Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

The Chargers couldn't even fill a soccer stadium with their own fans, not even when they went 12-4 and won a playoff game. Pretending that the relocation hasn't been a disaster of epic proportions is sticking your head in the sand. And claiming it "takes time to build a fanbase" is just an excuse. The Spanos family are incapable of building a fanbase because they have no appreciation for anyone who supports their team. Just ask the pre-built fanbase they used to have in San Diego.

 

Comparing their situation to the Clippers is also foolish. LA is a basketball town far more than an NFL town. Being the "second" NBA team in LA is less of an uphill battle than being the "second" NFL team. The Clippers also brought the unique selling point of cheaper tickets that allowed blue-collar families to enjoy NBA games live. In contrast, going to a Chargers game is more expensive than going to see actually successful franchises like the Niners, Ravens and Colts.

 

Moving the team back to San Diego with new ownership is a no-brainer. The Chargers have no future in LA, it's been an obvious failure from minute one and there's no reason to expect anything to change. They are not reaping the benefits of the larger market; they're a whopping 21st on the Forbes NFL valuation list, pretty much where they were in San Diego. It was a pointless relocation that nobody asked for and it was doomed to fail.

In my opinion, what the Chargers needed (outside of never moving to LA to begin with) to succeed in the LA market was completely re-brand from top to bottom, even ditching the iconic colors. Giving Los Angelinos an entirely "new" NFL team that didn't feel like a hand-me-down from another market would've been a significant move to garner public support over the Rams, who still have the stench of St. Louis on them. They also get a full reset to build a new generation of younger fans and tailor the brand to the LA market in particular, whereas the Rams brand still feels bland. Heck, it worked with the Tennessee Oilers' failure in Memphis and complete re-brand to the Titans upon the move to Nashville. Sometimes, classic team names just don't resonate.

 

If you think this couldn't succeed look at LAFC, which attacked a dominant force in the LA Galaxy and has thrived simply on the presence of a new brand.

59d079d580ab2_SL.netbannercopy.gif.b34a0491e0c5e4344fa6fc764ec2043e.gif

NYC x STL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
49 minutes ago, mattr1198 said:

If you think this couldn't succeed look at LAFC, which attacked a dominant force in the LA Galaxy and has thrived simply on the presence of a new brand.


This isn’t a great analogy. LA already had a second soccer team in Chivas which had a substantial fan base that hated the Galaxy and were basically promised a second franchise after the first folded. 
 

Joining a league in which you’ve already got a fan base lined up that sincerely was excited about getting a new team isn’t the same as the Chargers, who basically nobody asked for. Rebranding to the Monrovia Silver Stars wouldn’t have done anything for them.

I've got a dribbble, check it out if you like my stuff; alternatively, if you hate my stuff, send it to your enemies to punish their insolence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, mattr1198 said:

If you think this couldn't succeed look at LAFC, which attacked a dominant force in the LA Galaxy and has thrived simply on the presence of a new brand.

LAFC isn't third fiddle in their own city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I had the right idea in making the LA/SD markets reciprocal such that each had full television/marketing rights to the other but not letting the Chargers physically move up the coast. Make it kind of a Redskins/Ravens scenario but over more space. Los Angeles isn't a two-team market, but maybe it's a one-and-a-half-team market?

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a shame that when the Chargers were interested in building something in Mission Valley (a stadium financed with revenues from an adjoining transit-oriented commercial/residential development), the city wasn't interested (to the city's credit, they were dealing with a pension funding crisis).

 

spacer.png

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/city-county-left-only-with-general-funds-to-offer-nfl-gods/

 

I suppose, based on polling and election results, the populace in San Diego has never been interested in a new Chargers venue.  I'm not an expert in California politics, but I wonder if a new San Diego stadium could have been built without a public referendum, the same way the Angels' stadium deals in Anaheim have always been without a public referendum.

8557127226_fbd001ef58_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chargers shouldn't have moved to LA, they were a distant third in the market out of the three teams that could have potentially moved there. The Raiders are leaving the state and they'll still have a larger fanbase in LA compared to the Chargers.

The move was a mistake, and rebranding would be an even bigger mistake. I know some of you desperately want the Arena Football Los Angeles Avengers in the NFL, but it was never happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the problem with getting a stadium in San Diego built was that all the proposals were too ambitious by half. The proposal you showed up there has the Chargers building some sort of extensive mixed-use development around the stadium, as if all the new stadium plans for mixed-use development around stadiums have ever delivered close to what they've promised. Did anyone want this or need this? Who wants to live next to a football stadium, anyway? It doesn't do anything but be annoying. Another one was that they were going to play at a "convadium" that would combine the stadium with a new convention center, i.e., St. Louis but with excellent weather, and St. Louis was such a delightful gameday experience that the Rams left for Los Angeles and carried the Chargers there with them.

