NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Barely. Forbes has their value going up like $50 million by moving. And any increase in value was more than lost in the debt they incurred relocating.

 

I don't doubt that their value jumped up, but I'm not sure how reliable Forbes is.  Once these teams hit the open market, all hell seems to break loose - especially now that the cross ownership rule has been relaxed / eliminated.  I'd assume Forbes is low, if anything.

 

4 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well except they don’t. They lost the bulk of the San Diego market by leaving, just like the Clippers (the next Clippers fan I meet in San Diego will be the first). And Theron lies 5eir problem as their entire fan base has been in San Diego despite Spanos’ delusion to the contrary.

 

Yeah, there's theory vs practice.  They kinda sold it as just moving to somewhere else within their market - like Nassau to Brooklyn - so they'd be maintaining their current fan base while growing more up north in LA.  San Diego has basically given the middle finger to the notion that they're in the same SoCal market as LA, at least from a sports stand point.

 

23 minutes ago, colortv said:

Well apparently the chargers revenue is already greater than what it was in San Diego, so there’s that. 

 

I don't doubt that for a second, and as long as the ownership can offset any displeasure with being the butt of jokes with the extreme pleasure of cashing bigger checks, then they won't even consider leaving.  Again, it's the Clippers effect.  

[Cosmic]

39 minutes ago, colortv said:

Why don’t we try a little critical thinking to see why it’s different than a hypothetical move back to San Diego: 1. The Brooklyn arena wasn’t designed for hockey which is the primary reason they are moving, not the case with the Inglewood stadium. 2. Islanders are building a new arena, Spanos family can’t afford to build a stadium in San Diego on their own. 3. They are still staying in the New York market. 

Every situation is different, of course, but the Islanders found new owners to undo some of the boneheadedness of the previous owner. The arena wasn't the complete source of their problems; the Coyotes' best times were in America West, which had a similarly unfortunate hockey setup. They left their fans behind, and didn't pick up many new ones. Rules that limit when teams that moved to LA can be sold are the NFL's own doing, and can be undone if the situation is right.

 

43 minutes ago, colortv said:

Well apparently the chargers revenue is already greater than what it was in San Diego, so there’s that. 

I wouldn't be completely shocked, but where in the heck is this money coming from? They're only selling 25,000 tickets per game. Their TV money is from national contracts. There can't be many suites in a 27,000 seat stadium.. Are companies falling over themselves to be "the official collision repair shop of the Los Angeles Chargers"? They're also paying $650M for the privilege of being in LA, IIRC.

[bosrs1]

37 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I don't doubt that their value jumped up, but I'm not sure how reliable Forbes is.  Once these teams hit the open market, all hell seems to break loose - especially now that the cross ownership rule has been relaxed / eliminated.  I'd assume Forbes is low, if anything.

 

 

Yeah, there's theory vs practice.  They kinda sold it as just moving to somewhere else within their market - like Nassau to Brooklyn - so they'd be maintaining their current fan base while growing more up north in LA.  San Diego has basically given the middle finger to the notion that they're in the same SoCal market as LA, at least from a sports stand point.

 

 

I don't doubt that for a second, and as long as the ownership can offset any displeasure with being the butt of jokes with the extreme pleasure of cashing bigger checks, then they won't even consider leaving.  Again, it's the Clippers effect.  

 

I don’t doubt that Forbes lowballed it, but then they’d have been lowballed in San Diego too. 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

Why don’t we try a little critical thinking 

 

Insulting other posters really isn’t the strongest defense of your argument. 

[The_Admiral]

colortv, why are the dang Los Angeles Chargers your hill to die on?

[rams80]

16 hours ago, colortv said:

20 million people in case anyone didn't hear me the first time.

 

None of whom can be arsed to care about the team, even when they don't suck, like now.

[rams80]

15 hours ago, colortv said:

Oh, and for everything we can say about what is going on RIGHT NOW, the Chargers have sold out their season tickets both years they've been in LA.

 

 How many season tix do you need to sell when you play in a 27,000 seat stadium?

And how many of those got snapped up by secondary market vendors to sell to road fans? (Besides "a lot")

[oldschoolvikings]

I'm not a big fan of Intertnet debate in general, but maybe if I tried to be more huffy and condescending I'd enjoy it more.

 

Seems to work for some folks.

[Wings]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

colortv, why are the dang Los Angeles Chargers your hill to die on?

 

He's their only fan?

