Cosmic Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Gothamite said: Hearing rumors that the Chargers are looking at StubHub Center in Carson as a temporary home until Kroenke's palace is built. That would be a switch, an NFL club renting from MLS. It seats only 27K, so the Chargers would also be losing out on the revenue from well over 500,000 tickets in the two years that it takes to get the new stadium built! Lost dollars add up fast when you start multiplying by 500,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said: At a 27,000 seat stadium? I don't think the NFL would let that fly. There aren't that many options. USC isn't going to let another team play in the Coliseum, and the Rose Bowl is out. Pretty much StubHub or one of the baseball parks. I didnt even consider where the Chargers would play, that's how unlikely it seemed. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Didn't Dodger Stadium seem willing to take on a team temporarily? Sounds like they'd be better off lame-ducking in Qualcomm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 Last year, the NFL sent out RFPs to five L.A. venues. The Rose Bowl did not respond as they believed in if the NFL was serious in playing there, they would've been in direct negotiations. http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/20150708/rose-bowl-to-nfl-no-thanks Same with Anaheim. http://m.ocregister.com/articles/nfl-672193-officials-stadium.html At the time StubHub Center didn't bid. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/chargers/stadium/sdut-nfl-chargers-canepa-raiders-2015jul21-story.html We know that if the Chargers relocate, London and/or Mexico City could host a game for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 On 12/3/2016 at 2:25 PM, Nyk33 said: It just seems really dumb that the Chargers could share a stadium with a team that could have similar colors to you (assuming the Rams go back to something similar to the blue and yellow look) and is more popular than you are in Los Angeles. Hell it makes life easier for both. The stadium can be easily made to work for both teams with no color changing required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 On 12/4/2016 at 0:19 AM, Rockstar Matt said: At a 27,000 seat stadium? I don't think the NFL would let that fly. It can be expanded a bit if they put some seating on what is currently the grass berm temporarily. That still wouldn't be terribly much more, maybe 30-32k depending on how they do it. But it's got to be better than playing a pair of lame duck years in San Diego. The fans down here have already started vacating Qualcomm on Sundays. 2 years with foreknowledge the team is gone and Qualcomm will be a ghost town (as all stadiums in similar situations are to the point that they rush the move within a year ala Houston Oilers). Plus the city and SDSU are undoubtedly going to be keen to get moving on the demolition and replacement of Qualcomm with the new proposed MLS sized stadium for a potential MLS team and SDSU (as well as other development on the Qualcomm site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 On 12/4/2016 at 8:02 AM, HedleyLamarr said: Didn't Dodger Stadium seem willing to take on a team temporarily? Sounds like they'd be better off lame-ducking in Qualcomm. That's what I was thinking...given the proximity of the two cities. Maybe they'd have been best keeping quiet about it through 1.5 of those two lame-duck years (if that's possible in this day and age). Moving to a 27,000-seat MLS stadium seems really odd. Like they think if they waste any time, the Jags will slide into LA right under their noses. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 I'd kind of like to see the spectacle of and NFL team in an MLS field. It's becoming more common anyway. For example, while the capacity is different, you'd be forgiven for mistaking the new Dolphins stadium for a soccer pitch. Here's Hard Rock And here's Avaya in San Jose Or maybe a better comp, White Hart Lane 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimalCookie Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 5 hours ago, DG_Now said: I'd kind of like to see the spectacle of and NFL team in an MLS field. It's becoming more common anyway. For example, while the capacity is different, you'd be forgiven for mistaking the new Dolphins stadium for a soccer pitch. Here's Hard Rock And here's Avaya in San Jose Or maybe a better comp, White Hart Lane Also Orlando Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 I was thinking: we know that Camden Yards and the Palace of Auburn Hills were the game-changing ballparks and arenas, respectively, where the architecture and revenue streams were such that everyone had to copy them. What was the equivalent for football stadiums? It would have to be Raymond James Stadium, right? Maybe Jack Kent Cooke? I don't think there were many stadium openings in the '90s the way there were in the other three leagues. I seem to remember a new stadium or two about every year in the 2000s, though. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 7 minutes ago, the admiral said: I was thinking: we know that Camden Yards and the Palace of Auburn Hills were the game-changing ballparks and arenas, respectively, where the architecture and revenue streams were such that everyone had to copy them. What was the equivalent for football stadiums? It would have to be Raymond James Stadium, right? Maybe Jack Kent Cooke? I don't think there were many stadium openings in the '90s the way there were in the other three leagues. I seem to remember a new stadium or two about every year in the 2000s, though. I'd have thought it was Joe Robbie Stadium. Before that one everyone almost everyone was in a baseball/football multipurpose venue. Irony being about the time the Marlins moved into Joe Robbie was when everyone else started copying the general style first at the Georgia Dome and then in Jacksonville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 12 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: I'd have thought it was Joe Robbie Stadium. Before that one everyone almost everyone was in a baseball/football multipurpose venue. Irony being about the time the Marlins moved into Joe Robbie was when everyone else started copying the general style first at the Georgia Dome and then in Jacksonville. It is Joe Robbie without a doubt since it specifically made a mezzanine/middle level an exclusive club level. The field was originally built to FIFA regulations, but the Marlins and constructing a baseball configuration eliminated them from hosting the 1994 World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 On 12/4/2016 at 3:19 AM, Rockstar Matt said: At a 27,000 seat stadium? I don't think the NFL would let that fly. On 12/5/2016 at 0:39 PM, bosrs1 said: It can be expanded a bit if they put some seating on what is currently the grass berm temporarily. That still wouldn't be terribly much more, maybe 30-32k depending on how they do it. But it's got to be better than playing a pair of lame duck years in San Diego. The fans down here have already started vacating Qualcomm on Sundays. 2 years with foreknowledge the team is gone and Qualcomm will be a ghost town (as all stadiums in similar situations are to the point that they rush the move within a year ala Houston Oilers). Plus the city and SDSU are undoubtedly going to be keen to get moving on the demolition and replacement of Qualcomm with the new proposed MLS sized stadium for a potential MLS team and SDSU (as well as other development on the Qualcomm site. Honestly, if its known the Chargers are bouncing SD in 2 years, how many fans will show up? A sold out Stubhub Center beginning a new fanbase would be better off than a partially full Qualcomm with fans who may despise the ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rich Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 1 hour ago, the admiral said: I was thinking: we know that Camden Yards and the Palace of Auburn Hills were the game-changing ballparks and arenas, respectively, where the architecture and revenue streams were such that everyone had to copy them. What was the equivalent for football stadiums? It would have to be Raymond James Stadium, right? Maybe Jack Kent Cooke? I don't think there were many stadium openings in the '90s the way there were in the other three leagues. I seem to remember a new stadium or two about every year in the 2000s, though. 1 hour ago, bosrs1 said: I'd have thought it was Joe Robbie Stadium. Before that one everyone almost everyone was in a baseball/football multipurpose venue. Irony being about the time the Marlins moved into Joe Robbie was when everyone else started copying the general style first at the Georgia Dome and then in Jacksonville. 43 minutes ago, dfwabel said: It is Joe Robbie without a doubt since it specifically made a mezzanine/middle level an exclusive club level. The field was originally built to FIFA regulations, but the Marlins and constructing a baseball configuration eliminated them from hosting the 1994 World Cup. Joe Robbie Stadium was also the 1st "privately" developed stadium in the modern era (modern meaning "still existing"; Foxboro/Schaefer/Sullivan stadium was privately funded). Joe Robbie used the income from those reserved club level seats (as pointed out by dfwabel) and from suites/boxes to finance the construction of the stadium itself. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Someone needs to come in at the eleventh hour again and keep the Chargers in San Diego. They've been there for over fifty years, San Diego is a good place for the NFL (in terms of road attendance it can be what everyone wants Las Vegas to be without being surrounded by foreclosed real estate and no water), and Los Angeles is proving itself to be only a one-team town, at least when that one team is a perpetually incompetent Stan Kroenke enterprise. Everything about getting a new stadium down there has been greedy and stupid. They want it to be some sort of downtown convention center against the wishes of pretty much everyone. Just build in Mission Valley next to Qualcomm, start it off at 60,000 seats and leave room for expansion. The NFL is offering you money to build a new place instead of you paying them to move. It's not worth it. Stay. I guess I thought Joe Robbie was older and less revenue-streamy than it actually was when it opened. Interesting. Thanks, all. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 45 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said: Honestly, if its known the Chargers are bouncing SD in 2 years, how many fans will show up? A sold out Stubhub Center beginning a new fanbase would be better off than a partially full Qualcomm with fans who may despise the ownership. Not many. Most Chargers fans I know and talk to both real world and online are just about done with the team right now (after last winter's attempted move shenanigans), and as a result many voted against Measure C and D (the two stadium measures). And it shows if you look at the Chargers attendance this year, it's been dismal. You throw in knowledge the team is leaving, openly known or even open secret, and Qualcomm will be a virtual ghost town other than games when the Raiders or a similar opponent are in town (but it won't be filling with Chargers fans as there won't be many left calling themselves that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 2 minutes ago, the admiral said: Someone needs to come in at the eleventh hour again and keep the Chargers in San Diego. They've been there for over fifty years, San Diego is a good place for the NFL (in terms of road attendance it can be what everyone wants Las Vegas to be without being surrounded by foreclosed real estate and no water), and Los Angeles is proving itself to be only a one-team town, at least when that one team is a perpetually incompetent Stan Kroenke enterprise. Everything about getting a new stadium down there has been greedy and stupid. They want it to be some sort of downtown convention center against the wishes of pretty much everyone. Just build in Mission Valley next to Qualcomm, start it off at 60,000 seats and leave room for expansion. The NFL is offering you money to build a new place instead of you paying them to move. It's not worth it. Stay. It's on the Chargers. They've become obsessed with downtown which is a huge disconnect when it comes to the city leadership and population. The city and its people want them at the Qualcomm site, polling from multiple independent sources has confirmed that and it allows the county to be easily involved. But the Chargers have ruled it out in favor of the far more expensive downtown option. And worse still as you mention they tried to muddy the issue by shoehorning a convention center expansion that no one wants, least of all the Convention Center itself, on to the project to try and sell it. Everyone saw through it and rightly told Dean to pound sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Fred Roggin, who is plugged in with the Rams(He insisted during the whole relocation saga last year that the Rams project was the favored more impressive project and had a sit down interview with Kroenke the day after the Rams were chosen) is reporting that Chargers to LA is almost a done deal, with no plans to rebrand: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Chargers-Move-to-Los-Angeles-Almost-a-Done-Deal-405520466.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayMac Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 A move to LA to be basically a tenant to Kroenke and the Rams...and also, sticking with the same dull and tired branding? Completely a Spanos move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 More on the Oakland/Ronnie Lott "plan". http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/09/raiders-stadium-plan-unveiled/ Quote A source familiar with the project’s funding said $200 million would come from the NFL and $300 million from the Raiders, which includes $100 million the league promised the team after its failed move to Los Angeles. The rest is from Lott’s group and money-management firm Fortress Investment Group. The source, who was not authorized to discuss the deal and requested anonymity, said Lott, the city and the county will negotiate whether to lease the property to Lott for up to 99 years or sell it to him. The property is estimated to be worth $150 million, according to a recent appraisal. Fifteen acres of the 105-acre site are set aside for the Oakland A’s, according to the term sheet. It’s possible it won’t be needed: the A’s owners recently have had their sights on properties closer to downtown Oakland. “That’s one of the many sites we’re looking at, but we haven’t picked one yet,” A’s President Dave Kaval said of the Coliseum. “It’s important we preserve the ability to go there, and obviously we’re supportive of the Raiders finding a way to stay in Oakland as well.” Oracle Arena, home of the Golden State Warriors, remains as well unless the NBA team’s plan to move to San Francisco happens and the arena is no longer needed for other events, according to the term sheet. And term sheet. https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/333751473/Oakland-Raiders-NFL-Coliseum-Stadium-Term-Sheet-From-City-of-Oakland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.