|
SA2K posted:San Diegans also have an extreme inferiority complex when it comes to LA. It's not just sports, but I'd say that rooting against the Dodgers and Raiders when they were in LA, and losing the Clippers to LA plays a part. I've lived in SD my whole life and I never understood hate for LA. It's always used as some kind of bogeyman for us, and I don't get it. Both places have cool things and lovely things. But they're both more similar to each other than not
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
I think any new stadium deal in SD needs to offer a way for taxpayers to recoup some money. Historically and presently there have been bad deals for the city, so some give on the rent/revenue could go a long way. http://voiceofsandiego.org/must-reads/fact-check-city-pays-chargers-play-qualcomm-stadium/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
My great joy right now is listening to all of the local SD sports talk show guys and the UT acting as sycophantic mouthpieces for the Chargers. When the stadium group announced it was focusing on the Mission Valley site, they all had a conniption fit and swore that that was the end of it and the Chargers were leaving. Also, I'm glad you don't like my town. Don't come here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Drove through Carson yesterday. Confirmed that it's still a hell/shithole.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
One of the SD Councilpeople (whose district Qualcomm is in) released a mocked up new stadium shot: Looks like tailgating is not going to happen in that plan. I actually think a higher density plan is pretty smart in a city with so little real estate, though the big question would be transit options. If you've got housing and a hotel there, you're going to need lots of parking and rail/bike/bus/etc ways in and out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
SA2K posted:Wanna see all those office buildings and hotels and apartments get built. If Friars road isn't congested NOW, just wait Seriously. There needs to be a couple of other access points, hopefully across the river. My biggest problem with Qualcomm right now is that you have to show up 3 hours early to make it into the stadium on time for the game. chupacabraTERROR posted:The whole thing just looks like it lacks any real plan or design aside from "put a bunch of square buildings into a place" It would have helped to include some street-level views. All buildings are going to look like square buildings from above, tbh. The thing that looks weirdest to me is the big courtyard/spike/sundial thing. That doesn't really scream Chargers or San Diego to me. Apparently the stadium group has said their plan won't be as dense, which is a little disappointing. I'm all for tailgating, but a giant parking lot seems like a wasted opportunity, even if you can Race Legal(tm) there on Friday nights or go to a swap meet or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Zurreco posted:This is so ludicrous. To be fair, this is just come councilmember's mocked up shot. The actual stadium advisory folks aren't going to do one, but they did say this one was much more dense than their plan, so we'll see in May or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So is the LA Rams a done deal at this point, and we're just waiting around for the stadium to be built? St. Louis is ramping up like mad to keep the Rams, but it's hard to say if Kroenke has already made up his mind about LA. It would seem so, but part of that is how attractive it's going to be if he has to shell out a chunk of cash to the Chargers (and potentially the Raiders)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Zurreco posted:If Rams get their deal secured is it a race between Raiders and Chargers or are they gonna try to force 3 teams? If the Rams secure their deal in Inglewood, then Carson as a dual-team stadium is dead, because the NFL won't allow three teams in LA. It's also dead as a single-team stadium, because the economics are terrible and neither the Chargers or Raiders can afford to build there alone. They may attempt to force Kroenke to accept a second team in Inglewood, but I don't know the logistics of that or how much of a threat that is. Certainly, Kroenke doesn't want to do that, because then he's splitting revenues with another team. I think if he gets in, it weakens the bargaining position of the other teams. The Chargers, whether they stay or go, will demand compensation for the Rams moving into their turf.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Kroenke already announced that the Inglewood stadium is going to be built to house two teams. Two full sets of offices, owners boxes, home lockerrooms, etc "Kroenke doesn't need to partner with another team to finance the stadium, but the NFL sees L.A. as a two-team market and wants venues to be capable of hosting both. The Inglewood plan is two-team compliant, which means it has two home locker rooms, identical sets of office space, and two owners' suites. Whereas the Carson proposal is based on the Chargers and Raiders simultaneously relocating, it is widely believed Kroenke does not want to share the market with another NFL team right away, and, because he would be assuming the risk of the stadium by himself, would want to reap the benefits of getting his team up and running as L.A.'s sole franchise." http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-inglewood-20150322-column.html Both things are true, I think. He doesn't want to share the stadium, but he's going through the process because he knows the NFL will be more likely to put the screws in if he doesn't design it with two teams in mind. The design can quickly change if the Raiders and Chargers get stadium deals in their respective cities. I don't know precisely, but I would think if he builds and owns the stadium, he can charge rent to whatever other team shows up. Plus he would likely retain all of the naming rights money. Alternatively, he could make a second team pitch in some cash to the construction if he's the only game in town. He may also negotiate with the NFL to be the sole NFL franchise in LA for x number of years before they require him to take on a second team. Glass of Milk fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