[IceCap]

20 hours ago, colortv said:

This isn't a Clippers/Lakers thing

The Chargers are sharing a market with a team has far more fan support. They’re going to playing in a stadium owned by that other team, and will get a sweetheart deal to fill dates. They’re the butt of every joke about the league right now, be it for attendance or on-field issues. And that’s ok by them because that sweetheart deal means they’ll be profitable regardless. 

 

Dude. This is a Clippers/Lakers thing. It’s the textbook definition of being a Clippers/Lakers thing. The Chargers are the football Clippers. That’s the destiny they chose for themselves as soon as they opted to move.   

 

I’m a fan of the team. I want them to do well. In San Diego, Los Angeles, anywhere. 

It’s just that when the team moving is greated by boos in their new market? That’s a bad sign. 

 

It’s entirely possible that a few good seasons and the hype of a new building will be what they need, but it was still a mistake to move. They left a market they had been in for over fifty years to go to a market where they had little following and less history. 

 

The fact that NFL owners were even casually discussing the issue of the Chargers in LA should be enough to prove that we aren’t just making stuff up. There are issues here, issues that need to be addressed if the team is going to carve out a niche in LA.

Going “I can’t hear you!” and expecting the problem to fix itself because “20 million people” is a recipe for disaster. 

[colortv]

12 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well except they don’t. They lost the bulk of the San Diego market by leaving, just like the Clippers (the nexClippers fan I meet in San Diego will be the first). And there in lies their problem as their entire fan base has been in San Diego despite Spanos’ delusion to the contrary.

 

San Diegans seem to have no problem rooting for the Lakers, that might be why you don't see Clipper fans. We both know there are plenty of casual fans who aren't going to take to heart the Chargers moving a couple hours up the road...this isn't a Colts moving to Indy in the middle of the night thing. It's moving two hours up the road in the same state...and over time a lot of wounds can heal. We both know the 5 between LA and San Diego is packed constantly with people going back and forth, it's not exactly the border between the Koreas.

 

5 hours ago, rams80 said:

 How many season tix do you need to sell when you play in a 27,000 seat stadium?

And how many of those got snapped up by secondary market vendoto sell to road fans? (Besides "a lot")

 

Does it matter? As long as the money is green it doesn't make a difference to the bottom line.

 

The Chargers accountants aren't sitting there going, "Mr. Spanos, we looked at the books. Even though we've sold out our season tickets even with them being astronomically priced due to the size of Stubhub, it's a total disaster because not as high a proportion of Chargers fans bought tickets".

 

Building a fanbase takes time.

 

If anything, that should tell us that there are probably enough fans of every NFL team in the market to help sell plenty of tickets to fans of opposing teams for the 8 home games a year. They won't be paying with monopoly money.

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The Chargers are sharing a market with a team has far more fan support. They’re going to playing in a stadium owned by that other team, and will get a sweetheart deal to fill dates. They’re the butt of every joke about the league right now, be it for attendance or on-field issues. And that’s ok by them because that sweetheart deal means they’ll be profitable regardless. 

 

Dude. This is a Clippers/Lakers thing. It’s the textbook definition of being a Clippers/Lakers thing. The Chargers are the football Clippers. That’s the destiny they chose for themselves as soon as they opted to move.   

 

I’m a fan of the team. I want them to do well. In San Diego, Los Angeles, anywhere. 

It’s just that when the team moving is greated by boos in their new market? That’s a bad sign. 

 

It’s entirely possible that a few good seasons and the hype of a new building will be what they need, but it was still a mistake to move. They left a market they had been in for over fifty years to go to a market where they had little following and less history. 

 

The fact that NFL owners were even casually discussing the issue of the Chargers in LA should be enough to prove that we aren’t just making stuff up. There are issues here, issues that need to be addressed if the team is going to carve out a niche in LA.

Going “I can’t hear you!” and expecting the problem to fix itself because “20 million people” is a recipe for disaster. 

 

I'll get to this in a minute, but first let me address the Islanders.

 

I don't know why they keep being brought up when I already stated the venue situation is entirely different. Even then:

 

1. They play in a league with a fraction of the popularity of the NFL.

2. They play in a market with 2 other NHL teams, not 1.

3. They are STAYING IN the market.

 

Now for the Clippers. The Chargers aren't the Clippers for the reasons I outlined previously but let's say for argument's sake they are.

 

Let's say you guys are right, and I concede that the Chargers are destined to be the football equivalent of the Clippers.

