OnWis97

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

Recommended Posts

As a raider fan from Oakland....I do hope they rebrand and also fail in la. Serves them right imo. I'm with the fans in San Diego on this one. They don't deserve to be treated the way they been by ownership. Mark Davis and the sapnos family both can't afford California and shouldn't even have teams tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2016 at 8:47 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Just glancing at a map, it's got to be around 200 miles between Dallas and Austin, which is what I'd assume to be the closest medium-to-large city. If it clarifies, by "Dallas" I mean the metro area, including FtW, Irving, etc. 

 

Off topic- Texas cities are... different.  They're "big", but less dense than even what a lot of people consider suburbs. It seems like you could practically live in Dallas but not really live in Dallas. 

 

*Dallas-Ft. Worth... "DFW"... 

Again, not trying to start another thing with this and go off topic, but Ft. Worth is a major, independent city that just so happens to be 30 miles away from another major, independent city... not another dime-a-dozen suburb of Dallas (as we have our own, as well). Please don't put our city in the same category as Irving or Arlington. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OaklandRaider said:

As a raider fan from Oakland....I do hope they rebrand and also fail in la. Serves them right imo. I'm with the fans in San Diego on this one. They don't deserve to be treated the way they been by ownership. Mark Davis and the sapnos family both can't afford California and shouldn't even have teams tbh

So true.The Raiders have had a great season and a chance to capture the bay area with the Niners down this year but does Mark Davis see this.No.If for some unforeseen reason the Chargers decide to bail on the LA move(which they should)and the choice of moving to LA moves to the Raiders Mark Davis would move to LA faster than I can type this.Whoever moves to LA is going to probably have to deal with 2 years of playing in a bad stadium.Makes Qualcomm stadium and Oakland coliseum look pretty good at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Raiders back in LA would instantly be more popular than the Rams and Big Stan doesn't want that especially in his own stadium. 

Share this post


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

The Raiders back in LA would instantly be more popular than the Rams and Big Stan doesn't want that especially in his own stadium. 

True.But if for some unknown reason the Chargers bail on LA as Big Stan do you #1 want LA All to yourself with All that stadium debt or #2 a chance to reduce your cost with a second popular team.Might push him to field a winning team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pauly said:

True.But if for some unknown reason the Chargers bail on LA as Big Stan do you #1 want LA All to yourself with All that stadium debt or #2 a chance to reduce your cost with a second popular team.Might push him to field a winning team.

The stadium is 1/2 funded by LA, they'll be fine.

Share this post


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

The stadium is 1/2 funded by LA, they'll be fine.

 

The stadium is half funded by Stan Kroenke.  The other half will cost Spanos more than it would to build in San Diego. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

The stadium is half funded by Stan Kroenke.  The other half will cost Spanos more than it would to build in San Diego. 

If I understand things correctly, if San Diego does move they would be a tenant essentially paying rent to use the stadium like the jets did in the giants owned meadowlands stadium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dont care said:

If I understand things correctly, if San Diego does move they would be a tenant essentially paying rent to use the stadium like the jets did in the giants owned meadowlands stadium

 

They had that option, but the NFL also negotiated an option for either Spanos or Davis to become co-owners.  Kronke hasn't been able to sell PSLs or advertising at the new stadium because he doesn't yet know if he has partners. 

 

It it would be profoundly stupid for either the Raiders or Chargers to move to Inglewood as tenants.  Sure, it'd be cheaper, but they'd be leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table over the next few decades.  Better to beg, borrow, leverage or steal enough cash for an equity stake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gothamite said:

 

They had that option, but the NFL also negotiated an option for either Spanos or Davis to become co-owners.  Kronke hasn't been able to sell PSLs or advertising at the new stadium because he doesn't yet know if he has partners. 

 

Spanos has already made it clear he'd be the tenant, not the partner. He doesn't have the money to both move and partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dont care said:

The stadium is 1/2 funded by LA, they'll be fine.

 

Actually not. The stadium is not being funded by LA at all. It's an entirely private stadium.

Share this post


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

 

Spanos has already made it clear he'd be the tenant, not the partner. He doesn't have the money to both move and partner.

 

Spanos would have to find the money.  Borrow the money.  Sell everything else he owns to get the money.  Because he will start seeing a return on that money instantly as Kroenke sells PSLs and advertising and everything else.  

Share this post


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

 

Spanos would have to find the money.  Borrow the money.  Sell everything else he owns to get the money.  Because he will start seeing a return on that money instantly as Kroenke sells PSLs and advertising and everything else.  

 

He's going to start seeing a return just on being a tenant, without having to take on the added risk of being a partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they jointly own the stadium will there be 2 PSL's,one for each team or 1 PSL covering both.That's a mighty expensive PSL if that's the case.Don't know if the LA market would embrace that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Pauly said:

If they jointly own the stadium will there be 2 PSL's,one for each team or 1 PSL covering both.That's a mighty expensive PSL if that's the case.Don't know if the LA market would embrace that.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay,what about the PSL's? Would there be one for each team or if the Chargers are only a tenant does Big Stan corner the PSL's all to himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Pauly said:

Okay,what about the PSL's? Would there be one for each team or if the Chargers are only a tenant does Big Stan corner the PSL's all to himself?

 

There will be one PSL for each team - PSLs are surcharges on season tickets.  Chargers will operate their own ticket operations, I assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

a2bbdc335fc75b11e342b46bb5619e20.jpg

Share this post


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

Okay,what about the PSL's? Would there be one for each team or if the Chargers are only a tenant does Big Stan corner the PSL's all to himself?

 

The set up would be something along the lines of what was agreed to last January.

 

Quote

The Rams and Chargers would combine revenue from non-football events at the stadium, naming rights, personal seat licenses and similar rarely sold items. Each team would receive about 18.75% of the total; the rest would go toward financing the stadium construction.

 

Share this post


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.