Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[bosrs1]

5 minutes ago, dont care said:

I don't know if San Diego can feel too scorned when The chargers have done just about everything they could to stay in San Diego for them to vote it down repeatedly until they finally have to move somewhere else and even then it's only to the next closest city that will take them.

 

The Chargers have done everything they can to stay in San Diego? That would be news to most of us in San Diego. The only proposals they brought forth were to ask for the Qualcomm parking lot less than 4 years after the city had just paid for an expansion and renovation of their existing stadium back in the early 2000's. And the most recent convoluted Convadium Measure C plan this year, which they produced with no input from the city and which most of the other stakeholders opposed (and which would have required 2/3rd majority to pass which not even the cure for cancer would garner if it required a tax increase like Measure C did). The Chargers have yet to actually sit down and work with the city on a realistic and viable plan. Instead they've been trying to wield relocation as a hammer to extort of half a billion dollars in public funds like this is 1985. That tactic hasn't worked in California in over 25 years.

[coggs]

On 12/18/2016 at 8:37 PM, mcj882000 said:

So if I'm reading this right... not only do they want to give up a perfectly serviceable market to play 2nd fiddle to the Rams, now they wanna ditch a nearly-60 year old identity for no good reason and risk being even less relevant & remembered than they are right now? (Hey! There's a name idea! The Los Angeles Football Clippers! )

Seriously though, it feels like just when you think Spanos and the Chargers couldn't be anymore stupid... they prove you wrong. I actually feel sorry for any Charger fans, whether they live in SD, LA or anywhere else. Y'all deserve a better-run team than this.

I'm not from California, so I don't know, but maybe the fear is that there are still too many people in LA who hate the Chargers from the LA Raiders days, that they would have a difficult team?  With a new name and look they can be embraced by LA as "their" team.  Jets play 2nd fiddle to the Giants and still have a huge fan base.

[coggs]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

(And, while it's hard to imagine either New York or Philadelphia not having a team in a major sport, New York has only infrequently had teams in the Arena Football League and the NLL.  In those cases, I as a New Yorker did indeed feel that the Philadelphia teams more-or-less count as my "home" teams.)

I am thinking you were in a VERY small minority on that one.  Then again, I don't know any NY'ers who cared or followed those leagues.

[coggs]

If they are going to go with a re-brand, new name, color scheme, etc.  Then, I hope they leave the history behind.  As far as I am concerned, the History should belong to the fans and the city/state.  Start over as a new franchise.  Love seeing banners for the Expos in the Bell Centre.  

[bosrs1]

10 minutes ago, coggs said:

If they are going to go with a re-brand, new name, color scheme, etc.  Then, I hope they leave the history behind.  As far as I am concerned, the History should belong to the fans and the city/state.  Start over as a new franchise.  Love seeing banners for the Expos in the Bell Centre.  

 

Well to be fair the Expos didn't leave their history behind even if the Canadiens acknowledge much of it. The Nationals still own all of it. The only instances so far where the history was left behind with the name are the Browns, the Earthquakes in MLS and arguably the Sonics (though the Thunder do retain a claim on it as well).

[coggs]

6 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well to be fair the Expos didn't leave their history behind even if the Canadiens acknowledge much of it. The Nationals still own all of it. The only instances so far where the history was left behind with the name are the Browns, the Earthquakes in MLS and arguably the Sonics (though the Thunder do retain a claim on it as well).

I know, but if Montreal ever gets a new team, one of two things should happen.  1) The Nats "give" the history to the new team or 2) New team be able to use the name Expos if they choose and still acknowledge the history.  

 

When the Thrashers went to Winnipeg and used the Jets name, they should be able to use the history of the old Winnipeg Jets.  Do people in Arizona actually care about their Avco Cups?

[bosrs1]

21 hours ago, Mitch B said:

What's worse if you are a diehard Chargers fan: your team relocating 2 hours north or your team not existing at all?

 

Relocating I'd think. I mean if they're dead to you either way it would seem much worse to have their zombiefied corpse living on in another city.

[OnWis97]

47 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well to be fair the Expos didn't leave their history behind even if the Canadiens acknowledge much of it. The Nationals still own all of it. The only instances so far where the history was left behind with the name are the Browns, the Earthquakes in MLS and arguably the Sonics (though the Thunder do retain a claim on it as well).

