Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[colortv]

15 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

Oh, there ABSOLUTELY is a rivalry between San Diego and Los Angeles. It's one-sided, but San Diegans don't tend to be very fond of Los Angeles.

 

Granted, most of the rest of Cali isn't necessarily fond of Los Angeles, either.

 

A very blanket statement, not true for the majority of San Diegans, by a long shot.

[Lights Out]

6 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

If we're talking numbers why not compare distances too? Going to a Chargers game in LA for someone in San Diego is a weekend excursion.

 

Why do people keep trotting out this argument like it means anything? To put it in perspective, Philadelphia is closer to New York than San Diego is to LA. Do you really think Philly fans would "suck it up" if the Eagles moved to NY? If not, why should San Diegans be expected to handle it differently?

[colortv]

As for the Raiders, they have a very vocal fanbase because of the crowd they attract, but there are many more people who are off put by the Raider image, and will much more easily gravitate to the more family-oriented atmosphere the Chargers will provide.

[colortv]

2 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

 

Why do people keep trotting out this argument like it means anything? To put it in perspective, Philadelphia is closer to New York than San Diego is to LA. Do you really think Philly fans would "suck it up" if the Eagles moved to NY?

 

Are you trying to equate the rivalry between Philly and New York to LA and SD? Another absurd assertion.

 

Distance in the East and West are two different things. There are parts of the greater LA market 100 miles apart.

 

 

[colortv]

Where are you based Lights Out? I'm curious given your profile.

[Lights Out]

3 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

Are you trying to equate the rivalry between Philly and New York to LA and SD? Another absurd assertion.

 

Distance in the East and West are two different things. There are parts of the greater LA market 100 miles apart.

 

 

 

Honestly, forget the rivalry aspect. What actually matters is that the Spanos family screwed over a city that had supported the Chargers for 55 years, despite the franchise being relatively unsuccessful during that time. And why did they do it? Because they imagined a level of support in a bigger city that never actually existed.

 

It doesn't make a difference where they moved, they never had a chance of keeping their support in San Diego with how they handled the stadium situation and the way they treated the fans on their way out of town. The Chargers are Exhibit A of how not to move a team.

[colortv]

1 minute ago, Lights Out said:

#

Honestly, forget the rivalry aspect. What actually matters is that the Spanos family screwed over a city that had supported the Chargers for 55 years, despite the franchise being relatively unsuccessful during that time. And why did they do it? Because they imagined a level of support in a bigger city that never actually existed.

 

It doesn't make a difference where they moved, they never had a chance of keeping their support in San Diego with how they handled the stadium situation and the way they treated the fans on their way out of town. The Chargers are Exhibit A of how not to move a team.

 

I think more than anything it comes down to the Spanos family not having the financial wherewithal to privately finance a stadium in SD, which probably would have been in the $1-2 billion dollar range. Not necessarily bright eyes for a big market.

 

Apparently the Chargers only really seriously began pursuing the LA option with the Raiders once Kroenke bought the land in Inglewood and threatened to put them in the bad spot of being locked out of LA and losing the leverage it's vacancy provided.

 

Dean seems like a reclusive "small" town guy who would be more comfortable in San Diego.

[colortv]

This is the best and most comprehensive article on the NFL's return to Los Angeles:

 

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/14752649/the-real-story-nfl-owners-battle-bring-football-back-los-angeles

[Lights Out]

12 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

I think more than anything it comes down to the Spanos family not having the financial wherewithal to privately finance a stadium in SD, which probably would have been in the $1-2 billion dollar range. Not necessarily bright eyes for a big market.

 

Apparently the Chargers only really seriously began pursuing the LA option with the Raiders once Kroenke bought the land in Inglewood and threatened to put them in the bad spot of being locked out of LA and losing the leverage it's vacancy provided.

 

Dean seems like a reclusive "small" town guy who would be more comfortable in San Diego.

 

The Chargers had been looking at LA long before Kroenke bought that land. For instance, a clause in the unpopular 1995 ticket-guarantee deal gave the Chargers the right to start shopping the team to other cities (in other words, LA) in 2000, and San Diego only had the right to match whatever offer the Chargers got. In the early 2000s, the Chargers briefly moved their training camp to Carson for a season or two. I even remember the Chargers claiming at one point that something like 25% of their business was coming from LA, a claim that was obviously a bold-faced lie judging from their "home games" at the soccer stadium.

