STL FANATIC Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 2 hours ago, TheOldRoman said: The Chargers are a worse organization than the Rams. I'm curious how you would back that up. About the only way to do so is putting a huge amount of stock in a 3-5 year stretch from over a decade ago. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 39 minutes ago, STL FANATIC said: I'm curious how you would back that up. About the only way to do so is putting a huge amount of stock in a 3-5 year stretch from over a decade ago. The Rams have been cutting corners, I'm sure, but they at least seem like they're going in the right direction. They have a really good defense, and one of these years they might put something together and make the playoffs. I don't know if they're on the verge of greatness, but they're on the verge of goodness. The Chargers, meanwhile, are a dumpster fire outside of their quarterback, who's pretty old. They are nowhere close to the playoffs. Also, it seems like the Rams were intentionally mismanaged to help relocation. Meanwhile, the Chargers tried their best and are still the same Chargers owned by Spanos. In the last decade they blew the primes of one of the best RB and TE of all time, and that was after the specter of their failure chased off Eli Manning. Spanos ownership is like later Al Davis ownership. If the team is good, it will be purely accidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 52 minutes ago, STL FANATIC said: I'm curious how you would back that up. About the only way to do so is putting a huge amount of stock in a 3-5 year stretch from over a decade ago. One of these two organizations used to employ a GM who was infamously nicknamed "The Lord of No Rings" because of his propensity to make bad personnel decisions and general arrogance. It turns out that, in retrospect, he knew more about what he was doing than his successor. This organization is not the Rams organization, just as an FYI. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 4 hours ago, TheOldRoman said: I've also been saying this for while. LA wanted the Rams back as much or more than they wanted the NFL. LA doesn't really care about the Chargers. Not only did the Rams get the outpouring of love for returning home, but they beat the Chargers to it (by at least a year). The LA Chargers would be a disaster. Spanos wanted to move to LA and was willing to take the Raiders with him just to block the Rams. But when the owners sided with Kroenke, Spanos's path was set to return to San Diego. He wasn't going to go to LA on anybody else's terms. And as much of an afterthought as the LA Chargers would have been in 2016, they'll be twice as much in 2017. Spanos knows this. He was ready to move to LA with the Raiders immediately, but as soon as he found out he'd have to play in Kroenke's stadium, he suddenly needed more time to give it a college try in San Diego. He'll posture a whole lot, but the SD government is willing, so something will get done and he'll reluctantly take a stadium deal in San Diego. Not that I'm arguing, but why would the Chargers be any less of an afterthought being with the Raiders as opposed to the Rams? The Raiders had- and still have- a massive following in LA, not to mention one of the best brands in sports. Wouldn't they actually be worse off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Yeah, the Raiders are their own thing, and they'd succeed in a lot of different places. I'd imagine a large number of the people going to games in Oakland also went to/would go to games in LA. The Raiders were never going to be more than a niche team in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 14 minutes ago, Kaz said: Raiders have a lot of haters; there's a sizable portion of LA fans who despise the Raiders and would support either local non-Raider option. Since the Rams are in town, that niche is filled and the Chargers would be royally screwed trying to build a fanbase. Also, quite frankly, the Raiders pull from a lower income demographic so they'd be playing catch up just getting fans that could afford tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkJourney Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Even still you would probably get more Raiders fans outnumbering Chargers fans for a Los Angeles Chargers vs. Oakland/San Diego/San Antonio/Las Vegas/Bakersfield/Fresno Raiders game in the LA Coliseum and eventually Kroenke Field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/Chargers-Plan-for-San-Diego-Stadium-Comes-to-Light-367238731.html Good breakdown of what and WHEN the Chargers need to get done in order to have something on the November ballot. I also really think the LA market has a big enough population to easily sustain two teams regardless of the Rams coming first. The Clippers are in the same city as the Yankees of basketball and they've always gotten enough business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh.0 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Looks like the Raiders are negotiating with Oakland on a one year contract for the Coliseum. Lurking and waiting to see what the Chargers do I guess? http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14694084/oakland-raiders-owner-mark-davis-says-team-negotiating-remain-oakland-oco-coliseum-2016-season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ltjets21 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Mark Davis' net worth is listed at 500 million dollars.. How could he try to scare Oakland with the thought of relocation when he does not even have the cash to fund a move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 He can't really, unless San Diego's stadium project looks like it might happen. So long as Kroenke's guest room is available, he has a place to go. Once that's gone, then his options diminish rapidly to whatever city has a stadium he can use, because paying off that $550M relocation fee won't leave much cash free for hefty mortgage payments. When does the G4 program run out of money? I know we've talked about that but can't remember. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Gothamite said: He can't really, unless San Diego's stadium project looks like it might happen. So long as Kroenke's guest room is available, he has a place to go. Once that's gone, then his options diminish rapidly to whatever city has a stadium he can use, because paying off that $550M relocation fee won't leave much cash free for hefty mortgage payments. When does the G4 program run out of money? I know we've talked about that but can't remember. It basically "runs out of money" when the NFLPA stops approving the owners to take money off the top. http://media.signonsandiego.com/news/documents/2011/12/14/NFL_on_its_new_stadium_loan_program.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Ah, thanks. I remembered that the G3 program had finite resources, but G4 does not have a "pre-established funding capacity". The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 23 hours ago, ltjets21 said: Mark Davis' net worth is listed at 500 million dollars.. How could he try to scare Oakland with the thought of relocation when he does not even have the cash to fund a move? Finance is a little more complicated than that. He can finance the relocation fee over 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 16 minutes ago, colortv said: Finance is a little more complicated than that. He can finance the relocation fee over 10 years. And it also won't be $550 million to relocate anywhere but Los Angeles. $300 million, tops, to go anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 With the Rams in place, can the Chargers still claim Los Angeles as a secondary television market and require all their road games to be aired? I know one of the things people liked about no team in Los Angeles was that they got the "best" games every week. With Fox mostly tied up with Rams games, maybe CBS will be able to carry the best AFC games instead of the Chargers. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 5 hours ago, Mac the Knife said: And it also won't be $550 million to relocate anywhere but Los Angeles. $300 million, tops, to go anywhere else. We don't know that. Especially if the NFL really wants the Raiders to stay in the Bay Area, that $500M could be used to de-incentivize a move anywhere else. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gothamite said: We don't know that. Especially if the NFL really wants the Raiders to stay in the Bay Area, that $500M could be used to de-incentivize a move anywhere else. I'm basing this presumption on past practice... the NFL has historically set relocation fees based on the change in markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 The NFL wants a second team in a wealthy region and no more Davises. A move to Las Vegas would be the opposite of both. Relocation fee: $1 billion ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 2 hours ago, Mac the Knife said: I'm basing this presumption on past practice... the NFL has historically set relocation fees based on the change in markets. Right, but historical performance is no indicator of future results. Obviously if an owner stands to increase revenues by $1b over 10 years by moving to say LA vs $500M by moving to LV, then $500M sounds "reasonable" for the LA move while maybe $250M is more reasonable for the LV move, but unless there's a black-and-white guideline for this (which we have learned there is not), they can do exactly what Admiral said, and set the fee at eleventy bajillion moon dollars and dare him to cut them a check. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.