There's also the Hornets mess in the NBA.  I think that and the Sonics is the new model in North America.  The team will keep the history since we don't usually know a new team will be playing there like we did with the Browns.  But once that city gets a team, the history of the years in that city will revert back.  Given that, the Chargers almost have to rebrand.

[bosrs1]

53 minutes ago, coggs said:

I know, but if Montreal ever gets a new team, one of two things should happen.  1) The Nats "give" the history to the new team or 2) New team be able to use the name Expos if they choose and still acknowledge the history.  

 

When the Thrashers went to Winnipeg and used the Jets name, they should be able to use the history of the old Winnipeg Jets.  Do people in Arizona actually care about their Avco Cups?

 

Oh I agree the current Jets should be able to use the Jets 1.0 history, etc... but they can't and don't, at least officially. Same with the current Charlotte Hornets. I much prefer the history stay in the city. But I think it has to be agreed on when the move happens like it was with the Earthquakes and Browns. Otherwise it gets far too messy if the teams start trading histories, etc... midstream.

 

That said I've no issue with existing franchises acknowledging forebears with the same name like the Jets do, like the Hornets do if there was no agreement to leave the history behind when the last franchise moved/folded. Hell in San Diego the current AHL incarnation of the San Diego Gulls acknowledge all 3 of their predecessor franchises in the WHL, IHL and WCHL/ECHL (particularly the WHL version). Same with the MLB Padres who often honor or remember guys and teams from the PCL Padres days even if not officially part of the same team. And it's great that they do so because as you mention that history does mean more to the people of San Diego than it does to the Round Rock Express or the people of Round Rock (the current name of the PCL franchise that was once the PCL Padres).

[OnWis97]

29 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Oh I agree the current Jets should be able to use the Jets 1.0 history, etc... but they can't and don't, at least officially. Same with the current Charlotte Hornets. I much prefer the history stay in the city. But I think it has to be agreed on when the move happens like it was with the Earthquakes and Browns. Otherwise it gets far too messy if the teams start trading histories, etc... midstream.

 

That said I've no issue with existing franchises acknowledging forebears with the same name like the Jets do, like the Hornets do if there was no agreement to leave the history behind when the last franchise moved/folded. Hell in San Diego the current AHL incarnation of the San Diego Gulls acknowledge all 3 of their predecessor franchises in the WHL, IHL and WCHL/ECHL (particularly the WHL version). Same with the MLB Padres who often honor or remember guys and teams from the PCL Padres days even if not officially part of the same team. And it's great that they do so because as you mention that history does mean more to the people of San Diego than it does to the Round Rock Express or the people of Round Rock (the current name of the PCL franchise that was once the PCL Padres).

The current Hornets have the old Hornets history. And it's a mess.

 

We've had this debate a lot so I'll keep off my soap box.

[Gothamite]

40 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

There's also the Hornets mess in the NBA.  I think that and the Sonics is the new model in North America.  The team will keep the history since we don't usually know a new team will be playing there like we did with the Browns.  But once that city gets a team, the history of the years in that city will revert back.  Given that, the Chargers almost have to rebrand.

 

The Sonics were on a timed deal, weren't they?  Should have expired years ago. 

 

Not to mention that San Diego won't have a new team for many decades, if ever. 

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, coggs said:

When the Thrashers went to Winnipeg and used the Jets name, they should be able to use the history of the old Winnipeg Jets.  Do people in Arizona actually care about their Avco Cups?

 

No, but some Atlanta fans are very concerned with making the Jets "recognize" their ignominious Thrashers history.

[OnWis97]

5 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

The Sonics were on a timed deal, weren't they?  Should have expired years ago. 

 

Not to mention that San Diego won't have a new team for many decades, if ever. 

That's probably why the Sonics did not get a Browns deal.  There's no guarantee they'll ever get a team.  And I think there was a five-year window or something that has expired.  But if Seattle were to get a team, I'd be surprised if they did not get the Seattle part of the OKC franchise's history.  And if that team is an existing team (Minnesota, Milwaukee, Sacramento) that franchise will then be considered defunct, I guess.

Similarly, the Chargers will probably change names and keep the history.  Most likely forever barring San Diego getting a team.

