|
Few do.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Hur hur
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
As an Orange County NFL-watcher, I would prefer the Chargers over the Rams and especially the Raiders. The Chargers occasionally make the playoffs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:Me too, but the thought of not dropping two teams on a barren market all at once isn't dumb It's Los Angeles, the #2 market in the country and almost as important is that's one less relocation fee and any NFL teams in LA become instantly worth billions. Those are two huge incentives for owners to want two teams in LA, it just may not happen at the same time. Spanos and Davis could muster up the nine votes to block getting frozen out unless they get league money to build stadiums. Spanos is a bit of a wild card as it seems he's dead set on leaving SD while Davis would prefer to stay in Oakland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:It's Los Angeles, the #2 market in the country and almost as important is that's one less relocation fee and any NFL teams in LA become instantly worth billions. Those are two huge incentives for owners to want two teams in LA, it just may not happen at the same time. Spanos and Davis could muster up the nine votes to block getting frozen out unless they get league money to build stadiums. Spanos is a bit of a wild card as it seems he's dead set on leaving SD while Davis would prefer to stay in Oakland. I agree in principle. I still don't think Spanos wants to leave, but the past 15 years of trying to get a deal done has understandably frustrated him. If he really WANTED to leave, I think he would have left already. Two teams in LA could potentially work, but like you said, it might not be at the same time. I think the Rams moving would be the preferred option of the league because Kroenke has the land and money. If the Rams move back and it works out, it opens the door for another team to come in. I just don't think the NFL will risk putting two teams there in 2016 with no where to play. And a postponement will give the city of San Diego more ti.e to try and work out a deal. They've already been working with the nfl and trying to show there's a viable deal, which would prevent the Chargers from moving via the NFL's own relocation bylaws. I don't know what's going on with Oakland. Mark Davis can't move by himself, and probably wants to hitch himself to either the Rams or Chargers. I don't know what they'll do if the Chargers and Rams ultimately both end up in LA. I just wish all this was over, one way or the other
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:As an Orange County NFL-watcher, I would prefer the Chargers over the Rams and especially the Raiders. The Chargers occasionally make the playoffs. The Raiders have Carr, Mack, Cooper, and Aldon Smith, all 25 and under. When Rivers dies, the Chargers will be facing a full scale rebuild. The Raiders are much better primed for the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The Raiders have Carr, Mack, Cooper, and Aldon Smith, all 25 and under. When Rivers dies, the Chargers will be facing a full scale rebuild. The Raiders are much better primed for the future. San Diego only has.like 5 players over 30 a neat cape fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The Raiders have Carr, Mack, Cooper, and Aldon Smith, all 25 and under. When Rivers dies, the Chargers will be facing a full scale rebuild. The Raiders are much better primed for the future. chickens, something something, hatch
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Aldon Smith
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Also lol at the idea of counting on Aldon Smith for anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
The more important reason for only one team to move to LA is that it leaves "Well they could always move another team" on the table to try to fleece San Diego or Oakland into sweeter stadium deals once word starts leaking out about how much more profitable the LA Rams become after they leave St. Louis. Move two teams and there's no other market with the drawing power of LA to step in as the boogeyman about to steal your team unless the taxpayers fund a nicer stadium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:San Diego only has.like 5 players over 30 and only keenan allen under 30.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:I just wish all this was over, one way or the other Consider also that the NFL (i.e. the owners) is worth more when each team has it's own stadium rather than some shared arrangement between two teams. Chargers fans in LA and Raiders fans in LA are likely going to remain fans of those teams if they stay where they are. So there's a lot of evidence that the Rams may be the only tenant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
oldskool posted:The more important reason for only one team to move to LA is that it leaves "Well they could always move another team" on the table to try to fleece San Diego or Oakland into sweeter stadium deals once word starts leaking out about how much more profitable the LA Rams become after they leave St. Louis. Move two teams and there's no other market with the drawing power of LA to step in as the boogeyman about to steal your team unless the taxpayers fund a nicer stadium. No disrespect intended here, but that's an insanely dumb mindset. The real powerbrokers in the NFL(and every single owner on the commission that decides who goes to LA) aren't moving their teams and will be much more interested in relocation fees and the instant increased valuation of any team moving to LA(when they're sold, all owners get paid). That was maybe viable in the late 90s, but the NFL has grown insanely in the last 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:As an Orange County NFL-watcher, I would prefer the Chargers over the Rams and especially the Raiders. The Chargers occasionally make the playoffs. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:San Diego is going to London. Untrue as a matter of page tectonics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Absolute worst case is that the owners gang up on mark davis and oust him from ownership, or at least management. The league takes control and they move the team to some pliant city willing to build a stadium like san antonio. The idea of the NFL owning the Raiders of all teams makes me want to burn the whole thing down. And I don't even really like the Raiders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
