Well of course I agree there. None of the fans are going to be happy short term unless no one moves to LA. I'm only trying to speculate how the owners view that distance in regards to SD. That's why Columbia was brought up.
I still think the main thing that is being left out of this discussion is the sheer number of people and corporations in the Bay Area, LA, SD, and the state as a whole.
I get the idea that the NFL wouldn't want to vacate a market like St Louis that has showed great fan support for their team. But the Bay Area has more than enough of what it takes to support two teams, the LA Area could potentially support even more than two teams, and the SD area is the 8th largest NFL market. Add into that, the other large population bases along the CA coast, the Vegas area, and the San Joaquin Valley and you really have huge markets that could be taken advantage of.
I get the argument but if I'm looking at it from a purely business standpoint, I have to expect that in all of this, the NFL is not wanting to lose a large portion of the SD market or the Bay Area market while trying to pull in the LA market as well.
With only five teams in the entire West, I have to think there is a lot more money to be made there.
It's an uphill battle for Peacock IMO and if it weren't for him coming on board, the fat lady would have already finished her encores. This why I have said that if DP pulls this off for St Louis, he deserves a statue in front of the new David Peacock Riverfront Stadium.
Ask anybody in LA if they accept the Clippers or the Angels as his/her own. LA will never accept the Chargers nor should it.
Actually, I know quite a few who do. Many of the Clippers fans are band wagoners but many are not. Still, when the Angels were in the playoffs and now with the Clippers, winning brought a lot of fans which it always does. There is a reason the Angels changed their name to include Los Angeles.
None of this has anything to do with what's actually happening in the NFL right now.
I'm actually saying the NFL owners want the most markets served. Short term everyone is going to be upset. The rub is actually how you retain the most fans in the short term and grow the most in the long term. I don't believe people will forever forsake football if there's a team within a reasonable distance. So yes I do think after 10 years you'd see plenty of LA Charger fans in SC. The same with the scenario where the Raiders come here. Fans will adjust.
I'd have to say that the NFL wants the most lucrative markets served, period. IMO - the St Louis market will have to demonstrate that it has all the financial aspects in place to outweigh the idea of an additional team serving the West. Hopefully they can do that.
(Stu is an example of that, flying from Washington to Florida)
OREGON damn it!
Whichever one does -- stays, the other winds up in LA sharing Inglewood. If neither Oakland or San Diego step up - then one goes to LA and the other goes to St. Louis. Just my take.
Seems odd. I think that if SD doesn't get something done and Carson is actually viable, the Rams stay in St Louis. I also think that Stan would want to work out something with St Louis if the Carson plan is a go - even if a few of the boxes aren't checked.
It'd be a greater win for the NFL as a whole to move SD and Oakland to LA, then uproot the Rams. If STL steps up this will be the solution.
Possibly and maybe even likely. Pretty hard to ignore the absolutely massive CA markets though.
I think it's going to be in the range of a $750m investment to relocate and buy in to the stadium in STL. Then you've got the G4 on top (which won't be possible with any team other than the Rams.) It's going to be almost as expensive as buying a team to get here.
I highly doubt they would charge a $500 million relocation fee for the St Louis market. Two reasons: the relocation fee is supposedly based largely on potential revenue, and IF (huge if IMO) they were to do this, it would be a way of trying to appease the St Louis market while taking advantage of greater revenue streams.
Again - IF - this were to take place, I wouldn't doubt that they would not only waive the relocation fee and use part of the LA fee but also allow the maximum G4 monies to be used as St Louis is a current NFL market and still will be when they make whatever decision.
2)Breaking their lease is extremely expensive - about $100 million...Chargers pay $17 mill to leave. Additionally to break the lease the Jags/NFL would have to open their books to prove losses (Which is definitely not gonna happen)
You still don't pay a fee to move on a month to month. They have a three month window to inform SD they intend to terminate the lease. And if terminating, they would STILL have to pay an early termination fee.
They are providing upgrades to temporary facilities in the deal. While not operating costs, I don't think any NFL team has to really worry about those. It's not like they lose money.
That really depends on what the payoff is on the notes by GS's investors. If teams are operating on what they report, then adding that note payment could theoretically make them into a money losing operation. I'm not saying it will BTW. But if the NFL sees it as a possibility, I can't see them liking the idea of the press that would come with a team essentially being foreclosed on.
