Not good for the Chargers

[Dxmissile]

What did they do with the property where Riverfront Stadium was to be? Are they putting a soccer stadium there?

No the soccer stadium going on the West side downtown by union station the riverfront property is still empty

 

[LesBaker]

Why?? Maybe I'm reading the situation wrong. I see it as the Bolts are locked in for 20 yrs. Meaning, by way of Stans lease, that he will reap the gameday rewards for the next 20 yrs. While the bolts lease is cheap... Stan reaps the majority of the gameday rewards from Bolt games.

We've heard a lot of different things about the arrangement with all the revenue streams so it's still a bit cloudy.

From the sounds of all of the various contracts promising 20 games a year it'll take a huge amount of money to get the Chargers out of LA if they want. If the NFL is that desperate and the owners want to forego hundreds of millions of dollars they could simply let Stan off the hook for what he is supposed to pay to the NFL for letting them move.

Kroenke can void the lease any time he wants to..........and if the NFL decides to move the Chargers that is exactly what will happen. If the league wants the Chargers out of LA and into another market or back to SD that lease will evaporate.

The NFL can let Spanos off the hook for the LA relocation fee if they move them to a different market, but he will still pay to move. How much will be the question, obviously less than the move to LA.

I don't know why you would mention letting the Rams out of the relocation fee.

 

[LesBaker]

No the soccer stadium going on the West side downtown by union station the riverfront property is still empty

Did the city actually purchase or just negotiate deals that then would have fallen through.

 

[Dxmissile]

Did the city actually purchase or just negotiate deals that then would have fallen through.

not sure what you mean. The land for the riverfront stadium is already purchased and owned by the city. The land for the MLS stadium is already purchased and owned by the family that owns Enterprise and I forget the guy name but he is owner or CEO of World Wide technology the only thing they’re waiting on is approval from MLS that STL is getting a team.

 

[Psycho_X]

Kroenke can void the lease any time he wants to..........and if the NFL decides to move the Chargers that is exactly what will happen. If the league wants the Chargers out of LA and into another market or back to SD that lease will evaporate.

The NFL can let Spanos off the hook for the LA relocation fee if they move them to a different market, but he will still pay to move. How much will be the question, obviously less than the move to LA.

I don't know why you would mention letting the Rams out of the relocation fee.

My point was that just letting Spanos leave town screws Stan out of millions upon millions of dollars in contracts. All naming rights, advertising, etc is signed to contracts contingent on two teams worth of home games at the stadium. So Stan isn't going to just let the Chargers leave. He can't unless he's going to pay for the breach of contracts all by himself... which he won't do. So my point was that in order for the Chargers to leave now some money is going to have to be thrown Stan's way to let them. And vice versa, the owners won't do that unless there is definitive research showing that they'll be better off for it dollar wise. I just mentioned the relocation fee since it's the most direct, tangible thing that Stan owes the NFL... straight cash. Simply saying if the owners thought they'd get more money by essentially giving Stan money to breach all of his contracts and let Spanos leave that they would. And if Stan feels that is a better deal he'd do it.

Otherwise, the owners couldn't care less if the stadium is empty at this point if its going to cost them more money than it'll save. And I don't see that being the case (them moving again) at the moment. The Chargers and LA are stuck with each other.

 

[LesBaker]

not sure what you mean. The land for the riverfront stadium is already purchased and owned by the city. The land for the MLS stadium is already purchased and owned by the family that owns Enterprise and I forget the guy name but he is owner or CEO of World Wide technology the only thing they’re waiting on is approval from MLS that STL is getting a team.

I didn't know the city owned the land I thought they had to buy some lots or whatever to have enough acreage.