I wondered about Kroenke keeping the Rams in St. Louis with a publically financed stadium, building the Inglewood stadium and charging the Raiders (and/or Chargers?) rent to play there. Is that plausible?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I'm ok with the Chargers leaving now
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:gently caress off How about McCoy? Can McCoy just leave?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:McCoy is generally fine. Yeah, well-coached teams usually fall behind in the first half of every game. Dude only did well in 2013 because he had Whisenhunt. "Compared to 2013, the offense dropped in points (from 12th in the league to 17th), yards (5th to 18th), first downs (3rd to 15th), net yards per pass (2nd to 8th), rushing yards (13th to 30) and yards per rush (21st to 31st)." Dude is bad, and it's showing this year. In actual stadium news, the city may be leveraging the lease to prevent the Chargers from leaving: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/Chargers-May-Be-in-Default-of-Their-Stadium-Lease-329576571.html It would be such a satisfying one-two punch to Spanos to have the Rams go to LA alone and the city leaving the Chargers without a lease to play in Qualcomm.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
If the Chargers leave, my backup team is the Bills. Which means I never need to care about the NFL again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OSC-rXed-I Dick Enberg needs money. I like that stadium design, though. Too bad it will never happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:Best ending, no one moves to LA, LA falls into a fiery vortex and is destroyed forever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Dr Tran posted:Summary so far of the town hall meeting in San Diego: A person earnestly described LA as "Smell-A" to the NFL executives and received a high five for it. This stupid city.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
I wonder if the NFL really cares all that much about fan attendance at games. I mean it's nice if the stadium sells out, but as long as those luxury boxes are filled and the owners keep getting sweet cheap/free stadiums that increase their team's value, are they worried about not having the upper deck filled? I think it was mentioned that the Chargers' value would double with a new stadium- what's a couple million dollars in ticket revenue versus $1.5 billion?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:Will the Chargers value really double when they're the clear #2 team and a Tennant in Kroenke's stadium? Probably immediately after it happens, and then the value will drop once it's apparent nobody in LA really wants them there. I get what you're saying, though, and I'm certain that's why the Chargers are continuing the façade of Carson. Why rent when you can own?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Somehow all of this is going to result in the Raiders moving to San Diego and I will not be happy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Inglewood is happening, it's just a matter of who goes there. I want the NFL to delay one more year just to chagrin the Chargers org at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
From that article: "The height is eight feet shorter than a planned stadium on the same site that received a "no hazard" determination from the FAA in 1995." Add some radar-absorption and there's no issue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
It seems like they have a couple questions to answer: -Take care of Spanos vs. Kroenke has money to make it work -Two teams in LA or One team -What do you do with the Raiders? I think it's either going to be Chargers/Rams in Inglewood or just Rams in Inglewood, with the Chargers to potentially get more financial help to build in SD. And I don't see how the Raiders don't end up in SD or St. Louis.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
I'm not yet convinced SD will be selected. I think there's a split in the ownership group between STL and SD/OAK. Hopefully today's game helped put to bed the thought that SD fans don't support their team, not that that makes any difference in the equation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:Realistic possibilities: I think the first two are the likeliest. The Chargers will not be allowed to move on their own. Today, right now, Spanos could accept Kroenke's offer of a partnership at Inglewood and the whole thing would be resolved. He doesn't want to do that, though. I think the league could send Kroenke to LA for a year, give SD the opportunity to vote for stadium funding and if the city doesn't do it then force Spanos into Inglewood. Oakland is an interesting issue. If they get more funds than normal from the NFL to build a stadium, then other cities might not respond to this kind of extortion in the future. If the Chargers do leave I guess I'll be a Green Bay fan simply because they're not going to pull this poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
The Chargers really didn't try that hard to get a new stadium- 1. A 2003 proposal to redevelop the Qualcomm site had drawings and a conceptual $400M financing outline: Chargers to pay half for free land. 2. An offer from National City for the team to develop 52 acres controlled by the Port and railroad that collapsed with no formal team plan. 3. A study of land in Chula Vista paid for by the Chargers that found two possible stadium sites but involved no formal team financing plan. 4. Discussion of building a stadium and office space in Oceanside, an idea that doesn’t pencil out and thus never includes a financing plan. 5. A suggestion from a national developer to build an Oceanside stadium and shopping center, all together now, with no team financing plan. 6. The possibility of buying a bunch of land in Escondido in 2009 to cobble together a stadium site, which quickly falls apart with no plan. 7. A plan hatched in 2009 to transform several East Village sites, including an operating busyard, into a stadium built with team/NFL$400M. 8. The 10th Avenue Marine Terminal site plan pushed most publicly by then-U-T ownership in 2012 without support from city or team officials. 9. Public officials’ new Mission Valley idea, which the team met with opposition, refusing to negotiate let alone consider a financing plan. So, one plan 5 years after they signed a 20-year lease and half right after the worst financial crisis in recent history. And no negotiation with the current mayor. Also, Oceanside, Escondido, etc are not part of the city of San Diego.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