 

It's like the how the Calgary Flames wanted to build a hockey arena that would attach to an indoor football stadium. At some point, you have to understand your mid-market status and just think in terms of getting to the finish line, you know? Everyone doesn't get to think big. Los Angeles can think big, New York and Washington could but don't, Chicago didn't think at all, Green Bay kinda did but in a town that small anything is thinking big. Football stadiums are stupid, they're terrible investments (that's why team owners generally don't build them and shirk them off on us), far more often than not they sit empty for 200+ days a year no matter how hard you try to fill them with other stuff, so don't outthink yourself. Just build a big bowl with seatbacks, parking, functioning plumbing, and luxury suites where the minibars give blowjobs, and get it done, geez.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

I think part of the problem with getting a stadium in San Diego built was that all the proposals were too ambitious by half. The proposal you showed up there has the Chargers building some sort of extensive mixed-use development around the stadium, as if all the new stadium plans for mixed-use development around stadiums have ever delivered close to what they've promised. Did anyone want this or need this? Who wants to live next to a football stadium, anyway? It doesn't do anything but be annoying. Another one was that they were going to play at a "convadium" that would combine the stadium with a new convention center, i.e., St. Louis but with excellent weather, and St. Louis was such a delightful gameday experience that the Rams left for Los Angeles and carried the Chargers there with them.

 

It's like the how the Calgary Flames wanted to build a hockey arena that would attach to an indoor football stadium. At some point, you have to understand your mid-market status and just think in terms of getting to the finish line, you know? Everyone doesn't get to think big. Los Angeles can think big, New York and Washington could but don't, Chicago didn't think at all, Green Bay kinda did but in a town that small anything is thinking big. Football stadiums are stupid, they're terrible investments (that's why team owners generally don't build them and shirk them off on us), far more often than not they sit empty for 200+ days a year no matter how hard you try to fill them with other stuff, so don't outthink yourself. Just build a big bowl with seatbacks, parking, functioning plumbing, and luxury suites where the minibars give blowjobs, and get it done, geez.

 

Rightly or wrongly, the best way to finance a stadium in San Diego County would have been with a real estate development on public land.  Unlike most teams in the NFL, California teams have rarely been successful getting tax revenue to pay for construction (the Chargers final attempt was a failed hotel tax).

 

The Packers, for example, got $300 million from a sales tax increase (albeit via referendum).  The Bears got approximately $400 million from a hotel tax.  Yet the Packers and McCaskeys don't receive much criticism for those deals because they're considered to be the industry standard.

 

I agree that stadiums should be designed to be simpler.  The fact that SoFi Stadium was going to be constructed without public money and 100 feet below grade (due to the proximity to LAX) would have been a wonderful excuse for the architects to design a value-driven "Lambeau West" with suites behind a single bowl rather than a stadium with seven vertical elements within the bowl.

 

spacer.png

 

Building a simpler bowl also would have precluded the need for the overpriced double-sided scoreboard hanging from the roof.

In the end, those of us who like the Chargers are getting a remarkable stadium on someone else's dime.  As far as I'm concerned, we lucked out.

True, it is roughly as far from Mission Valley as Milwaukee County Stadium was from Lambeau Field (about 120 miles), but the franchise didn't have any great alternatives.

8557127226_fbd001ef58_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, doctorpeligro said:

 

Rightly or wrongly, the best way to finance a stadium in San Diego County would have been with a real estate development on public land.  Unlike most teams in the NFL, California teams have rarely been successful getting tax revenue to pay for construction (the Chargers final attempt was a failed hotel tax).

 

The Packers, for example, got $300 million from a sales tax increase (albeit via referendum).  The Bears got approximately $400 million from a hotel tax.  Yet the Packers and McCaskeys don't receive much criticism for those deals because they're considered to be the industry standard.

 

I agree that stadiums should be designed to be simpler.  The fact that SoFi Stadium was going to be constructed without public money and 100 feet below grade (due to the proximity to LAX) would have been a wonderful excuse for the architects to design "Lambeau West" with suites behind a single bowl rather than a venue with seven vertical elements within the bowl.

 

spacer.png

 

Building a simpler bowl also would have precluded the need for the overpriced double-sided scoreboard hanging from the roof.

In the end, those of use who like the Chargers are getting a remarkable stadium on someone else's dime.  As far as I'm concerned, we lucked out.

True, it is roughly as far from Mission Valley as Milwaukee County Stadium was from Lambeau Field (about 120 miles), but the franchise didn't have any great alternatives.

That's just ridiculous, 7 is a bit of overall kill.

#DTWD #GoJaguars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t want to go too far off topic here, BUT, with the state of things with COVID-19, how confident are any of the teams moving into new football stadiums (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) that we will be able to even have 70,000 people safely watch a football game together by this September?

I know the NFL is proceeding right now (at least in their public statements) with the idea that the season will start as normal, but they have to be concerned and planning for the idea that things will still not be normal by the fall. Understand here that I think it is a distinct possibility that games will be played, but that there will still be restrictions on attendance, or at least a reduced number of people watching the game in the stadiums.

 

And don’t get me started on college football. The one brief thought I’ll will add about it here is this: If colleges and universities are still not back to normal operations by late August, such as still hosting most of their classes online, what makes people think they would play football games (especially in front of 80,000 fans).