 

[LesBaker]

My point was that just letting Spanos leave town screws Stan out of millions upon millions of dollars in contracts. All naming rights, advertising, etc is signed to contracts contingent on two teams worth of home games at the stadium. So Stan isn't going to just let the Chargers leave. He can't unless he's going to pay for the breach of contracts all by himself... which he won't do. So my point was that in order for the Chargers to leave now some money is going to have to be thrown Stan's way to let them. And vice versa, the owners won't do that unless there is definitive research showing that they'll be better off for it dollar wise. I just mentioned the relocation fee since it's the most direct, tangible thing that Stan owes the NFL... straight cash. Simply saying if the owners thought they'd get more money by essentially giving Stan money to breach all of his contracts and let Spanos leave that they would. And if Stan feels that is a better deal he'd do it.

Otherwise, the owners couldn't care less if the stadium is empty at this point if its going to cost them more money than it'll save. And I don't see that being the case (them moving again) at the moment. The Chargers and LA are stuck with each other.

The money from contracts the Chargers put together would not fall on Kroenke and so he wouldn't get money to settle them. That would be on Spanos. But really right now it's PSL money and I don't think anyone has cut checks (and possibly won't right now) for anything yet.

There isn't much to refund.

Naming rights and a lot of other stuff has nothing to do with who is playing, performing etc. I don't think the stadium would have two different names.

 

[Dxmissile]

I didn't know the city owned the land I thought they had to buy some lots or whatever to have enough acreage.

I didn't know the city owned the land I thought they had to buy some lots or whatever to have enough acreage.

Naw all of that was already in place I think it was just one biker bar on Broadway they had to work with but the land was already pretty much empty just had some vacant warehouses on it

 

[Psycho_X]

The money from contracts the Chargers put together would not fall on Kroenke and so he wouldn't get money to settle them. That would be on Spanos. But really right now it's PSL money and I don't think anyone has cut checks (and possibly won't right now) for anything yet.

There isn't much to refund.

Naming rights and a lot of other stuff has nothing to do with who is playing, performing etc. I don't think the stadium would have two different names.

It wouldn't have two names... it would have one name and it'd be paying Stan with a contract stating there'd be 20 games played in it a year. Thus twice the exposure as a normal naming right for NFL games. Same for all advertising linked to the stadium. Yes there might not be contracts in place for all of this yet but I'm sure there's a few. I'm not saying all of this is set in stone. Just stating that the Chargers leaving might be a lot more complicating than Stan just tearing up a lease and saying cya out of the kindness of his heart. There is a lot of money now tied to the Chargers being there for 20 years. One way or another a lot of money or handshakes would have to happen to let them just leave. And that won't happen unless everyone is happy about it... Stan, NFL, Spanos, etc.

 

[KCLARAM FAN]

Who is saying that "every" Raiders fan is a thug? Using generalizations that way is just stupid. I can give anecdotal stories from St Louis fans that went there wearing Rams colors and were abused in Oakland, so that they'd never go back. I have also drove to California (LA) in the early 2000's, and it seemed that a lot of raiders gear was used by gangs because of the colors, many of which mat have nor cared a whole lot about football.....Neither group includes your friends, so....

I don't know about that. LA is big and there may be enough fans for the Chargers opponents from week to week to not be a total 'ghost town'. In fact, with the relatively cheap prices for Chargers games, it may be a smart investment to buy some of the good but still cheap seats for sell just to resell to opposing teams fans for profit.

Might not be a ghosttown but it will still be sixteen road games for the chargers all year.

 

[KCLARAM FAN]

Yeah, that makes no sense. OKC metro is a small fraction of the population of San Diego metro. In addition, there is a very popular college team there, and much of Oklahoma (including OKC) is Cowboy territory - basically the whole state. But southern Oklahoma is as close to Dallas as it is to Oklahoma City. Tulsa residents who don't follow the Cowboys follow midwest teams.

San Diego supported the Chargers fine. They just were not willing to bend over and subsidize a ridiculously expensive stadium for Spanos. An owner that would be able to build a stadium for the Chargers in OKC (and the government doesn't have money to subsidize a stadium like Spanos would want, so it would have to be privately built - at least mostly) would be far better off building a stadium in San Diego.

