NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Probably every single other relocation is because the city wants the new team. The Chargers are relocating because everyone in the NFL over the past 20 years got used to the idea of LA being an inexhaustible goldmine waiting to be tapped.

 

Frankly I'm hoping this ends up being a turning point that pops the balloon that has become the NFL's arrogance and growth. They've become too big for their own good. The fact they'd even allow a move that they as a league don't want, the owners collectively don't want, the cities they're moving the team from and to doesn't want, the majority of that team's fans in both cities don't want, hell that the majority of the organization that is moving doesn't want... just reeks of a desperation move of a league that is starting to lose control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What an amazing article.      He wasn’t wrong.    And then there’s this:     What a putz.  

You can't do a movie reference about how you're triumphantly not going anywhere when three years ago you just cowardly went somewhere

LA Galaxy to remain StubHub Center's priority, not NFL's Chargers     I never thought I would live to see an MLS team take priority over an NFL team when sharing a stadium together. 

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Frankly I'm hoping this ends up being a turning point that pops the balloon that has become the NFL's arrogance and growth. They've become too big for their own good. The fact they'd even allow a move that they as a league don't want, the owners collectively don't want, the cities they're moving the team from and to doesn't want, the majority of that team's fans in both cities don't want, hell that the majority of the organization that is moving doesn't want... just reeks of a desperation move of a league that is starting to lose control.

I'm also hoping for a gong show, honestly. This may the biggest and most blatant example of the league telling the fans what they want. It deserves to fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cosmic said:

I'm also hoping for a gong show, honestly. This may the biggest and most blatant example of the league telling the fans what they want. It deserves to fail.

 

Well I mean we all know pro sports is a business, yadda yadda, but if nothing else this move puts the NFL on another level above the NBA and NHL in terms of not giving a rats ass about their fans. (And we already know they didn't give a crap about their players).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real fault in this belongs to the league. They gave the Spanos clan a get out of jail free card instead of requiring another vote that would account for a changed situation.

 

You can't expect a cat to stay in a yard unfed relying on ear scratches when there's a bowl of mediocre store brand kibble at the vacant house next door.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LMU said:

The real fault in this belongs to the league. They gave the Spanos clan a get out of jail free card instead of requiring another vote that would account for a changed situation.

 

Is there relocation that the league would vote against at this point? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Nyk33 said:

 

Is there relocation that the league would vote against at this point? 

 

Frankly I think they'd have voted against this one had it come up again. After the Rams mediocre entry into the market they would not have rushed a second team into LA and would have told Dean to cool his heels in San Diego a few more years and same for Mark Davis if he'd wanted LA. Instead they gave Dean free reign to move and then gave him added impetus to do so with the knowledge if he didn't rush his team half assed to LA like he did, Mark Davis was going to rush his team to LA instead leaving Dean with no LA leverage in SD and no real options outside SD except maybe picking up the pieces of the Vegas deal (which holds much less appeal to the Chargers then it does a more "national" brand like the Raiders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Frankly I think they'd have voted against this one had it come up again. After the Rams mediocre entry into the market they would not have rushed a second team into LA and would have told Dean to cool his heels in San Diego a few more year and same for Mark Davis if he'd wanted LA. Instead they gave Dean free reign to move and then gave him added impetus to do so with the knowledge if he didn't rush his team half assed to LA like he did, Mark Davis was going to rush his team to LA instead leaving Dean with no LA leverage in SD and no real options outside SD except maybe picking up the pieces of the Vegas deal (which holds much less appeal to the Chargers then it does a more "national" brand like the Raiders.

 

The LA deal has just been a cluster. First, the NFL used the open LA market to squeeze stadiums out of almost every city available. Then, when two competing 'visions' for moving to LA happened (Rams by themselves or Chargers/Raiders), the league liked the Rams stadium idea better, but for whatever reason decided to, in one meeting, arrange for the Chargers and Raiders (in that order) the option to join the Rams in their stadium.

 

Now, since they gave the Chargers one full year before giving them the ultimatum, it created a lame duck year in San Diego when it was clear from the get-go that San Diego was not going to bend to the will of the Chargers, and they had essentially determined that no stadium option by San Diego was going to be make them stay. And by giving the Raiders the second choice, it basically forced the Chargers to choose: you get LA or you get another regional competitor in LA.

The Chargers didn't exactly negotiate in good faith with SD (just as the Rams didn't) because they wanted LA, but the NFL could have nipped this in the bud back when they agreed to let the Rams move. Just say no to Raiders and Chargers, and maybe Spanos would've taken the San Diego deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

 

The LA deal has just been a cluster. First, the NFL used the open LA market to squeeze stadiums out of almost every city available. Then, when two competing 'visions' for moving to LA happened (Rams by themselves or Chargers/Raiders), the league liked the Rams stadium idea better, but for whatever reason decided to, in one meeting, arrange for the Chargers and Raiders (in that order) the option to join the Rams in their stadium.