 

Do I think either scenario is a certainty? No, but don’t tell me they are unlikely either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mattr1198 said:

In my opinion, what the Chargers needed (outside of never moving to LA to begin with) to succeed in the LA market was completely re-brand from top to bottom, even ditching the iconic colors. Giving Los Angelinos an entirely "new" NFL team that didn't feel like a hand-me-down from another market would've been a significant move to garner public support over the Rams, who still have the stench of St. Louis on them. They also get a full reset to build a new generation of younger fans and tailor the brand to the LA market in particular, whereas the Rams brand still feels bland. Heck, it worked with the Tennessee Oilers' failure in Memphis and complete re-brand to the Titans upon the move to Nashville. Sometimes, classic team names just don't resonate.

 

If you think this couldn't succeed look at LAFC, which attacked a dominant force in the LA Galaxy and has thrived simply on the presence of a new brand.

 

IMO, a full rebrand would have been the right thing to do morally, but it wouldn't have made the relocation any less of a failure. LA doesn't care unless it's the Rams or Raiders.

 

A name change also does nothing to address the Spanos family's inept ownership, which will keep the franchise from attracting new fans regardless of where they play.

xLmjWVv.png

POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jws008 said:

I don’t want to go too far off topic here, BUT, with the state of things with COVID-19, how confident are any of the teams moving into new football stadiums (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) that we will be able to even have 70,000 people safely watch a football game together by this September?

I know the NFL is proceeding right now (at least in their public statements) with the idea that the season will start as normal, but they have to be concerned and planning for the idea that things will still not be normal by the fall. Understand here that I think it is a distinct possibility that games will be played, but that there will still be restrictions on attendance, or at least a reduced number of people watching the game in the stadiums.

 

And don’t get me started on college football. The one brief thought I’ll will add about it here is this: If colleges and universities are still not back to normal operations by late August, such as still hosting most of their classes online, what makes people think they would play football games (especially in front of 80,000 fans).

 

Do I think either scenario is a certainty? No, but don’t tell me they are unlikely either.

Look, the lingering effects of this pandemic will be felt by everyone for a while. Football stadiums not being filled to capacity should be the least of everyone's concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mattr1198 said:

In my opinion, what the Chargers needed (outside of never moving to LA to begin with) to succeed in the LA market was completely re-brand from top to bottom, even ditching the iconic colors. Giving Los Angelinos an entirely "new" NFL team that didn't feel like a hand-me-down from another market would've been a significant move to garner public support over the Rams, who still have the stench of St. Louis on them. They also get a full reset to build a new generation of younger fans and tailor the brand to the LA market in particular, whereas the Rams brand still feels bland. Heck, it worked with the Tennessee Oilers' failure in Memphis and complete re-brand to the Titans upon the move to Nashville. Sometimes, classic team names just don't resonate.

 

If you think this couldn't succeed look at LAFC, which attacked a dominant force in the LA Galaxy and has thrived simply on the presence of a new brand.

 

To attempt to compare scale and reach between nfl and mls is not even comparable. The nfl is so mature and had full market penetration via tv there was no upside in bringing in a 2nd franchise to LA regardless of branding. You are just moving around teams for the sake of moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

23 hours ago, njdevs7 said:

The Ram logo keeps reminding me of this for some reason

spacer.png

 

 

Maybe it's because, to me, the new Rams head logo evokes this..

51zdr88GyML._SL1100_.jpg

 

 

But I can't help but get a Houston Texans vibe.

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jws008 said:

I don’t want to go too far off topic here, BUT, with the state of things with COVID-19, how confident are any of the teams moving into new football stadiums (Rams, Raiders, Chargers)

 

My local NFL team is lucky to get 70% attendance in a non-coronavirus year. 

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jws008 said:

I don’t want to go too far off topic here, BUT, with the state of things with COVID-19, how confident are any of the teams moving into new football stadiums (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) that we will be able to even have 70,000 people safely watch a football game together by this September?

I know the NFL is proceeding right now (at least in their public statements) with the idea that the season will start as normal, but they have to be concerned and planning for the idea that things will still not be normal by the fall. Understand here that I think it is a distinct possibility that games will be played, but that there will still be restrictions on attendance, or at least a reduced number of people watching the game in the stadiums.

 

And don’t get me started on college football. The one brief thought I’ll will add about it here is this: If colleges and universities are still not back to normal operations by late August, such as still hosting most of their classes online, what makes people think they would play football games (especially in front of 80,000 fans).

 

Do I think either scenario is a certainty? No, but don’t tell me they are unlikely either.

 

At this point I'm expecting no college football, and NFL with no fans in the stands.

 

It wouldn't shock me to see the NFL quarantine all of their players/families/staff in a centralized location and have some sort of 8 field complex built. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

My local NFL team is lucky to get 70% attendance in a non-coronavirus year. 

Well, that's because the Deadskins are run by Daniel Marc Snyder, who's one of the Four Sportsowners of the Apocalypse. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.