duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

8,309 posts in this topic

the only other thing is that in my scenario, since the league is brokering the deal, and is owed $600M (or whatever) in relo money, one of the conditions would be that they'd give Spanos a fixed amount based on an estimate of franchise value had it stayed in SD, and then keep the rest for "administrative expenses" - basically since the other teams had planned to collect some of that relo money, and now there's no relo (more accurately it'd be an un-relo) they should still get something for their troubles, since they've likely already added that money to their budgets.

 

I think this is what was causing the confusion, since in this "fantasy", Spanos isn't profiting from the bidding, which admittedly may not be legal.  

 

For it to work legally, he'd probably have to sell the team to the league, who would then take bids and sell it.  That extra step just complicates it more. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

For it to work legally, he'd probably have to sell the team to the league, who would then take bids and sell it.  That extra step just complicates it more. 

 

 

 

Pretty much what happened with the NBA, George Shinn, and the New Orleans Hornets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

Pretty much what happened with the NBA, George Shinn, and the New Orleans Hornets.

Technically, the league controls the franchise. The 'business' is a separate entity who holds the rights to a franchise. Franchises can be revoked. If the NFL really wants to 'protect the shield', stopping an owner from ruining the league's reputation by moving them in such a craptastic manner that is turning off fans all across the country for the greedy act it is, could be a reason to 'protect the shield'.

 

If a McDonald's franchisee is caught dealing heroin out of the back room, it probably won't stay a McDonald's for long. It no longer meets their standards and they can revoke it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go, Dean Lombardi is planting narcotics on Dean Spanos as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

Technically, the league controls the franchise. The 'business' is a separate entity who holds the rights to a franchise. Franchises can be revoked. If the NFL really wants to 'protect the shield', stopping an owner from ruining the league's reputation by moving them in such a craptastic manner that is turning off fans all across the country for the greedy act it is, could be a reason to 'protect the shield'.

 

If a McDonald's franchisee is caught dealing heroin out of the back room, it probably won't stay a McDonald's for long. It no longer meets their standards and they can revoke it.

 

Exactly.  This is an NFL franchise:

 

170.jpg

 

The team as a business entity holds this certificate, which represents the franchise itself. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was already mentioned in the 2017 soccer thread, but there is a plan to develop the Qualcomm Stadium site entirely with private money.  A partnership between a prospective MLS ownership group and San Diego State University, which would leave space for a football stadium if the Chargers (or any other team) considered moving back to San Diego.

 

 

Quote

 

FS Investors, which has the exclusive right to apply for a Major League Soccer franchise, is still working out the details, but in briefings shared with various media outlets and city officials, the company said it proposes to: 

 

  • Buy the 166-acre site from the city at fair market value, as determined by a third-party. The site has been estimated at about $50 million in its present, unimproved condition;
  • Demolish 50-year-old Qualcomm Stadium, relieving the city of the annual upkeep of about $12 million and about $100 million in deferred maintenance costs. The city still owes about $28 million on outstanding bonds; 
  • Set aside enough land for an NFL stadium to be built in the next five years if another city’s team wants to relocate and replace the Chargers, assuming the Chargers do not change their minds and want to move back;
  • Pay the projected cost, previously estimated at about $50 million, for a 55-acre San Diego River Park on the south side of the property;
  • Cover the costs of offsite traffic improvements associated with the development, as determined in an environmental analysis to accompany the citizens initiative, as  well as onsite infrastructure site development costs with details to be laid out in coming weeks; and,
  • Invite other developers to build housing, primarily aimed at SDSU students, office space for SDSU and other tenants,  and related commercial and entertainment uses on the remainder of the property — all part of a transit-oriented development to help ease San Diego’s housing shortage and take advantage of the existing San Diego Trolley line and a proposed line along Interstate15. 

 

 

Looks like a much better deal than anything Dean ever considered offering.

Edited by Gothamite
wrote "public money" obviously meant "private"
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

This was already mentioned in the 2017 soccer thread, but there is a plan to develop the Qualcomm Stadium site entirely with public money.  A partnership between a prospective MLS ownership group and San Diego State University, which would leave space for a football stadium if the Chargers (or any other team) considered moving back to San Diego.

 

 

 

Looks like a much better deal than anything Dean ever considered offering.

 

I think you meant entirely with private money.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

I think you meant entirely with private money.

 

Whoops - thanks for the correction!  Corrected the original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't read too much into that last part; the lease agreement doesn't say anything about the various possible financing partners.  Nor should we neccesarily expect it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

I wouldn't read too much into that last part; the lease agreement doesn't say anything about the various possible financing partners.  Nor should we neccesarily expect it to.

 

Yeah it's still an open question if it will be Adelson or not who is the Raiders financial partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well well well well

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, bub, there's only room for one decrepit old creep in the annals of the OAKLAND Raiders.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops. Good timing there, as the owners are considering the application. 

 

I would suspect it's because Mark already has another bankroll lined up, but... Mark Davis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, RyanMcD29 said:

Well well well well well

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Whoops. Good timing there, as the owners are considering the application. 

 

I would suspect it's because Mark already has another bankroll lined up, but... Mark Davis.  

This basically reaffirms the comments from Art Rooney II a couple of weeks ago regarding the league being told by Davis that Goldman Sachs will partner with him.

 

And typically, the league office has a high ranking employee who used to work for Goldman Sachs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RyanMcD29 said:

Well well well well well

 

LETS GET IT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the chargers move to  Sacramento and build the stadium on the old arco arena site?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with GS taking up Addelson's part of the funding, I'm not sure how Davis is going to be able to cover the gap. Some feel this is a good thing for the Vegas relocation, but I don't see how. There's almost this perception that Davis just used Addelson as a pawn to get public funding from the state approved, but that's impossible because this is Mark :censored:ing Davis we're talking about. No way that old van driving, PF Changs eating, bowl cut having dope just duped the most powerful dude in Vegas. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, StaatsBrett said:

Maybe the chargers move to  Sacramento and build the stadium on the old arco arena site?????

62697451_zps6wu7ycdc.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now