 

The main roadblock that stopped the Chargers from actually making the move was that the Spanii couldn't afford to build their own stadium. Getting to mooch off Kroenke merely removed that obstacle.

[WBeltz]

I came on here because this thread had “hot” replies, and I was expecting so see leaks. I saw no leaks

 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

 

If we're talking numbers why not compare distances too? Going to a Chargers game in LA for someone in San Diego is a weekend excursion.

Judging from the crowds we've seen at LA Chargers games? Not many people from SD are making that excursion.

[sky1324]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

 

A very blanket statement, not true for the majority of San Diegans, by a long shot.

Let me tell you a quick story about someone I know from San Diego who loved the Chargers. My English teacher had moved to Charlotte from SD and was a die-hard Chargers fan. When the Chargers filed the paperwork for the LA move, she dropped them immediately to become a Raiders fan, because she hated LA so much. (Then, of course, the Raiders left for Vegas and I have no clue if she supports the 49ers now.) I even made a joke about supporting the LA Rams and she gave the evil eye. San Diegans hate LA. It's very much a one-sided thing, like Charlotte and Atlanta. It's a case of where the little brother (San Diego) can't stand the big brother (LA) even if the two are close. I guarantee if you asked random San Diegans how they felt about LA most of them would respond with very negative attitudes. It's as simple as that. Yes, the numbers, on paper, are much, much larger in LA. But the fact is that the Chargers simply cannot build that fanbase in a city that's apathetic to them at best. LA isn't much of a football town in the beginning, hence why it didn't have teams for 20 years, but San Diego loved the Chargers in the way only a small(-ish) town with a sports team could. To my knowledge, San Diego lived and died by the Chargers, much like Charlotte does for the Panthers. So when that team moves, not just away from the best home it'll ever know, but to literally public enemy number one in the eyes of San Diegans, of course nobody's gonna support them anymore. And why would they? They were stabbed in the back, despite everything the city did for the team. The biggest "crime" the city committed was not giving taxpayer money to a literal billionaire, a commendable move, in my opinion. So Spanos moaned and whined and complained and the other owners decided to saddle Kroenke with him and his waste of a team to "blunt" the effect of the Rams having LA all to themselves (even though bringing the Raiders back would've been much, much smarter). The Chargers don't deserve pity. They don't have a true home anymore. San Diego won't accept them as long as any Spanos is at the helm. LA won't accept them because their allegiances lie elsewhere, with the Rams, Raiders, or any number of other teams. What other city do they have? When this move is looked at in about ten years time, people will be wondering how the NFL let it happen. The Chargers will be back in San Diego with a new owner at the helm and everyone will try to forget the LA Chargers experiment as Kroenke laughs to himself about how the NFL didn't force the Raiders on him instead.

[doctorpeligro]

10 hours ago, Gothamite said:

No stadiums should ever be built with public money. 
 

Spanos should have paid for his own damn San Diego stadium. 

 

You're misrepresenting what the Chargers were proposing at Mission Valley.  They were proposing to develop the Qualcomm Stadium site to pay for a new stadium.  It's similar to what San Diego State is going to do to pay for its new football stadium.

 

Again, the Chargers are being held to a different standard.  The Packers are over-romanticized, so no one criticizes them for the half-cent Lambeau Field sales tax that was paid for by residents of Brown County.  Because of a smaller population base, the Brown County tax increase was five times the size of the Miller Park tax increase (0.5% vs 0.1%).

[Gothamite]

10 hours ago, doctorpeligro said:

You're misrepresenting what the Chargers were proposing at Mission Valley.  They were proposing to develop the Qualcomm Stadium site to pay for a new stadium.  It's similar to what San Diego State is going to do to pay for its new football stadium.

 

Are you referring to the 2006 plan?  That was scrapped by the Chargers themselves, because they couldn't find a private entity willing to help them pay for it.

 

But when it came down to it, the Chargers didn't want to play in Mission Valley.  They wanted a shiny new downtown stadium, and they wanted the city to pay $1.15 billion towards its construction.  Once they spectacularly failed to sell that plan to San Diegans, the city offered them a deal to stay at Mission Valley.  Seven days later, Spanos rejected the offer and elected to move to Los Angeles instead.

