NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

[BBTV]

I thought the warriors were definitely moving - it's not done?

[LMU]

1 minute ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I thought the warriors were definitely moving - it's not done?

I think there's pending litigation over the site's proximity to the UCSF hospital.

[dfwabel]

11 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I thought the warriors were definitely moving - it's not done?

 

10 minutes ago, LMU said:

I think there's pending litigation over the site's proximity to the UCSF hospital.

As of now, there isn't any current litigation.

 

Two weeks back, the 1st District CA Court of Appeals upheld the Warriors EIR and their opponents, the Mission Bay Alliance, has yet to decide if they will challenge the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

 

http://missionbayalliance.org/statement-by-the-mission-bay-alliance-in-response-to-the-california-court-of-appeal-first-appellate-district-ruling/

[guest23]

A quick update for those who thought the rams would be immediately embraced in LA...tickets are now going for 50% of face and the game will be lucky to hit #2 of the ratings of the 3 day games on tv.  Can't wait for the chargers to come to town and there's 2x the supply of tickets on the market and have a pair of middling franchises competing for fan relevance.

[aawagner011]

Down 42-0 going into the 4th quarter sure ain't helping.

[FlyEaglesFly76]

6 hours ago, guest23 said:

A quick update for those who thought the rams would be immediately embraced in LA...tickets are now going for 50% of face and the game will be lucky to hit #2 of the ratings of the 3 day games on tv.  Can't wait for the chargers to come to town and there's 2x the supply of tickets on the market and have a pair of middling franchises competing for fan relevance.

 

And if this was happening in St. Louis you would blame it on the on-field performance, wouldn't you?

[guest23]

23 minutes ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

 

And if this was happening in St. Louis you would blame it on the on-field performance, wouldn't you?

 

Not quite. Using stl as a proxy during the fisher era, the LA rams are doing worse on tv in their local market since the relocation. For there to be such a significant decline of interest in the 1st season was definitely not part rams or media's assumptions of relocation. It was accepted as a given fact in mainstream media, and even on these boards that a relocating rams would be a resounding success simply because they played there before and there would be an extended honeymoon because LA fans were happy to be an nfl city again. My point has always been that LA is a valuable nfl tv market but will never support a home team on a consistent basis due to the typical LA sports reasons. The whole thinking that the rams and now the chargers could just walk into LA and be embraced with open arms and pocketbooks,  because nfl football! was way off the mark.

 

In short, on a per capita basis the rams were better liked in stl. Good luck selling those $50k psl's.

[IceCap]

16 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Not quite. Using stl as a proxy during the fisher era, the LA rams are doing worse on tv in their local market since the relocation. For there to be such a significant decline of interest in the 1st season was definitely not part rams or media's assumptions of relocation. It was accepted as a given fact in mainstream media, and even on these boards that a relocating rams would be a resounding success simply because they played there before and there would be an extended honeymoon because LA fans were happy to be an nfl city again. My point has always been that LA is a valuable nfl tv market but will never support a home team on a consistent basis due to the typical LA sports reasons. The whole thinking that the rams and now the chargers could just walk into LA and be embraced with open arms and pocketbooks,  because nfl football! was way off the mark.

 

In short, on a per capita basis the rams were better liked in stl. Good luck selling those $50k psl's.

Go cry about it into your cardboard pizza with fake cheese.

[Rockstar Matt]

2 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

Not quite. Using stl as a proxy during the fisher era, the LA rams are doing worse on tv in their local market since the relocation. For there to be such a significant decline of interest in the 1st season was definitely not part rams or media's assumptions of relocation. It was accepted as a given fact in mainstream media, and even on these boards that a relocating rams would be a resounding success simply because they played there before and there would be an extended honeymoon because LA fans were happy to be an nfl city again. My point has always been that LA is a valuable nfl tv market but will never support a home team on a consistent basis due to the typical LA sports reasons. The whole thinking that the rams and now the chargers could just walk into LA and be embraced with open arms and pocketbooks,  because nfl football! was way off the mark.

 

In short, on a per capita basis the rams were better liked in stl. Good luck selling those $50k psl's.

 

Ratings have been down across the league this season... except in Los Angeles where ratings have gone up. 

 

It's going to take more than 13 games for a city to re-embrace a team that has been gone for over 20 years. In addition, the Rams have been averaging 83,000 per game. In other words, nearly 20,000 more than St. Louis could do in a sellout. 

[~Bear]

8 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

Ratings have been down across the league this season... except in Los Angeles where ratings have gone up. 

 

It's going to take more than 13 games for a city to re-embrace a team that has been gone for over 20 years. In addition, the Rams have been averaging 83,000 per game. In other words, nearly 20,000 more than St. Louis could do in a sellout. 

