RealGM

As per Adam Shefter

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18455802/chargers-expected-announce-move-san-diego-los-angeles

LA market will now have 3 teams after the Raiders move to Las Vegas

Its a shame! San Diego is a great place. LA won't support that team the same way. Owners like Spanos are a disgrace. **** that guy. Having lost the Sonic's, I hate when teams relocate. Especially a city like San Diego (visited a handful of times). Fans don't deserve to lose their football team. Its disgusting.

dockingsched wrote:LA market will now have 3 teams after the Raiders move to Las Vegas

I hope the Raiders stay in Oakland. But, it looks like Vegas will get their turn.

What still amazes me, is that 43% of San Diego voters voted against a $1.8 billion stadium to be paid for by raising hotel taxes (TOURISTS WOULD PAY FOR IT....HELLO!?!)

And the article says they would potentially, if not likely play in the Galaxy stadium of 27K capacity that could maybe increase to 30K with expanded seating for 2 years?

At least they'd have a better chance of selling out.

Ultimately I don't care if they move. It would bother me MUCH more though if they changed the logo and uniforms like they talked about. MUCH MUCH more.

This article has good details...sounds like maybe the keep name/logo...of course Spanos, if/when things are not going well, thinks that can change things he could do it. So hopefully they starting winning big next year.

http://www.espn.com/blog/san-diego-chargers/post/_/id/19228/chargers-prepare-for-a-new-start-in-los-angeles

bwgood77 wrote:What still amazes me, is that 43% of San Diego voters voted against a $1.8 billion stadium to be paid for by raising hotel taxes (TOURISTS WOULD PAY FOR IT....HELLO!?!)

And the article says they would potentially, if not likely play in the Galaxy stadium of 27K capacity that could maybe increase to 30K with expanded seating for 2 years?

At least they'd have a better chance of selling out.

Ultimately I don't care if they move. It would bother me MUCH more though if they changed the logo and uniforms like they talked about. MUCH MUCH more.

I read that they won't change the name.

bwgood77 wrote:And the article says they would potentially, if not likely play in the Galaxy stadium of 27K capacity that could maybe increase to 30K with expanded seating for 2 years?

http://www.espn.com/blog/san-diego-chargers/post/_/id/19228/chargers-prepare-for-a-new-start-in-los-angeles

Why would they even entertain playing in that soccer stadium with 30k seating. That's a lot of lost revenue potentially. The LA Coliseum makes way more sense. Both the Rams & Chargers could alternate home/away games each week (Jets/Giants being the prime example).

Cactus Jack wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:And the article says they would potentially, if not likely play in the Galaxy stadium of 27K capacity that could maybe increase to 30K with expanded seating for 2 years?

http://www.espn.com/blog/san-diego-chargers/post/_/id/19228/chargers-prepare-for-a-new-start-in-los-angeles

Why would they even entertain playing in that soccer stadium with 30k seating. That's a lot of lost revenue potentially. The LA Coliseum makes way more sense. Both the Rams & Chargers could alternate home/away games each week (Jets/Giants being the prime example).

Well the first line you quote was based on the article in the OP. Then I read another article after posting and added that article you quote at the end of my posts that mentions two better venues, so that quote of those two things are pretty misleading.

I just don't get it. I mean, if they're going to leave San Diego and the people don't want to pay for a stadium, whatever. I just don't get why they would go to LA. A city that doesn't give a single **** about football is about to have TWO teams. There are so many places where they could be more successful.

Chargers plan to play at StubHub Center in 2017-18

Wow.

The Chargers will indeed return to the city in which they were founded, 57 years ago. And they’ll be spending two years in a 30,000-seat stadium, playing at the StubHub Center until the stadium they’ll share with the Rams opens in 2019.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/11/chargers-will-play-at-stubhub-center-in-2017-18/

Cactus Jack wrote:

Chargers plan to play at StubHub Center in 2017-18

Wow.

The Chargers will indeed return to the city in which they were founded, 57 years ago. And they’ll be spending two years in a 30,000-seat stadium, playing at the StubHub Center until the stadium they’ll share with the Rams opens in 2019.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/11/chargers-will-play-at-stubhub-center-in-2017-18/

Wow. This is the first that I've heard of this. It's going to be REALLY embarrassing for LA fans when they don't even sell that place out after a few losses.

bleu wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:

Chargers plan to play at StubHub Center in 2017-18

Wow.

The Chargers will indeed return to the city in which they were founded, 57 years ago. And they’ll be spending two years in a 30,000-seat stadium, playing at the StubHub Center until the stadium they’ll share with the Rams opens in 2019.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/11/chargers-will-play-at-stubhub-center-in-2017-18/

Wow. This is the first that I've heard of this. It's going to be REALLY embarrassing for LA fans when they don't even sell that place out after a few losses.

Only visiting fans will fit it. The team/league had to find a way to ensure a new team in a new market wasn't blacked out. lol

bleu wrote:I just don't get it. I mean, if they're going to leave San Diego and the people don't want to pay for a stadium, whatever. I just don't get why they would go to LA. A city that doesn't give a single **** about football is about to have TWO teams. There are so many places where they could be more successful.

The Ugly Truth

No one went to Rams games in L.A. — so who is going attend a Chargers game in L.A.?

But here’s the sad, dirty truth: It doesn’t matter if anyone goes to the games.

The Rams and Chargers are going to make more money with no one in the stands in Los Angeles than they ever could with full houses in the old stadiums of St. Louis and San Diego.

After moving to Los Angeles last year, the value of the Rams doubled. They were the 28th most valuable franchise in the NFL — now they’re No. 6.

You can expect the same jump to happen for the Chargers, and that’s good for the NFL as a whole.