 

10 hours ago, doctorpeligro said:

Again, the Chargers are being held to a different standard.  The Packers are over-romanticized, so no one criticizes them for the half-cent Lambeau Field sales tax that was paid for by residents of Brown County.  Because of a smaller population base, the Brown County tax increase was five times the size of the Miller Park tax increase (0.5% vs 0.1%).

 

You're operating from a faulty premise.  I'm not applying a different standard at all.  I was opposed to the Miller Park funding tax, and am especially opposed to the Packers' dealings.  I would have voted against the Lambeau Field tax were I a Brown County resident.

 

Cities should not be paying for professional stadiums.  Period.  Spanos should have paid for his own damn stadium instead of looking for a handout from the public.

[Doorman]

22 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

 

Reminded me of the Rockies mascot.

 

I sincerely apologize for what I've made.

[Gothamite]

11 hours ago, QCS said:

To my knowledge, San Diego lived and died by the Chargers, much like Charlotte does for the Panthers. So when that team moves, not just away from the best home it'll ever know, but to literally public enemy number one in the eyes of San Diegans, of course nobody's gonna support them anymore. And why would they? They were stabbed in the back, despite everything the city did for the team. The biggest "crime" the city committed was not giving taxpayer money to a literal billionaire, a commendable move, in my opinion.

 

Sure was.

 

11 hours ago, QCS said:

So Spanos moaned and whined and complained and the other owners decided to saddle Kroenke with him and his waste of a team to "blunt" the effect of the Rams having LA all to themselves (even though bringing the Raiders back would've been much, much smarter). The Chargers don't deserve pity. They don't have a true home anymore. San Diego won't accept them as long as any Spanos is at the helm. LA won't accept them because their allegiances lie elsewhere, with the Rams, Raiders, or any number of other teams. What other city do they have? When this move is looked at in about ten years time, people will be wondering how the NFL let it happen. The Chargers will be back in San Diego with a new owner at the helm and everyone will try to forget the LA Chargers experiment as Kroenke laughs to himself about how the NFL didn't force the Raiders on him instead.

 

Hell, we don't even have to wait for ten years; that's what people are thinking about this debacle today. 

 

[schlim]

The Guardian wrote an article today about the Rams logo!

 

"With the rest of the sports world on hold, the Los Angeles Rams had a news cycle all to themselves last week. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with football"

 

It's a basic, but entertaining look at the logo, unveiling, and backlash.

[TrueYankee26]

12 hours ago, colortv said:

 

Are you trying to equate the rivalry between Philly and New York to LA and SD? Another absurd assertion.

 

Distance in the East and West are two different things. There are parts of the greater LA market 100 miles apart.

 

 

Same thing in the East. Toms River NJ to Poughkeepsie NY (both in the NYC market) is 145 miles apart

[jojotarantino]

On 4/1/2020 at 11:33 PM, doctorpeligro said:

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).

 

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.

A huge part of the problem with their original proposal was that it was less than 10 years after the stadium expansion was completed, which the city was still paying for, and the PR nightmare that was the ticket guarantee with the city.  People were incredibly mad at ownership and the price of tickets skyrocketed.  A lot of people that sat near me did not renew their season tickets.  Neither the city or the team had the vision to think of replacing an old stadium, instead the expanded it and made it worse.

[BBTV]

13 hours ago, Lights Out said:

 

Why do people keep trotting out this argument like it means anything? To put it in perspective, Philadelphia is closer to New York than San Diego is to LA. Do you really think Philly fans would "suck it up" if the Eagles moved to NY? If not, why should San Diegans be expected to handle it differently?

a more accurate comparison would be if the Eagles moved to Reading, which is significantly smaller, kinda its own market, out of range for city dwellers, but still within reason for most suburban fans to go to. 
 

Reading is kinda sorta in the phila MSA (depending on which of the various sources you use) but by no means is it “suburban Phila” - it’s more just “eastern PA”, just like how SD isn’t suburban LA, but they’re both SoCal

 

I’d HATE HATE HATE it, but would very likely still be a fan. 
 

SD obviously has way more of an identity than Reading does, and is a “big league town”, so in that case I don’t know if I’d follow the team to LA or not, but regardless, Phila to NY isn’t in the same ballpark as far as comparisons are concerned.