PaleVermilion81 Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 1 hour ago, hawk36 said: If the Chargers do move and do change their look, I wouldn't be surprised to see them think they're being "cool" and go way overboard, beyond the Bucs kind of thing. Basically their way of trying to make a splash and getting attention and, in turn, failing miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 55 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said: But the kids these days will really like it. They'll think it's keen. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29texan Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 3 hours ago, hawk36 said: If the Chargers do move and do change their look, I wouldn't be surprised to see them think they're being "cool" and go way overboard, beyond the Bucs kind of thing. Basically their way of trying to make a splash and getting attention and, in turn, failing miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 There's zero chance of that happening. Like I said earlier in the thread, Alex Spanos actually wanted to take all the lightning bolts off the uniform a couple decades ago because those were too flashy for him. The Spanos family is boring, bland and milquetoast to the core - rest assured, the Chargers (or whatever new name they adopt in LA) will never wear any wacky uniforms. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyEaglesFly76 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 2 hours ago, Lights Out said: There's zero chance of that happening. Like I said earlier in the thread, Alex Spanos actually wanted to take all the lightning bolts off the uniform a couple decades ago because those were too flashy for him. The Spanos family is boring, bland and milquetoast to the core - rest assured, the Chargers (or whatever new name they adopt in LA) will never wear any wacky uniforms. THANK GOD Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to victory... Philadelphia Eagles: NFL Champions in 1948, 1949, 1960, Super Bowl Champions in 2017-18. Philadelphia Phillies: World Series Champions in 1980 and 2008. Philadelphia 76ers: NBA Champions in 1966-67 and 1982-83. Philadelphia Flyers: Stanley Cup Champions in 1973-74, 1974-75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 13 hours ago, bosrs1 said: They're not going to jointly own it. The Chargers applied for and were granted a tenant/lease option by the NFL. They're going to be a tenant of the Rams, there is no partnership or joint ownership. I don't think we know that yet. That was Kroenke's preferred deal, but the NFL made him offer an ownership stake as part of the deal allowing him to relocate. Because the difference between a rental and an ownership stake is hundreds of millions of dollars. Only an utter fool would turn that down to be a tenant. So yeah, Spanos. But I don't think that has been confirmed beyond "Yeah, Spanos." The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 10 hours ago, Gothamite said: I don't think we know that yet. That was Kroenke's preferred deal, but the NFL made him offer an ownership stake as part of the deal allowing him to relocate. Because the difference between a rental and an ownership stake is hundreds of millions of dollars. Only an utter fool would turn that down to be a tenant. So yeah, Spanos. But I don't think that has been confirmed beyond "Yeah, Spanos." It has been confirmed by reports out of the December owners meetings. If they exercise the option to move to LA, the Chargers are going to be a tenant. You can choose to ignore the reports if you wish but there's little reason to do so. The Chargers did not ask for the partnership option. http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/NFL/2016/12/15/San-Diego-Chargers-owner-delays-decision-on-move-to-LA/2081481821199/ Quote The league's owners approved a final tenant-lease contract between the Chargers and Los Angeles Rams, who are playing their first season back in Hollywood after moving from St. Louis. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/sports/oakland-raiders-sand-diego-chargers-los-angeles-las-vegas.html?_r=0 Quote The Chargers would be a tenant in the stadium that the Rams’ owner, E. Stanley Kroenke, is building... There are plenty of similar independent reports out there saying the same thing after the December meetings. The Bolts simply do not have the money to buy in as partial owners despite what you're perceiving as benefits of doing so. They already had to get a debt waiver from the league just to take on the debt beyond the team limit to finance the relocation fee. They simply do not have the capital or even the ability to finance a buy in as partners in the stadium. They're one of the most financially strapped of all NFL ownership groups which is the primary reason they're in this mess in the first place just like the Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 48 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: It has been confirmed by reports out of the December owners meetings. If they exercise the option to move to LA, the Chargers are going to be a tenant. You can choose to ignore the reports if you wish but there's little reason to do so. The Chargers did not ask for the partnership option. http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/NFL/2016/12/15/San-Diego-Chargers-owner-delays-decision-on-move-to-LA/2081481821199/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/sports/oakland-raiders-sand-diego-chargers-los-angeles-las-vegas.html?_r=0 There are plenty of similar independent reports out there saying the same thing after the December meetings. The Bolts simply do not have the money to buy in as partial owners despite what you're perceiving as benefits of doing so. They already had to get a debt waiver from the league just to take on the debt beyond the team limit to finance the relocation fee. They simply do not have the capital or even the ability to finance a buy in as partners in the stadium. They're one of the most financially strapped of all NFL ownership groups which is the primary reason they're in this mess in the first place just like the Raiders. OITGDNHL. I'm amazed at how "cash-strapped" Spanos is...something clearly doesn't add up. