NFL Relocations and League Expansion

Remove this Banner Ad

I don't get the chargers decision
if they were the first ones in, it may have worked.
But the rams already reclaimed their fans and would've swayed some neutrals

A 2nd team going in had to have either been
1) done last season before letting the rams have a free shot at the neutrals
Or
2) have been the raiders

This one move has in my opinion, made the chargers the most irrelevant team in the league. They'd lose their San Diego fan base while going to somewhere they have minimal chance of swaying

I feel the rams never should have been allowed in, but once they did. It should've been raiders/chargers to Las Vegas/San Antonio. You choose who where.
 
and they're going to be playing at 30,000 capacity ground for two years!

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

can't see the reason to play NFL at a "boutique" stdium, but at least they can assure themselves it'll be full each game.
The only way I can see the logic in this is knowing the rose bowl or colesium is a bad image being half empty, so go to somewhere that. Isn't sell out and maybe make it an item and worth going. Create an atmosphere and maybe interest in them.

But TBH. I can't see it working.

At least they're only a tenant at the new stadium and when it fails (it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when) they should easily be able to scuttle it and relocate. Who knows. They can become the nomads by then and be playing at white hart lane.
 
The irony that the most popular NFL team in LA will be the Las Vegas Raiders.

This whole situation turned into a total s**t show. The NFL top owners are a bunch of East Coast guys who know next to nothing about the West Coast political and social situation. They played the game poorly.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Chargers should to played at the Rose Bowl.

Do we know if the Chargers opted in to be co-owners of the new LA stadium or just tenants

Unconfirmed. But from memory the stadium ownership deal is still a s**t one as supposedly the 'precinct' around it is not included in the deal, it's basically only pure stadium revenues and Kroenke still calls the shots.
 
Unconfirmed. But from memory the stadium ownership deal is still a s**t one as supposedly the 'precinct' around it is not included in the deal, it's basically only pure stadium revenues and Kroenke still calls the shots.

Ownership deal i thought was fine, Renting was like $1 a year but they also have the rent the parking lot and dont get to keep any money from concessions or profits from tickets.
 
Ownership deal i thought was fine, Renting was like $1 a year but they also have the rent the parking lot and dont get to keep any money from concessions or profits from tickets.

Maybe that was the shitty end of the deal, though my recollection was both options sucked, no matter which way SD went, Kroenke won.
 
Maybe that was the shitty end of the deal, though my recollection was both options sucked, no matter which way SD went, Kroenke won.

If SD went for co-ownership it would cost them huge. but at least that way they get profits from games and whatever they rent out the stadium for.

Both options are s**t. like the payment plan to be co-owners was stupidly high or something like that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chargers should to played at the Rose Bowl.

From what I understood when the Rams moved back the Rose Bowl weren't really interested.

For anyone who has been to the Rose Bowl it is a disaster getting vehicles in and out on the roads leading into the stadium. It isn't really setup to handle large traffic volume on a regular basis.
 
This is the really distateful thing of the NFL, the owners pursuit of bigger and better things in the hope of lining their own pockets.

It's disappointing (as was the case with previous NFL relocations) that a fan base that spans generations is suddenly dumped while the team/owner dumps them in the hope of bigger riches.
Although I can't completely blame the owners, as the NFL and its' stadium expectations for teams are driving this stadium arms race.
It's annoying that we have 25 year old stadiums like the Georgia Dome being abandoned as they're no longer good enough. 22 NFL stadiums have been built in the past 20 years (maybe 24 with the Falcons new one and possible Raiders one) as the quest to get bigger and better and more lucrative grows and there's always grumbling about the older stadiums not being good enough.

From what I understand Jack Murphy lacked a lot of the modern facilities of newer stadiums (poor press boxes, very few luxury boxes, smaller than standard locker rooms, scoreboards that aren't as big as Lichtenstein) and it was starting to show its' age. However, the rank and file fans were still attending frequently enough and those fans didn't see the need to pay for a new stadium, while they still had somewhere where they could watch their team, as they still had good sightlines and decent weather.
Then you add in the rumoured asking price of the proposed stadium complex - $1.8 BILLION - just for a team that plays, at most, 13 home games a year (factoring in pre and post season) and where most revenue goes to the team/league, well I can't fault the people of San Diego for telling them where to stick it.
You can also look at the plight of Detroit as a case of being careful what you vote for. The Silverdome wasn't a sexy looking venue, but it was serviceable enough, yet the city of Detroit part funded the $350 million Ford Field, which I'm sure the city would love some of that money back while it toils in bankruptcy (I'm not claiming that as the sole reason for Detroits financial plight btw, but it's a tale of warning for cities pondering a similar move)

On the other hand I can't fault the owner for wanting more money as the business model of NFL ownership has led the push for cash generating stadiums, and the people of San Diego knew the risk of losing their team by voting no, sadly. It's just a shitty thing to see long enduring teams like the original Cleveland Browns, San Diego Chargers, Houston Oilers, original LA Rams and the like lost to the business of the NFL, where fans don't matter in the quest for more cash.
 
Seen a few tweets that the chargers will not actually be using the LA logo they unveiled today :drunk:

If true...

Yeah not now.

After it has been absolutely smoked from every avenue.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top