article. Had this been written last Friday, it would have had some weight, however....

• There has been some significant movement this week on the stadium favoring the Bolts in San Diego (Dean spoke and him-hawed that they want to stay, Godell said nothing in LA unitl 2017, and the county is on board with CSAG [this is huge IMO]).
• If Florio is privy to private conversations, then I am quite sure the San Diego mayor, CSAG and the county have their ear to the exact same ground that Florio does. Florio is a nobody! Far more influential people have their reputations on this deal to not have significant information flowing their way, especially from the owners meetings.
• Florio is no scoop magee
• That is all

[TABF]

....what they said this week in that they feel So Cal can only support two teams, which is a ridiculous statement because So Cal used to have three teams and lumping in San Diego with LA is as ignorant as one can be.

Did they say that or did they say SoCal would have two teams? I thought the article/post/radio (I forget where I heard it) said that by year XXXX SoCal would have two teams, either 2 in LA or one in LA and one in SD.

[TABF]

Chargers not acting in good faith on stadium

By U-T San Diego Editorial Board
5 P.M.MARCH 25, 2015

.....

Scott and BR are really hitting hard on this topic and basically called out Dean for not stepping up and showing he wants to remain the San Diego Chargers... I really think the Chargers are 48/52 with SD/LA and they will take either option, but leaning toward the money grab in LA. Scott hit the nail the other day when he noted, that San Diego can't get shit done. Even now with the TF agreeing on a site, the media and some fan groups are not behind it (typical San Diego BS). Then Scott put Dean on blast and basically said for him to be the spokesman. I guess yesterdays interview w/Marty was an attempt at doing that... But basically 1090 is circling the wagons, calling out those that are squawking and telling ownership that the votes will come down to the trust the voters have with the owners and not the football team. Everyone loves the team, they just don't like the owners.

[richpjr]

This was Goodell's exact quote:

First, let me just say we're focused on doing this right," Goodell said. "If we go back to the Los Angeles market, we want to succeed for the long term and we have a lot to do to get to that place. So we're not focused on '16."

Does not focused on 16 mean they don't want a team in 16 no matter what or that if it doesn't happen in 16 it's okay because they want to get it right?

[TTK]

This was Goodell's exact quote:



Does not focused on 16 mean they don't want a team in 16 no matter what or that if it doesn't happen in 16 it's okay because they want to get it right?

Good question. It's hard to really decipher what he meant because the statement was so vague.

Maybe it's the optimist in me but I take this is as a sign that the NFL is giving SD/Oak/STL more time to get a deal done in their respective cities and that 2016 is too early for a team to move anyway. Did the union labor dispute ever get resolved in Inglewood? And AEG is ready to file lawsuits in Carson if the stadium proposal goes forward.

[Bolt-O]

I wonder if there's a 'nuclear' option that will unschedule a team that moves without permission? I'm sure that Kroenke could survive that for a season, and Spanos couldn't, and that would really screw up the symmetry of the schedule.

[SDFan]

Why is this such a ludicrous claim? If you owned a franchise and a neighboring market was abandoned 20 years ago and you derive a significant portion of your income from the abandoned market, you wouldn't just allow the fanchisee to set up a new business in that market without 1) right of first refusal or 2) some compensation for potential loss of your customer base. Still, even if it is a ludicrous claim as you state, I don't see how that helps keep the team in SD. How does the 'bluff' being called help?

I sincerely hope we get the new stadium in SD, but I'm not one to stop worrying, more on the plan for the worst case scenario line of thinking. IMO, the stop worrying is why we are where we are, the city has lacked any sense of urgency until recently, and even now it's barely urgent enough.

Free enterprise and Capitalism don't work like that. Suppose this was Supermarkets instead of sports teams; there's a Trader Joe's in your neighborhood and just across the nearby city limits is a Vons and Albertsons. Everybody has loyal customers and there's enough business for all for awhile but competition is tough and profit margins aren't great. At some point the Vons and Albertsons decide the business model isn't working well enough anymore and relocate the stores and the buildings sit vacant for X number of years while some of the former Vons and Albertsons customers start patronizing your Trader Joe's store in the absence of the others they used before. Does that mean that Trader Joe's now OWNS "rights" to those crossover customers and the entire market where the other 2 stores used to operate? Of course not! What if Vons gets new ownership and decides it can go back to the old neighborhood with a different marketing plan and build a fancy new store that can compete better- does your local Trader Joe's now have a legal leg to stand on to prevent Vons or anyone else from building a store there in competition to Trader Joe's? Nope. Neither do the Chargers.

This is a total BS job by the Chargers and they have never even offered any proof how much of their business comes from outside SD county- but it still wouldn't matter in a competitive environment. Again, they can't have it both ways preventing another team in LA AND getting a new house in San Diego.

[SDFan]

This was Goodell's exact quote:



Does not focused on 16 mean they don't want a team in 16 no matter what or that if it doesn't happen in 16 it's okay because they want to get it right?

how long do you think it would take to foger an agreement with the Colesium or Rose Bowl for an NFL team to play there? That's probably 1 driving factor.

[sandiego17]

Free enterprise and Capitalism don't work like that. Suppose this was Supermarkets instead of sports teams; there's a Trader Joe's in your neighborhood and just across the nearby city limits is a Vons and Albertsons. Everybody has loyal customers and there's enough business for all for awhile but competition is tough and profit margins aren't great. At some point the Vons and Albertsons decide the business model isn't working well enough anymore and relocate the stores and the buildings sit vacant for X number of years while some of the former Vons and Albertsons customers start patronizing your Trader Joe's store in the absence of the others they used before. Does that mean that Trader Joe's now OWNS "rights" to those crossover customers and the entire market where the other 2 stores used to operate? Of course not! What if Vons gets new ownership and decides it can go back to the old neighborhood with a different marketing plan and build a fancy new store that can compete better- does your local Trader Joe's now have a legal leg to stand on to prevent Vons or anyone else from building a store there in competition to Trader Joe's? Nope. Neither do the Chargers.

This is a total BS job by the Chargers and they have never even offered any proof how much of their business comes from outside SD county- but it still wouldn't matter in a competitive environment. Again, they can't have it both ways preventing another team in LA AND getting a new house in San Diego.

Except it isn't as you describe, its not a Von's being denied by Trader Joes, it Vons being denied by anothe Vons. These are all franchises in the NFL, not competing leagues. What you describe is another league setting up a team in LA and I agree, neither the NFL nor the Chargers could stop a USFL team or WWE team or whatever moving into LA, SD or Oakland.

This situation is more like a Subway franchise opening up where one Subway franchise is already doing business. There are franchise rules that protect the first franchise from losing its customer base, and the owners are generally given right of first refusal on neighboring markets within a specified radius. Subway can stop franchisee's from relocating or opening stores in new markets without their authorization.

I still don't understand the point. Even if it is a total BS job (which I don't necessarily agree with), how does that being exposed help keep the team in San Diego?

[richpjr]

how long do you think it would take to foger an agreement with the Colesium or Rose Bowl for an NFL team to play there? That's probably 1 driving factor.

I have heard some chatter about it taking a lot of money (as in 100's of millions of dollars) for upgrades to be done to the Rose Bowl or Coliseum so an NFL team can play there. What exactly needs to be done that is so expensive?

[KNSD]

But I thought Fabiani said the Chargers could make a go of it in Carson on their own??!! (He did say that, and he's a f***** liar)

The guys on the radio were talking about this article and their guest said that he thought Fabiani force fed this story to Florio to keep the pressure on the city. (In other words, it's still all total bullshit).