The ratings have gone up in LA because they can't go down if there's no NFL team...?

 

The Rams are LA's team, and they should succeed, but I don't think the Chargers are going to do well. At best they'll be the Angels and the Rams will be the Dodgers. 

[Rockstar Matt]

5 hours ago, ~Bear said:

The ratings have gone up in LA because they can't go down if there's no NFL team...?

 

The Rams are LA's team, and they should succeed, but I don't think the Chargers are going to do well. At best they'll be the Angels and the Rams will be the Dodgers. 

 

No, they've gone up precisely because there is a home NFL team now. 

 

And we agree on the Chargers. The only chance they have is to come here play football that is fun to watch, and maybe market themselves as the "Orange County" seeing as they'll be headquartered there anyways. 

 

They'll probably be the NFL's version of the Clippers though, in terms of being a clear, clear second favorite in their home city. 

[OnWis97]

52 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

No, they've gone up precisely because there is a home NFL team now. 

 

And we agree on the Chargers. The only chance they have is to come here play football that is fun to watch, and maybe market themselves as the "Orange County" seeing as they'll be headquartered there anyways. 

 

They'll probably be the NFL's version of the Clippers though, in terms of being a clear, clear second favorite in their home city. 

I think it makes total sense that any city's ratings would go up when going from no team to one team.  That, in and of itself, does not make is a success.  

[bosrs1]

On 12/9/2016 at 9:52 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

I thought the warriors were definitely moving - it's not done?

 

No they're definitely moving, it's just a matter of when. The team, UCSF hospital and city won the most recent round in court at the court of appeals level. The Mission Bay Alliance astroturf group has yet to decide if they'll appeal, but doesn't look like it'll go anywhere as they've lost resoundingly at both levels. The arena is in the planning stages in the interim.

[oldschoolvikings]

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 10:52 PM, colortv said:

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

 

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 7:49 AM, jmac11281 said:

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.

 

In this case, I'd be pretty sure "no plans to rebrand" means no name change/name left behind, like the Ravens/Browns, not necessarily no new uniform.

 

But, who knows?

[colortv]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/12/12/faa-declines-to-allow-cranes-at-inglewood-construction-site/

[JayMac]

11 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

In this case, I'd be pretty sure "no plans to rebrand" means no name change/name left behind, like the Ravens/Browns, not necessarily no new uniform.

 

But, who knows?

That could very well be. I'm not holding my breath, though. 

[bosrs1]

Looks like San Diego City Council is throwing up their hail mary to try and entice the Chargers to stay. Several members of the city council are proposing a 99 year lease at $1 a year for the entire Qualcomm Stadium site to the Chargers to develop as they see fit to offset stadium construction costs.

 

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-stadium-lease-20161212-story.html

 

It's similar to a proposal the Chargers put forward over a decade ago but the city at the time rejected.

 

[FlyEaglesFly76]

LOL. Just let them :censored:ing go. The Chargers don't care about the city, and Spanos is bad for it. It sucks to see a team move but you just gotta cut the toxic people out at some point.

[dfwabel]

FWIW, the Alameda County Supervisors voted 3-1 (1 abstention) to aporove the Lott/City of Oakland term sheet.

 

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/13/ronnie-lott-groups-plan-to-keep-the-raiders-in-oakland-comes-to-a-vote/

 

Oakland City Council meets later tonight.

[colortv]

 

Quote

 

Via Bernie Wilson of the San Diego Union-Tribune, four city council members want to offer the Chargers a 99-year, $1-annual lease at Qualcomm Stadium. That would keep the team in town under very team-friendly terms while efforts continue toward building a new stadium.

As noted by Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune, the NFL separately has been trying to come up with ideas for keeping the Chargers from leaving for L.A. This meshes with the notion, as PFT has heard in recent weeks, that Commissioner Roger Goodell is “fixated” on keeping the Chargers in San Diego.

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/12/13/san-diego-scrambles-to-save-the-chargers/

 

Quote

 

Per the source, the idea has been cobbled together by two politicians who opposed the stadium measure that failed miserably at the ballot box, Scott Sherman and Chris Cate. They didn’t present the idea to the Chargers; the team learned about it through the media.

That conduct has been viewed by owner Dean Spanos as an effort to embarrass him and his family and to deflect blame for a relocation from the politicians via a last-minute proposal that will never survive scrutiny.

“If the goal was to infuriate the single remaining decision-maker in this process, mission accomplished,” the source said.

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/12/13/dean-spanos-infuriated-by-1-annual-rent-proposal/