FWIW, the San Diego Metro is 17th in the US. Make the Chargers the default team to do international games in Mexico, and thus likely the team that gets Mexican fans, and they would be more than fine, and would make the NFL good money.

Totally agree with everything you said,could not say it any better myself.

 

[KCLARAM FAN]

Well...here's a potential issue! Seems like Stan has the bolts by the short hairs!!!!!!!


https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...d-to-leave-los-angeles-for-at-least-20-years/




The Chargers might be struggling to make fans in Los Angeles, but there's a reason that the NFL isn't panicking yet, and that's mainly because the team is apparently going to have a lot of time to develop a fan base in their new city.

According to Pro Football Talk, when the Chargers moved to L.A., the team signed a "firm" 20-year lease to serve as a tenant at the new stadium being built by Ramsowner Stan Kroenke. The lease means that even if the the Chargers wanted to leave L.A., they wouldn't be able to do it until after the 2039 season.

The Rams have been selling sponsorships and advertising for the stadium with the understanding that two teams would be playing there, which is why it would likely be nearly impossible for the Chargers to get out of the lease.

Of course, the Chargers could leave after 20 years since that's when they'll finally have the option to move again. According to PFT, the Chargers' lease includes two 10-year options. Basically, if the Chargers actually build a fan base and want to stay in L.A., then they could exercise the first 10-year option, which would run from 2040 to 2049. If things are still going well, the Chargers could exercise their second 10-year option, which would presumably run from 2050 to 2059.

The fact that this lease exists might be why NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sounded so optimistic about the Chargers' situation on Wednesday. At the NFL owners meeting, Goodell said the league wasn't worried about the Chargers failing in L.A. because they still had plenty of time to build a fan base. The feeling from the league is that the fans would flock to the team as the Chargers and Rams get closer to the opening of their new stadium in 2020.

"That excitement is going to build as we get closer, as we are still two years away," Goodell said. "There is lots of football and lots of building still to do. We were out of the market for a long time. We have to earn our way back with our fans."

With the Chargers locked in to L.A. for at least 20 more years, the NFL has to be hoping that things get better. It's only been one-and-a-half seasons and the move is already starting to look like a disaster. The most recent blow came on Wednesday when it was reported that the Chargers had to cut revenue projections for their personal seat licenses (PSL) by $250 million from $400 million down to $150 million.

Well that doesnt bode well for san diego residents obviously unless the NFL came to their senses and decided not to do that.the NFL changes their rules all the time so that would be possible.Not saying they would but they could i am guessing since again,they change their rules all the time.

If their is no way of getting around it,then looks like it will be 20 years before the san diego fans get them back. Too bad for the SD fans if there is no way of getting around it because looks like they will have to suffer same as every LA Ram fan like us did and go through the exact same thing everybody in california and all Los Angeles Rams fans had to go through,suffer through 20 years of having to wait.Thats too bad for SD fans,they will have to suffer same as we did.my heartt goes out to them,i know how depressed i was having to wait 20 plus years to get them back.


goodel and the NFL are fools if they think the chargers will ever have a big fans base there.Not going to happen.only fair weather bandwagon fans will embrace the chargers out there other than the same group out in LA that does.san diego fans will never drive out there.Goodel is a fool if he thinks they will get over it and make the drive.not happening.

 

[KCLARAM FAN]

at least one person has made the false assumption that the plan was for two teams not getting it that it was just for the Rams and it was built for TWO teams so they could continue to use the threat of LA for leverage for other teams but THIS is the story I got from the administrater of BBTLAR site. He KNOWS his stuff trust me.so this ends the nonsense we have heard from a certain poster they wanted the chargers in LA.

1. The plan was for the Rams ONLY in Los Angeles. There is no sharing.
2. Every fan the Chargers get in Los Angeles is one less fan for the Rams. Any minute of airtime they get on TV or radio is one minute less for the Rams. If people are talking aboutthe Chargers, then they are not talking about the Rams.
3. Dean Spanos did EVERYTHING in his power to prevent the Rams from coming back to Los Angeles. Where's his apology to us? Had he won with his stupid Carson stadium, would he have cared one whit about what we wanted? Would you be applauding him had he won and screwed us all out of getting the Rams back home?
4. We want it ALL. There is no reason to accept them. Spanos only deserves scorn, ridicule, and shame while they are here in L.A.
5. They BELONG in San Diego.