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 9 minutes ago, WSU151 said: OITGDNHL. I'm amazed at how "cash-strapped" Spanos is...something clearly doesn't add up. Why are you amazed? Their primary source of money is the Chargers. The entire Spanos family including Alex, Dean, and Dean's kids only has a net worth of $1.2 billion by estimates. Of which approximately $995 million is tied up in the Chargers. They're not quite as cash strapped as Mark Davis (at least not collectively), but they're not Kroneke, Allen, Kraft, Jones, etc... And unlike those owners they don't have substantial non-NFL holdings anymore. And unlike the similarly financially situated old guard owners who aren't in trouble, they weren't able to bilk their town for a free, or near free stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 13 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: Why are you amazed? Their primary source of money is the Chargers. The entire Spanos family including Alex, Dean, and Dean's kids only has a net worth of $1.2 billion by estimates. Of which approximately $995 million is tied up in the Chargers. They're not quite as cash strapped as Mark Davis (at least not collectively), but they're not Kroneke, Allen, Kraft, Jones, etc... And unlike those owners they don't have substantial non-NFL holdings anymore. The team's valuation is $995M (and Forbes has the team valued at >$2B as of September 2016) -- that's a notional amount, and it certainly doesn't seem to indicate low cash flow. Not many businesses with bad cash flows have valuations that high. The team's annual net income (after taxes, debt, depreciation) has to be considerable. It's operating income is pretty big ($60M, according to Forbes). Net income definitely can't be small, given historically high revenues, the CBA, and operating profits in comparable markets. Alex Spanos must have a great accountant to claim he doesn't have money. The team's "rent" to the city is $3M, but that includes game-day revenue and property taxes, so $3M for a company that has $300M-$400M in total revenue is peanuts. This is a guy that rejected the $99 rent, so clearly it's not about the money. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 9 minutes ago, WSU151 said: The team's valuation is $995M (and Forbes has the team valued at >$2B as of September 2016) -- that's a notional amount, and it certainly doesn't seem to indicate low cash flow. Not many businesses with bad cash flows have valuations that high. The team's annual net income (after taxes, debt, depreciation) has to be considerable. It's operating income is pretty big ($60M, according to Forbes). Net income definitely can't be small, given historically high revenues, the CBA, and operating profits in comparable markets. Alex Spanos must have a great accountant to claim he doesn't have money. The team's "rent" to the city is $3M, but that includes game-day revenue and property taxes, so $3M for a company that has $300M-$400M in total revenue is peanuts. This is a guy that rejected the $99 rent, so clearly it's not about the money. I think it's a matter of money they have on hand. Remember they're financing a $600 million relocation right now. Well beyond the debt limit most teams are permitted. They'd have to finance any partnership with Kroenke which would have them essentially mortgage the team up to its current valuation. But regardless of the actual numbers the original point still stands, the Chargers are not partnering with Kroenke be it for financial or personal reasons (reportedly Spanos hates Kroenke). They will simply be a tenant of his per the terms of the agreement outlined last January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 3 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: I think it's a matter of money they have on hand. Remember they're financing a $600 million relocation right now. Well beyond the debt limit most teams are permitted. They'd have to finance any partnership with Kroenke which would have them essentially mortgage the team up to its current valuation. But regardless of the actual numbers the original point still stands, the Chargers are not partnering with Kroenke be it for financial or personal reasons (reportedly Spanos hates Kroenke). They will simply be a tenant of his per the terms of the agreement outlined last January. I hear you, bosrs1, and I'm not really arguing with you per se...I'm more just amazed by Spanos' decisions. Seems like he could make way more money by financing his own stadium in San Diego (financing was probably not as big an issue as he proclaimed) and add far more value to his net worth. Seems like being a tenant to a guy he reportedly hates is just wildly short-sighted. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 1 hour ago, WSU151 said: I hear you, bosrs1, and I'm not really arguing with you per se...I'm more just amazed by Spanos' decisions. Seems like he could make way more money by financing his own stadium in San Diego (financing was probably not as big an issue as he proclaimed) and add far more value to his net worth. Seems like being a tenant to a guy he reportedly hates is just wildly short-sighted. Welcome to following the Chargers... They're a contender for most poorly managed sports team in North America. Top 3 for sure. Their ownership is short sighted, cheap, completely out of tune with their market, delusional, has no clue how to win (on or off field), and frankly if they did nothing it would be an improvement over their current management scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoopsCoach55 Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 1 hour ago, bosrs1 said: Welcome to following San Diego Pro Sports... They're a contender for most poorly managed sports team in North America. Top 3 for sure. Their ownership is short sighted, cheap, completely out of tune with their market, delusional, has no clue how to win (on or off field), and frankly if they did nothing it would be an improvement over their current management scheme. Fixed for the sad truth..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pauly Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Boy at this point with the relocation fee/financing being such an Achilles heal money would be better spent refurbishing Qualcomm Stadium and staying put.To move and take on the financial burden of relocation plus two years in a stadium without skyboxes assuming it's the LA coliseum you'd be nuts to move."What time you want the moving trucks there Mr Spanos?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Does anyone know why Spanos was so "offended" by the city offering him the stadium land for $1/yr for 99 years? Seems on the surface that's a no brainer to take and make a ton of money. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrypep Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 5 hours ago, hawk36 said: Does anyone know why Spanos was so "offended" by the city offering him the stadium land for $1/yr for 99 years? Seems on the surface that's a no brainer to take and make a ton of money. It was an extreme reaction based on the two councilmen who made the offer (Cate and Sherman) being such high-profile opponents to the downtown site. Maybe he felt they were gloating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 So what will be the turn out at Qualcomm this Sunday? Packed house to say goodbye, or half empty to save "Eff you"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 16 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said: So what will be the turn out at Qualcomm this Sunday? Packed house to say goodbye, or half empty to save "Eff you"? Packed house because football, but openly booing the crap out of them and any mention of a move Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrypep Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, dont care said: Packed house because football, but openly booing the crap out of them and any mention of a move Plus a lot of KC fans too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.