[hawk36]

I'd say if Seattle ever gets a team and they aren't allowed to be the Sonics there will be a huge uproar in the city. I'd even bet that if they can't be the Sonics they'll opt to simply not have a name... just be Seattle with green and yellow colors. 

 

Remember this is the city whose soccer fans were given the option of naming their new team 1) Aliance, 2) Republic, 3) FC. They overwhelmingly wrote in Sounders and thus the owners agreed to name the team the familiar Sounders. 

[OnWis97]

37 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I'd say if Seattle ever gets a team and they aren't allowed to be the Sonics there will be a huge uproar in the city. I'd even bet that if they can't be the Sonics they'll opt to simply not have a name... just be Seattle with green and yellow colors. 

 

Remember this is the city whose soccer fans were given the option of naming their new team 1) Aliance, 2) Republic, 3) FC. They overwhelmingly wrote in Sounders and thus the owners agreed to name the team the familiar Sounders. 

That's kinda what happened in Charlotte.  Not really an uproar but I think  the support was dependent on the name Hornets coming back.

 

I don't think there's any doubt they'd be the Sonics.  The only question would be whether it's a Hornets situation or a Winnipeg Jets situation.

[Fjm]

5 hours ago, dont care said:

I don't know if San Diego can feel too scorned when The chargers have done just about everything they could to stay in San Diego for them to vote it down repeatedly until they finally have to move somewhere else and even then it's only to the next closest city that will take them.

The opposite of everything you said is closer to the truth. 

 

The Chargers owner picked a site, downtown, that was the most strongly opposed location by both the public and politically.  Possibly intentionally so that it would fail.  And has repeatedly for years refused to discuss or negotiate with the city on just about everything.  There is not an city in the country (except Green Bay) that would win a 67% general election vote in favor of raising taxes to keep a sports team. 

 

And "the next closest city" doesn't want even the Chargers.  Polls in Los Angeles show they do not want the Chargers.  The mayor of Los Angeles doesn't either, he has stated he hopes the Chargers stay in San Diego.  When was the last time a team moved and the city didn't even want them?

 

Back on topic...if they move the Los Angeles team should pick a new name.

[BBTV]

In situations where a team elects to leave their identity behind when they move, I think the best way to handle it (rather than the Cleveland Deal) is:

 

1.  League officially declares the franchise dormant and revokes the franchise.

2.  League officially announces expansion (with the relo fee counting as the expansion fee) to the new city and awards the team to the moving owner.

3.  Players on the "dormant" team are subject to an expansion draft - the moving team gets to select one or two players from a pool consisting of their former players and unprotected players from other teams.  Then either they could just keep drafting their old players, or maybe even allow the rest of the league one-round through the now teamless players.  Contracts would still be honored though, which could make it so that even good players aren't drafted and just end up back with their old team in the new city.  The NFLPA might allow this because it could result in higher contracts for some players because a team that knows it is moving might overpay someone so that they're not drafted away.

4.  At some point in the future, the original franchise is awarded to a new owner who re-stocks the team either via traditional expansion draft or maybe a North Stars / Sharks type deal.

 

History / records are clean, the re-located team essentially keeps most of their players but is still a legit expansion team.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

The Sonics were on a timed deal, weren't they?  Should have expired years ago. 

 

Not to mention that San Diego won't have a new team for many decades, if ever. 

Change it from San Diego Super Chargers to Los Angeles Super Sonics.  Heck, Seattle ain't using it

(I kid.  Sincerely, I wish Seattle gets a team real soon.)

[JayMac]

Why does every relocation thread turn into who owns the records/retired numbers??

[Discrim]

2 hours ago, Fjm said:

The opposite of everything you said is closer to the truth. 

 

The Chargers owner picked a site, downtown, that was the most strongly opposed location by both the public and politically.  Possibly intentionally so that it would fail.  And has repeatedly for years refused to discuss or negotiate with the city on just about everything.  There is not an city in the country (except Green Bay) that would win a 67% general election vote in favor of raising taxes to keep a sports team. 

 

And "the next closest city" doesn't want even the Chargers.  Polls in Los Angeles show they do not want the Chargers.  The mayor of Los Angeles doesn't either, he has stated he hopes the Chargers stay in San Diego.  When was the last time a team moved and the city didn't even want them?

 

Back on topic...if they move the Los Angeles team should pick a new name.

So essentially, it's Springtime for Hitler, Bolts edition.