The Chargers’ move will also allow the NFL to focus its attention on landing the Raiders a new stadium, whether that be in Oakland, Las Vegas, Mexico City, London, San Antonio, or Boise.

Build the stadium — it doesn’t matter whether they actually come.

The NFL really doesn’t need people in the stands for anything but optics. Fan money doesn’t add up, corporate dollars do — and with the way the NFL and its teams do business, that corporate cash is going to be rolling in for decades.

So as long as millions of people tune into games every Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, the NFL and its teams will continue to see multi-billion-dollar team values annually increase by an average of 10 percent.

This was a major win in big business, and good, loyal fans had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-diego-chargers-los-angeles-move-relocation-011217

bwgood77 wrote:What still amazes me, is that 43% of San Diego voters voted against a $1.8 billion stadium to be paid for by raising hotel taxes (TOURISTS WOULD PAY FOR IT....HELLO!?!)

And the article says they would potentially, if not likely play in the Galaxy stadium of 27K capacity that could maybe increase to 30K with expanded seating for 2 years?

At least they'd have a better chance of selling out.

Ultimately I don't care if they move. It would bother me MUCH more though if they changed the logo and uniforms like they talked about. MUCH MUCH more.

This article has good details...sounds like maybe the keep name/logo...of course Spanos, if/when things are not going well, thinks that can change things he could do it. So hopefully they starting winning big next year.

http://www.espn.com/blog/san-diego-chargers/post/_/id/19228/chargers-prepare-for-a-new-start-in-los-angeles

You got it wrong, 43% of people voted in favor of that stadium proposal.

And it's not as black and white as it may seem. I remember reading an article during that time about how if certain incentives were not met during a set period of time (for example, say if they weren't able to net $100 million from the hotel taxes during the first two years or something) then tax payers would be on the hook for paying whatever is remaining from the actual amount raised vs the incentive.

Plus hotel tax prices would also have to increase because of this which will also in effect increase the prices of goods and such in the San Diego area.

It wasn't a great proposal for people who live in San Diego however to fans who are out of towners it may have seemed like a great idea until looking into it further.

None of this would be an issue if Dean Spanos wasn't one of the poorest owners in the NFL. His net worth is actually top 3 lowest in the NFL. He doesn't have the funds to just pay for a stadium himself like Paul Allen or Stan Kroenke which sucks. It would be nice if he could just sell the team to an owner who actually has money to build his own stadium for his own team without having to beg the public for money.

LA is barely supporting the Rams, the Chargers will get little to no support there as the sidekick to the Rams.

GotEm wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:What still amazes me, is that 43% of San Diego voters voted against a $1.8 billion stadium to be paid for by raising hotel taxes (TOURISTS WOULD PAY FOR IT....HELLO!?!)

And the article says they would potentially, if not likely play in the Galaxy stadium of 27K capacity that could maybe increase to 30K with expanded seating for 2 years?

At least they'd have a better chance of selling out.

Ultimately I don't care if they move. It would bother me MUCH more though if they changed the logo and uniforms like they talked about. MUCH MUCH more.

This article has good details...sounds like maybe the keep name/logo...of course Spanos, if/when things are not going well, thinks that can change things he could do it. So hopefully they starting winning big next year.

http://www.espn.com/blog/san-diego-chargers/post/_/id/19228/chargers-prepare-for-a-new-start-in-los-angeles

You got it wrong, 43% of people voted in favor of that stadium proposal.

And it's not as black and white as it may seem. I remember reading an article during that time about how if certain incentives were not met during a set period of time (for example, say if they weren't able to net $100 million from the hotel taxes during the first two years or something) then tax payers would be on the hook for paying whatever is remaining from the actual amount raised vs the incentive.

Plus hotel tax prices would also have to increase because of this which will also in effect increase the prices of goods and such in the San Diego area.

It wasn't a great proposal for people who live in San Diego however to fans who are out of towners it may have seemed like a great idea until looking into it further.

None of this would be an issue if Dean Spanos wasn't one of the poorest owners in the NFL. His net worth is actually top 3 lowest in the NFL. He doesn't have the funds to just pay for a stadium himself like Paul Allen or Stan Kroenke which sucks. It would be nice if he could just sell the team to an owner who actually has money to build his own stadium for his own team without having to beg the public for money.

LA is barely supporting the Rams, the Chargers will get little to no support there as the sidekick to the Rams.

Only problem with that statement is something Cactus Jack is acutely familiar with. You can bet your bottom dollar that any new owner with the cash to build a new stadium wouldn't spend one penny of it. Seattle fans know this to be true.

I'm really having a hard time picturing a NFL game being played here.

JaxMagic wrote:I'm really having a hard time picturing a NFL game being played here.

Raiders fans will buy up all the seats when Oakland comes to town. That could be dangerous.

bleu wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:

Chargers plan to play at StubHub Center in 2017-18

Wow.

The Chargers will indeed return to the city in which they were founded, 57 years ago. And they’ll be spending two years in a 30,000-seat stadium, playing at the StubHub Center until the stadium they’ll share with the Rams opens in 2019.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/11/chargers-will-play-at-stubhub-center-in-2017-18/

Wow. This is the first that I've heard of this. It's going to be REALLY embarrassing for LA fans when they don't even sell that place out after a few losses.

Lol why would LA fans be embarrassed about not attending games for a team no one asked for and everyone hates the idea that they're coming?

Realistically though it's silly to think 8 home games at 30k capacity are somehow not going to be sold out. The LA galaxy average 25k out of 27k capacity in 17 home games in the same stadium.

What does this mean for the Raiders, if anything?

GoRapstheoriginal wrote:What does this mean for the Raiders, if anything?

Bad news for Oakland fans. Bad news for LA Raider fans. Good news for the city of Las Vegas. Hello, Las Vegas Raiders!