Point number three of his is WHY kroneke would love spanos to go back.He wanted LA to himself but he had to conform to the rules of the NFL to bring the Rams to LA so he had no choice.

 

[KCLARAM FAN]

Well...here's a potential issue! Seems like Stan has the bolts by the short hairs!!!!!!!


https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...d-to-leave-los-angeles-for-at-least-20-years/




The Chargers might be struggling to make fans in Los Angeles, but there's a reason that the NFL isn't panicking yet, and that's mainly because the team is apparently going to have a lot of time to develop a fan base in their new city.

According to Pro Football Talk, when the Chargers moved to L.A., the team signed a "firm" 20-year lease to serve as a tenant at the new stadium being built by Ramsowner Stan Kroenke. The lease means that even if the the Chargers wanted to leave L.A., they wouldn't be able to do it until after the 2039 season.

The Rams have been selling sponsorships and advertising for the stadium with the understanding that two teams would be playing there, which is why it would likely be nearly impossible for the Chargers to get out of the lease.

Of course, the Chargers could leave after 20 years since that's when they'll finally have the option to move again. According to PFT, the Chargers' lease includes two 10-year options. Basically, if the Chargers actually build a fan base and want to stay in L.A., then they could exercise the first 10-year option, which would run from 2040 to 2049. If things are still going well, the Chargers could exercise their second 10-year option, which would presumably run from 2050 to 2059.

The fact that this lease exists might be why NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sounded so optimistic about the Chargers' situation on Wednesday. At the NFL owners meeting, Goodell said the league wasn't worried about the Chargers failing in L.A. because they still had plenty of time to build a fan base. The feeling from the league is that the fans would flock to the team as the Chargers and Rams get closer to the opening of their new stadium in 2020.

"That excitement is going to build as we get closer, as we are still two years away," Goodell said. "There is lots of football and lots of building still to do. We were out of the market for a long time. We have to earn our way back with our fans."

With the Chargers locked in to L.A. for at least 20 more years, the NFL has to be hoping that things get better. It's only been one-and-a-half seasons and the move is already starting to look like a disaster. The most recent blow came on Wednesday when it was reported that the Chargers had to cut revenue projections for their personal seat licenses (PSL) by $250 million from $400 million down to $150 million.

This article backs up what i was saying earlier,that the 20 year lease agreement is not a locked done deal,that they can easily get out of it if they wanted to.

Don't believe the report that the Chargers are locked into L.A. for at least 20 years. That "firm" lease is anything but. No, the league doesn't want to admit yet the Chargers are a mistake
https://cbssports.radio.com/article...oPA2YODlhF5DoMxyQ5f4KNf-gbitljJUYeKDfmpsFrj8Q

 

[LesBaker]

at least one person has made the false assumption that the plan was for two teams not getting it that it was just for the Rams and it was built for TWO teams so they could continue to use the threat of LA for leverage for other teams but THIS is the story I got from the administrater of BBTLAR site. He KNOWS his stuff trust me.so this ends the nonsense we have heard from a certain poster they wanted the chargers in LA.

1. The plan was for the Rams ONLY in Los Angeles. There is no sharing.
2. Every fan the Chargers get in Los Angeles is one less fan for the Rams. Any minute of airtime they get on TV or radio is one minute less for the Rams. If people are talking aboutthe Chargers, then they are not talking about the Rams.
3. Dean Spanos did EVERYTHING in his power to prevent the Rams from coming back to Los Angeles. Where's his apology to us? Had he won with his stupid Carson stadium, would he have cared one whit about what we wanted? Would you be applauding him had he won and screwed us all out of getting the Rams back home?
4. We want it ALL. There is no reason to accept them. Spanos only deserves scorn, ridicule, and shame while they are here in L.A.
5. They BELONG in San Diego.