 

Now, since they gave the Chargers one full year before giving them the ultimatum, it created a lame duck year in San Diego when it was clear from the get-go that San Diego was not going to bend to the will of the Chargers, and they had essentially determined that no stadium option by San Diego was going to be make them stay. And by giving the Raiders the second choice, it basically forced the Chargers to choose: you get LA or you get another regional competitor in LA.

The Chargers didn't exactly negotiate in good faith with SD (just as the Rams didn't) because they wanted LA, but the NFL could have nipped this in the bud back when they agreed to let the Rams move. Just say no to Raiders and Chargers, and maybe Spanos would've taken the San Diego deal.

 

I think that's the issue, they didn't like the Rams idea better. Going into the meeting last January the consensus was that the league as a whole liked the joint Chargers/Raiders plan in Carson better than the Inglewood plan. And on top of that they felt that two of the longer tenured family ownership groups who had two of the most dilapidated stadiums in the league in two California cities in a state unwilling to provide much if any public funding toward a replacement should get first crack over the guy in a mid-western market that had a big public offering on the table to replace his 1995 vintage stadium. But then Kroenke came in with his minority of the owners backing and pulled an Al Davis. His preso was "this is what I'm doing, approval or no-approval so either get on board or I'll sue your asses, win, and do it anyway." By many accounts I've read of last year Kroenke basically strong armed the league into approving Inglewood. Which is why the resulting compromise deal with the Chargers and Raiders that made little sense, and has proven to be a disaster in practice, was hurriedly created and approved along side the Inglewood move.

 

If they'd had more than a few hours to come up with it I'd bet dollars to donuts they'd have made LA a one team market for the time being and focused more on getting Dean settled in San Diego if possible. With Davis he already had Vegas cooking back then so there was far less urgency to help him out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I think that's the issue, they didn't like the Rams idea better. Going into the meeting last January the consensus was that the league as a whole liked the joint Chargers/Raiders plan in Carson better than the Inglewood plan. And on top of that they felt that two of the longer tenured family ownership groups who had two of the most dilapidated stadiums in the league in two California cities in a state unwilling to provide much if any public funding toward a replacement should get first crack over the guy in a mid-western market that had a big public offering on the table to replace his 1995 vintage stadium. But then Kroenke came in with his minority of the owners backing and pulled an Al Davis. His preso was "this is what I'm doing, approval or no-approval so either get on board or I'll sue your asses, win, and do it anyway." By many accounts I've read of last year Kroenke basically strong armed the league into approving Inglewood. Which is why the resulting compromise deal with the Chargers and Raiders that made little sense, and has proven to be a disaster in practice, was hurriedly created and approved along side the Inglewood move.

 

If they'd had more than a few hours to come up with it I'd bet dollars to donuts they'd have made LA a one team market for the time being and focused more on getting Dean settled in San Diego if possible. With Davis he already had Vegas cooking back then so there was far less urgency to help him out.

Yeah, a lot of owners have done that. Which is why almost every relocation is approved. Davis did it moving the Raiders back to Oakland.

 

And, I agree on the Raiders. They had Las Vegas already in talks while they were trying for LA (plus inklings of San Antonio as well). I think, either way, they were moving from Oakland. It was just a matter of which one they got. I don't think the Raiders thought they'd be the 'second tenant' in LA. If it were Raiders/Chargers, the Raiduhs would definitely be the most popular team in LA. And I do believe Kroenke didn't want the Raiders in LA as there is still a sizable fanbase and it was sure to increase if they returned. So, agreeing to the NFL's plan to allow the Chargers was an easy agreement to get the NFL to okay the Rams stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Yeah, a lot of owners have done that. Which is why almost every relocation is approved. Davis did it moving the Raiders back to Oakland.

 

And, I agree on the Raiders. They had Las Vegas already in talks while they were trying for LA (plus inklings of San Antonio as well). I think, either way, they were moving from Oakland. It was just a matter of which one they got. I don't think the Raiders thought they'd be the 'second tenant' in LA. If it were Raiders/Chargers, the Raiduhs would definitely be the most popular team in LA. And I do believe Kroenke didn't want the Raiders in LA as there is still a sizable fanbase and it was sure to increase if they returned. So, agreeing to the NFL's plan to allow the Chargers was an easy agreement to get the NFL to okay the Rams stadium.

 

Yep. And by putting the Chargers first before the Raiders the NFL headed off any issue of honking off Kroenke by having the weaker of the two "second" teams come in behind him. I mean if the Raiders were moving into LA next season it would immediately overshadow the Rams. The Raiders fan base remains the most popular in LA (arguably more so than even the Rams at present). They'd have immediately come in and been top dog, particularly with them fielding a winning team on top of everything else. The Chargers on the other hand are about as irrelevant and non-threatening of a second team as the Rams could have hoped for this side of the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Yep. And by putting the Chargers first before the Raiders the NFL headed off any issue of honking off Kroenke by having the weaker of the two "second" teams come in behind him. I mean if the Raiders were moving into LA next season it would immediately overshadow the Rams. The Raiders fan base remains the most popular in LA (arguably more so than even the Rams at present). They'd have immediately come in and been top dog, particularly with them fielding a winning team on top of everything else. The Chargers on the other hand are about as irrelevant and non-threatening of a second team as the Rams could have hoped for this side of the Jacksonville Jaguars.