The league wouldn't have to take over. I'm not sure of what they are and aren't allowed to do, but there's some rich as gently caress people who own shares of the Raiders. Mark could just sell like 20% to one of them so they become the majority owner if push came to shove. I'd love for the team to stay in the Davis family, and Mark has done a good job of staying in his lane, but we're loving broke dude. If we can only get a stadium built with private funds that Mark doesn't have, I don't see what the gently caress else is supposed to be done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:California doesn't need 4 teams It worked fine for a long time
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The league wouldn't have to take over. I'm not sure of what they are and aren't allowed to do, but there's some rich as gently caress people who own shares of the Raiders. Mark could just sell like 20% to one of them so they become the majority owner if push came to shove. I'd love for the team to stay in the Davis family, and Mark has done a good job of staying in his lane, but we're loving broke dude. If we can only get a stadium built with private funds that Mark doesn't have, I don't see what the gently caress else is supposed to be done. I'm still hoping for them to slide into LA and watch the Chargers go back to San Diego like an embarrassed middle aged man going home to his wife after his mistress kicked him out of the apartment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:No disrespect intended here, but that's an insanely dumb mindset. The real powerbrokers in the NFL(and every single owner on the commission that decides who goes to LA) aren't moving their teams and will be much more interested in relocation fees and the instant increased valuation of any team moving to LA(when they're sold, all owners get paid). Panthers, Bills and Dolphins leveraged relocation to get stadium upgrades. Vikings, Falcons, hell as far back as the Colts got new stadiums. None of them were ever going to move (ok maybe the Bills and eventually the Panthers but that's more due to an ownership change after a death) but they all used the same "  we just can't afford the proper stadium amenities oh nooooo and if we don't get a new stadium or upgrade our old one well we just won't be able to stay here when there's a nice new stadium in a way bigger market just waiting for us" bullshit line to guilt-trip taxpayers to foot more of the bill than they were originally willing to.So long as a large viable market exists it's useful leverage. Taxpayers contributed over a billion dollars to the aforementioned construction costs (among others), all to try to head off the risk that LA might build a stadium and might get a team out of it and the team might be theirs if they didn't. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that Oakland and San Diego taxpayers are far more afraid of the prospect of the LA Raiders & LA Chargers than the Portland Chargers or the San Antonio Raiders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
For a long long time I wanted the Chargers to stay in San Diego, but through this ridiculous bidding process it's become obvious that Spanos just wants to move the team so he can sell it and become a billionaire. Between that and increasing data showing that very few municipal stadiums ever actually make money for the municipality, I'm losing patience with the whole matter. Want a stadium? Pay to build one. Can't afford it? Maybe you shouldn't be an NFL owner any more. The money the league and the teams make is ridiculous. Crying poor is no longer a viable option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Tricky Ed posted:For a long long time I wanted the Chargers to stay in San Diego, but through this ridiculous bidding process it's become obvious that Spanos just wants to move the team so he can sell it and become a billionaire. Between that and increasing data showing that very few municipal stadiums ever actually make money for the municipality, I'm losing patience with the whole matter. Spanos is never going to sell the team. Alex Spanos is a billionaire, Dean Spanos is the defacto owner, and his sons are slowly taking over both football and business operations. It's a family business at this point, and it won't ever be sold
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'd love for the team to stay in the Davis family, and Mark has done a good job of staying in his lane, but we're loving broke dude. Al Davis was amazing and Mark is far better than his haircut might let anyone think but... Ownership of teams is way too big for it to be a thing passed down in families like some lordship. There's just too much money at stake for ownership to fall to some bad apple. I really wish the league would open up ownership rules so more teams could be publicly owned like the Packers, or at least more widely held to allow some form of board governance like companies ought to have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:California doesn't need 4 teams It would work out just fine. Hell, California has 1/6 of all the teams in MLB with 5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
oldskool posted:Panthers, Bills and Dolphins leveraged relocation to get stadium upgrades. Find me one example of a team getting what they want because they threatened to move to LA. Again, none of those teams actually moved. Kroenke doesn't give a poo poo what St. Louis does, he's moving. The same seems to be the case for Spanos in SD. Mark Davis isn't using LA as some kind of leverage to leave Oakland, he's stated publicly many times he'd rather stay in Oakland but will move to LA if that's the best available option. $600 million in relocation fees and shares of the sale of future LA teams worth billions is what the owners care about. A team(or two) to LA is going to happen, so I guess that leverage threat isn't as important as you're trying to make it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Run down the List of Metropolitan Areas in the US, and find the ones near the top that don't have a football team. Obviously LA is the first, at #2. The next one at #13 is Riverside/San Bernadino/Ontario. San Diego is at #17 