The other thing I'm thinking is that, even if the Chargers are forced to come back to SD, there's no way the city is gonna vote to enrich Spanos after this whole thing. Maybe if they had a different owner, but not him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:I love how the Chargers brass keeps harping on protecting their "25% of revenue" that they get from Orange County/LA but never really comment on the other 75% that they're gonna lose from moving. Implicit in that is that there's 14 million people in LA so losing the 3 or so million in SD doesn't mean anything to them. They just won't day that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Zurreco posted:Yeah but 95% of LA doesn't and probably still won't care about the Chargers, whereas there is a decent fanbase in SD. It's a net loss in fanbase if they move, pretty much guaranteed. I agree, but it may not matter. To be honest, selling out a stadium is not going to be a problem anywhere in Southern California, SD or LA. The real money is in PSLs and naming rights and LA has a bigger business base to draw from. That's hundreds of millions of dollars that all go directly into the owner's pockets.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
It may be the San Diego Raiders before too long. I don't think I could bring myself to root for them, though. I'll burn all my Chargers poo poo if they move. Or pack it in a box and forget about it until it's worth a lot more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Best resolution would be no relocation plan gets enough votes and Spanos has to crawl back to San Diego with his hat in his hand for a one year deal at Qualcomm. And no plan will get done in SD because nobody is gonna vote to subsidize Spanos, so he'll just go to LA one year later. I think they're gonna try and push for Chargers/Rams in Inglewood. But if they give money to the Raiders then good luck to the next team that tries to extort a city for public money for a new stadium.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
On the other hand, it will be nice to have my Sundays to myself. There's no way Dean doesn't try to block any other team going to San Diego.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Today was more exciting than any Chargers game this year. I wish there was a camera recording the exact moment Spanos' heart broke. Somehow I feel like the Chargers are going to end up in a stadium downtown, which is probably what should have happened in the first place, but I'm not sure if I can still be a fan of any franchise with Spanos' lame-rear end ownership seeping out of it. Also, I am sorry, Rams fans. If the world was more just cities would own the teams.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:Dean Spanos looked like he wanted to throw up at the press conference Yeah it was cool
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Many people from San Diego seem to hate LA, which I don't get. There's poo poo to hate there, but there's poo poo to hate everywhere. Austin was one of the coolest towns I've been to and also the humidity made me want to die. Live where you want and gently caress the haters
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
I think the sports radio guys in San Diego are crapping themselves over the uncertainty with the Chargers. If that team moves they've got nothing to talk about. Nobody is gonna wanna hear about the Padres losing again. Going back to hometown chat, I was born and raised in San Diego. In fact, apart from going to college, I've only lived here because of course I would. The first year I gave a poo poo about the Chargers was when I was in high school the year they went to the Super Bowl, so having them leave would be pretty lovely. For me it's the Chargers or no NFL...I'd feel like a fraud trying to represent some other team, especially one that had had any history of success.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
I think Spanos goes to LA if he doesn't think it's going to happen in SD, which for many reasons, it may not. -I don't think location matters so much. Downtown will make the team more valuable, but if the city offers some land in Mission Valley, which is a proposal from the very first years of negotiation, Spanos might take that in lieu of public money. Remember, relocating to LA isn't giving up $100M, it's giving up $650M - relocation fee + incentive money. -Having a public vote will kill any deal, I think. Spanos wants a sure thing, and if he thinks there's a chance it won't happen he'll go to LA. With all the burned bridges in San Diego, a public vote will turn out as badly as the owner's vote did. So I think Faulconer starts negotiating now, then leading up to the election he starts saying that if he's re-elected there's a mandate to get something done with the Chargers (he's running unopposed right now). June primary comes around, he's re-elected and a couple weeks later they unveil their plan. I'm personally avoiding the whole issue in media- so much poo poo is thrown around that it's exhausting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:The Corey Briggs citizen initiative will avoid a public vote, which is what the Chargers will bank on. That initiative is of questionable legality, and it also is based on getting $300M of relocation fee money from whoever moved to LA. It also doesn't specifically involve building a stadium, which will require a public vote.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 22:46
|
|