 

That means they are destined to:

 

1. Be one of the 10 most valuable franchises in the league, and one of the most profitable.

 

2. Have a reliable fan base and move plenty of merchandise.

 

3. Be a team who is perennially top 10 in attendance in their good years and still fill over 90% capacity in their down years(looking at the last decade or so)

 

4. Stay in the market and begin planning their own stadium.

 

If that's the logic being applied here for the Chargers having a good chance of LEAVING, then I'd say merely being condescending is quite generous.

 

It's clear we have different perceptions of the market and what constitutes a successful business so I'm just going to leave it at what I've already said in the thread and let history judge who will be right.

[IceCap]

There's no shame in being the Clippers, if you don't mind being culturally irrelevant, save for jokes being made at your expense. DG already stated that a team can be very rich being the Clippers. For some teams that's enough.

[colortv]

7 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

There's no shame in being the Clippers, if you don't mind being culturally irrelevant, save for jokes being made at your expense. DG already stated that a team can be very rich being the Clippers. For some teams that's enough.

 

Of course it is.

 

As much as sports teams like to pretend otherwise, and fans tend to forget is that they are just a business at the end of the day.

 

The Chargers will print money in LA over the long-term that is what will ultimately prevent a move, especially to San Diego.

[IceCap]

1 minute ago, colortv said:

 

Of course it is.

 

As much as sports teams like to pretend otherwise, and fans tend to forget is that they are just a business at the end of the day.

 

The Chargers will print money in LA over the long-term that is what will ultimately prevent a move, especially to San Diego.

And yet we have NFL owners expressing doubts, even if unofficially. It's not as clear cut as you want to pretend it is.

[Claystation360]

This is unquestionably such a  show for the Chargers, The only light at the end of the tunnel is the fact their next home is going be an almost $4.25 billion $2.25 billion from loans, 1.6 billion from Kroenke and another 400 million sub from the league, it's gonna be the best place they've ever had. The downside is they are merely guest, they've gone into more debt making the move. ( 650 mill relocation and 200 Mill sub from the league ) which could've gone to a stadium in San Diego but that besides the point. They are the 3rd NFL team in that market, at the moment still behind the Rams & Raiders, don't forget Raiders are the only SoCal team to win a Lombardi.

 

[Claystation360]

I would imagine it's difficult to build a fanbase where your divisional rival used to be and when you alienated most of all your fans from your home of 56 seasons.  This is undoubtedly another Lakers/Clippers deal but possibly worse for the Chargers because the Clippers weren't disliked by some of LA fans they just didn't care about them. Los Angeles didn't want them in the first place they wanted the Raiders and were force fed the Chargers as was Kroenke & the Rams to make the League happy. This will probably only manage to work because of the stadium and market, but don't think if this keeps going they won't find a way out, the lease is with Kroenke and I am sure he would let Dino out with a smile and the league would be fine if another market ponied up almost a billion dollars to build a home just for the Chargers. Also Since the Raiders are getting a stadium and 700 million + from Vegas so no matter what they aren't the LA picture anytime soon.

[Cosmic]

I think the Chargers have it much tougher than the Clippers... the Rams can be a rough analogue to the Lakers, but there's also the Raiders doing the "I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!!" to LA from Las Vegas, as well as USC and UCLA pulling in 65,000+ each for their home games. There's no basketball equivalent for those. UCLA basketball gets pretty good crowds, but they're not NBA-sized.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

And yet we have NFL owners expressing doubts, even if unofficially. It's not as clear cut as you want to pretend it is.

 

Precisely. 

 

If the NFL is concerned, then just maybe we should admit there could possibly be a problem there. 

[Cosmic]

Tell me this language in a press release isn't a cry for help:

Quote

The Los Angeles Chargers announced today the start of sales for all general seating inside the new LA Stadium being built in Inglewood and opening in 2020.

Despite speculation about high ticket prices and large payments for a stadium seat license (SSL), the Chargers are offering more than 26,000 seats priced between $50 and $90 per seat, per game with an associated SSL payment of only $100 for each seat.

“We’re excited that every seat inside the new stadium is finally on sale,” said Chargers President of Business Operations A.G. Spanos. “Each decision throughout this process has been made with the fan in mind, and we think the pricing announced today reflects this fact. When you look at the pricing levels for general seating, you can confidently say there is a season ticket opportunity for just about everyone. I think this model also reflects our view that it’s not just about pricing for one person. A family of four should be able to buy season tickets for the entire family and not need a second mortgage to do so.”

 

That's the way the Bills or Bengals or Jaguars should be talking, not a NFL team in a megalopolis. I don't think Dean pitched his move to the other owners based on the need for a more affordable family option in the LA market.

[BBTV]

What's the Rams pricing for same seats?