If that's really what they did it was pretty stupid.  Yeah, the Rams may prefer the Chargers to be there over the Raiders, but does anyone else win in this scenario?  The Chargers are going to be jealous of the Clippers.  LA fans that may have embraced the Raiders get a team they'll ignore.  Vegas fans, I suppose...but a possible scenario would be the Raiders to LA and if the Charger never get it done in San Diego, they go to Vegas...Vegas fans would be roughly as happy and the LA situation would make much more sense.

 

I have an affinity for the San Diego Chargers (and if I ever make a drastic move, it would be to San Diego) and I know you want them there, but forgetting that...this is just outrageously stupid.  Yeah, if they don't get a stadium deal done soon, they'd be gone...I accept that. At least I accept it if they go to a place that wants them.

 

Why would the league want a second team to be ignored and mocked?  They're better off with just one team in LA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just occurred to me - when the Chargers officially leave San Diego that will make San Diego the only city in Major League Baseball that doesn't havea team representing the city in another sport in the NFL, NBA, or NHL.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

If that's really what they did it was pretty stupid.  Yeah, the Rams may prefer the Chargers to be there over the Raiders, but does anyone else win in this scenario?  The Chargers are going to be jealous of the Clippers.  LA fans that may have embraced the Raiders get a team they'll ignore.  Vegas fans, I suppose...but a possible scenario would be the Raiders to LA and if the Charger never get it done in San Diego, they go to Vegas...Vegas fans would be roughly as happy and the LA situation would make much more sense.

 

I have an affinity for the San Diego Chargers (and if I ever make a drastic move, it would be to San Diego) and I know you want them there, but forgetting that...this is just outrageously stupid.  Yeah, if they don't get a stadium deal done soon, they'd be gone...I accept that. At least I accept it if they go to a place that wants them.

 

Why would the league want a second team to be ignored and mocked?  They're better off with just one team in LA.

 

I think it all goes back to Kroenke. They were saddled with an owner who not only had the will to railroad the league, but being as wealthy as he is, he had the means. And by doing so he undercut the league's logical alternative which was the Raiders/Chargers plan. And the end result we have is what they deemed the next best thing on such short notice last year. The Raiders getting first crack was a bad thing for them because having 3 teams in SoCal limited the Chargers limited SD market even further and undercut the Rams severely given the Raiders popularity in LA. Throwing the Chargers and Raiders no bone with no option for LA at all wasn't an option as it took any leverage against SD and Oakland away and could lead to an owner revolt (which the Davis family has proven very adept at doing). So this is what they came up with. It ultimately was a flawed solution, but given they had about 24 hours to come up with it, it was the best solution they had at the time. What they didn't count on too was that I think Spanos was already done with SD last year. He wanted LA, the fact he moved his team up there despite the obvious and now apparent pitfalls of having done so is obvious. Spanos' Measure C in San Diego was a joke from the get go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

This just occurred to me - when the Chargers officially leave San Diego that will make San Diego the only city in Major League Baseball that doesn't havea team representing the city in another sport in the NFL, NBA, or NHL.

 

 

 

Well there's no "when." The Chargers have already left. But yes you are correct. San Diego is the only one sport city (among the Big 4) where the one sport is MLB. Though hopefully MLS will be coming to join them soon as it's definitely in the works and has been for some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another day, another embarrassment for the LA Chargers...

 

This was to their select "invitation only" event welcoming the team to LA after they had to abort their larger "fan rally" due to general lack of interest on the part of NFL fans in LA and concerns someone would disrupt it...

 

 

Glad someone got a word in edgewise because Spanos apparently put the press where even they wouldn't be able to effectively ask questions during this event.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well there's no "when." The Chargers have already left. But yes you are correct. San Diego is the only one sport city (among the Big 4) where the one sport is MLB. Though hopefully MLS will be coming to join them soon as it's definitely in the works and has been for some time.

 

FWIW, The Warriors broke ground on their new San Francisco arena yesterday, so it looks like both of your teams/areas could become "baseball only" before too long. 

 

I think you're cursed :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, LMU said:

They did have this going for them though:

 

 

 

To be fair this was an invitation only event. So there's a high probability most of those guys were actors, or at the very least people Dean thought he could depend on to do that. And there were less than 200 people there total from what I'm hearing, including media.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

FWIW, The Warriors broke ground on their new San Francisco arena yesterday, so it looks like both of your teams/areas could become "baseball only" before too long. 

 

I think you're cursed :) 

 

The Warriors are and will remain a Bay Area team so they're not really moving. This is just moving around their existing market, such as if the Chargers had moved from San Diego to Chula Vista or Oceanside (as they explored a few years ago). Plus it's not like the Bay Area doesn't have the Sharks, Niners, Giants, and Earthquakes as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.