and would be third if it lost its team. St. Louis is #19. The next area currently lacking an NFL team is Portland at #24, and then San Antonio at #25. From a financial standpoint, the NFL wants a team in LA and it would make sense for them to take one from literally any met area further down the list. It's approximate population of 13M people is more than double that of every area from #5 (Houston) on down. It's quadruple that of San Diego (~3.3M), and nearly five times that of St. Louis. Oakland and San Francisco are in the same met area, with a total pop of ~4.6M, but SF's team is now midway between SF and San Jose, and the San Jose met area is treated separately, with a further ~2M people. What strikes me, though, are the cities waaaay down the list that do have teams. I think in many of these cases, the teams are accouting for much more widespread audiences of TV watchers. So the Saints in #45 New Orleans claim not just the 1.3M people there, but add in the rest of the state. The worst that I can find is #157 Green Bay, which has just 315k people, but Green Bay as we all know, is special. These numbers obviously don't tell the whole story. But from the NFL Owner's perspective, they want to invest in TV markets first and foremost. Putting two (or three or four) teams in LA makes more sense than having even one team in St. Louis, purely from a TV licensing perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:The same seems to be the case for Spanos in SD. This isn't true at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:You're right up until the last point, there's no real limit on how many people can watch a game at once but too many teams will end up stealing audiences away from others. 2 teams in a city is pretty much something only NYC and LA can possibly get away with. If the Bengals can get by in a metropolitan area of 2M people, two teams can get by in the 4.6M Oakland/SF area - especially when you add another 2M for San Jose. As long as one of those teams isn't consistently dogshit. The Bay Area can and has supported two NFL teams for decades, and is richer today than it's ever been. The Raiders are suffering because they've been terrible at playing football, and their home base is in a city that has struggled financially for decades. So Oakland just isn't willing (or able) to buy the Raiders a stadium with taxpayer money. It's possible that the Jets steal audiences from the Giants or vice-versa, but that's OK: the total audience size is enormous. The total audience size of the Bay Area - especially once you include San Jose - is big enough that, even split between two teams, each team has more potential eyeballs than half the other teams in the US. My point here basically is that when a team is struggling in a large market, you can't blame its struggles on not having enough market. And, when there's an enormous untapped market, it can definitely make sense to put two teams into it. Consider: if the Raiders or the Rams moved to LA, would they capture 100% of the LA football market? Probably not. If a second team, say, the Chargers, moved to LA, would there be enough market - between those not interested in the Raiders/Rams, and those more interested in the second team than the Raiders/Rams - to provide lots of tasty profits? Almost definitely. Even with three teams, especially if you include Riverside and add in some chunk of San Diego, southern california would still be giving the worst of those three teams a bigger TV-watching audience than probably half of the rest of the NFL.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:This isn't true at all. Everything I've heard and read is that Spanos wants to leave SD, I'll cede that you're probably in a better position to know but you're also a huge homer, so I dunno
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:.The Raiders are suffering because the bay area can't really support two NFL teams The raiders have been suffering because they've been terrible for a long time. The core fans are still there. Start winning again and the casual bandwagoneers will come back. Keep losing and it doesn't matter how big of a market they have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The raiders have been suffering because they've been terrible for a long time. The core fans are still there. Start winning again and the casual bandwagoneers will come back. Keep losing and it doesn't matter how big of a market they have. But then the 49ers fan base drops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:Everything I've heard and read is that Spanos wants to leave SD, I'll cede that you're probably in a better position to know but you're also a huge homer, so I dunno I have no doubt that Spanos at this point wants to move. But he isn't a maverick like Kroenke or Al Davis and won't move unless the NFL says okay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:But then the 49ers fan base drops. It's not necessarily zero-sum. If both teams are good, they'll both attract butts in seats. Both teams have roots here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Run down the List of Metropolitan Areas in the US, and find the ones near the top that don't have a football team. Yeah but LA sucks
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:You're right up until the last point, there's no real limit on how many people can watch a game at once but too many teams will end up stealing audiences away from others. 2 teams in a city is pretty much something only NYC and LA can possibly get away with. A few years ago, I did some number crunching on the matter and arrived at the idea that for every 6 million people in a state, you got a football team. Pennsylvania's got 13 million people, Steelers and Eagles Ohio's got 12 million, Browns and Bengals New York's got 20 million, Giants, Jets, and Bills Massachusetts got 7 million, Patriots And so on I concluded that Illinois, Texas, and California were underserved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Sash! posted:New York's got 20 million, Giants, Jets, and Bills But how many people does new jersey have?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Metapod posted:But how many people does new jersey have? Don't count as human
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
I'm ok with the Chargers leaving now
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:11
|
|