Point number three of his is WHY kroneke would love spanos to go back.He wanted LA to himself but he had to conform to the rules of the NFL to bring the Rams to LA so he had no choice.

A two team stadium was part of the deal to do the move to LA according to people in the room, meaning the owners, and Kroenke agreed. And the "threat" of a move by other teams was removed when they gave the Chargers AND the Raiders the right to move to a city they were as a team planning on building a stadium to share.

1. No that wasn't the plan.
2. That may or not be true, but most of us aren't butthurt by that.
3. Spanos doesn't owe you jack. If anyone, ANYONE, involved in this owes fans in LA an apology it would be Kroenke. Remember, he only agreed to buy 30% of the Rams under the condition they moved OUT of LA to STL. The Rams spent 25 years out of LA in large part because of Kroenke. Email him and ask for your apology.
4. I'm chuckling at your fits and tantrums over someone else sharing a stadium with the Rams..........it's become boring and infantile. It's such a non-issue that the media isn't even talking about it.
5. Yup, the Charger do belong in San Diego.

So your closing line there confuses because first you say that the 2 team stadium was just to use LA as a threat, then you say the reason , in your opinion, that he wants Spanos to leave is because he had to "conform to the rules of the NFL to bring the Rams to LA". Kroenke KNEW either Spanos or Davis would be coming. You choose to ignore that the NFL gave two teams the first and second right.

One other thing you probably aren't aware of..........there is evidence that Spanos and Kroenke were planning to build a stadium to share years ago and had looked at the land Kroenke eventually bought as the site for this stadium. So there is more to this than maybe meets your eye.

Anyway you have some unhealthy obsession with this, it's at a level I can't imagine giving a fuck about but whatever.

I hope you can let it go, or find something else to dwell on and go on and on and on about.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Have to wonder if this was the plan all along and maybe for their compliance, they’ll get more money from the league to build their San Diego stadium.

This is giving Spanos way too much credit. Move to LA, have it be a spectacular failure, then get more monetary help from the league to slink back to SD?

Yeah, maybe this scenario could happen, but it sure wouldn’t be because of a “plan.”

Spanos is so darn stupid, he screwed over his city, his fans, and himself.

 

[XXXIVwin]

I wonder if the Chargers ever play a down in Inglewood?

As screwed up as the situation may be, I can’t see the Chargers’ situation resolved in less than two years. I think the league will give the Chargers a chance to at least make a respectable showing in Stanadu Stadium, then take it from there.

Hey, I’d be happy if the Bolts left town, I just can’t see it happening before 2021 at the earliest.

 

[XXXIVwin]

I still don’t understand why the Raiders are going to Vegas

Because Oakland didn’t cough up $, and Vegas did.

Davis wanted to stay in Oak, but $ won out.

 

[OregonRamsFan]

One team in LA.
Chargers shouldn't be there.

Yep. They should be the London Chargers baby.

 

[XXXIVwin]

My point was that just letting Spanos leave town screws Stan out of millions upon millions of dollars in contracts.

To me, this gets to a central question which I still don’t know the answer to.

My question is, “Does Kroenke WANT a second team as a tenant in his new stadium?”

On the one hand, it would seem that he does, since he gets a cut of game day revenue (at least partially, I think, from parking, etc.), as well as increased advertising, etc. Over the next 20 years or so, wouldn’t Kroenke make more money having a viable 2nd team as his tenant in Inglewood?

On the other hand, my understanding was that initially, Kroenke very much wanted LA all to himself. Kroenke only made the Inglewood stadium capable of hosting two teams because the owners forced him to do so. As I understand it, the owners basically said to Kroenke, “If you want to leave St Louis and build your new stadium in LA, you must also be willing to allow the Chargers to join you in LA if they choose.”

I guess I still don’t feel sure about what Kroenke wants NOW. My guess is that he still would prefer what he wanted initially— one city, one team— the LA Rams, and no one else.