|
Having had lived in San Diego for Way Too LongŠ back in the day, I don't know whether they should be happy or sad about them possibly losing the Chargers to LA. Qualcomm was never the reason that the team saw so many blackouts: the ownership never went all in on making a truly viable team and the local market knew it. Trying to blame the stadium for their woes and trying to put the taxpayers in an already expensive as gently caress city on the line for a replacement is ridiculous, and I'm glad that SD figured that poo poo out. If the AFC West hadn't been so bad for the majority of their tenure, the Chargers would have probably moved up to LA a long time ago. Teaming up with the Raiders is a special kind of irony, though. No one in LA really gives a poo poo about the Chargers except for SD transplants, and forcing them to share a stadium with their rivals is basically going to crush any sort of fanbase for them. Spanos claims that this move is happening to protect the Chargers from losing 25% of their fans in LA once the Raiders take that territory, but the reality is that they're going to lose 70% of their fanbase by bailing on SD and another 25% when LA has a more historically viable option in the Raiders. Hell, Qualcomm is 80% Oakland fans when they're in town, why did they think moving further North would help with that? Now the Chargers will get to play 4 home and 8 away games in their divions. If the loving Padres can maintain their fanbase better than the Chargers can, Spanos should just sell the team to Portland or Vegas as an experiment.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
SA2K posted:The same Padres that can't fill one tenth of their stadium unless the Giants or Dodgers are in town? I've never seen PetCo under 40% in person, but that's also because I only went to Cubs games or games where they had some deal like fireworks or bobbleheads or 3 for 1 so who knows? They give away at least 10% of their seats to Scripps employees and locally stationed armed forces so I don't know what to tell you. At least the Padres had that insanely good food deal back in the day, whereas Qualcomm overcharged for lovely domestics and shittier local brews. I'd like to think that simply lowering the domestic beer pours at Qualcomm by 25% would draw more people to the games, but it's become a local habit to tailgate with cans of Natty and throw fulls cans at visiting fans. Tzen posted:If the drat Padres are doing better than you, you're loving up badly. This is the poo poo that I do like. pathetic little tramp posted:All bleedin comin together: chargers leave for la, Padres can get sold to Charlotte or something, and then the Sockers will reign supreme in San Diego sports I would agree, except the Gulls are coming back soonish and they were the best sports team in San Diego bar none. Cheap seats, guaranteed fights, lots of promotional events like dog night and mullet night. Most locals don't even know about the Sockers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
SA2K posted:You can't build a tree house in California without years of red tape. Oakland in particular is insanely difficult When I was on the HOA at my place in La Jolla, it took ~6 months after acknowledgement from the city of San Diego to remove a downed tree that had clipped the powerlines to our neighborhood clubhouse. Our property managers refused to simply hire some random joe to take it down because the red tape surrounding public land is so layered that we could have faced almost a million dollars in fines. We literally couldn't use our facilities for the entire summer because San Diego is so slow to act on anything, even when it makes perfect sense. Basically, California is stupid. Getting anything built in San Diego county is going to have so much poo poo in front and hanging on to the paperwork that the Chargers wouldn't have a new stadium until 2020 probably. Zurreco fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So what you're saying is that California, though beautiful and awesome, is gross and lame. I could say a lot about the state, but none of it would be good and I don't want to go down that route. If it comes down to it, though, the Rams should be happy that they might be spared having to move to LA.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
It looks like a mission twist on the Spectrum (or whatever that mall East of the highway is just south of LA). This is not a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:How much of a cash cow is a stadium in LA? According to this LA Times piece AEG paid $27 million for just the environmental study for a stadium that's probably not going to happen. That's not that much if you think about it. CA has a shitton of regulations that need to be covered in EIS documentation as is, but LA is also incredibly expensive to develop in and incredibly sensitive to a lot of environmental things. Anything that is going to use a lot of land and cause a lot of traffic is going to require hydrodynamic/atmospheric/transportation/etc. modeling. You can also throw a lot of money (which they're obviously doing) to cover every aspect in order to streamline the EIS process. They'd probably be losing money in the long run if they didn't rush the approval and ground breaking. 27m is peanuts even over 10 years of stadium activities (or even the construction costs).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Tzen posted:Came across this while looking into SD/OAK stadium poo poo, http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/SanDiegoChargers/newindex.htm Looks a lot like CenturyLink, although most new open air stadiums are starting to look the same.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
SA2K posted:If you don't think the climate in San Diego and Los Angeles are different, you've never been to California I mean, one is dry and hot, the other one is more dry and more hot. They're not exactly night and day. Also, a proper comparison for Seattle would be moving the team down to Tacoma, as it's roughly the same distance/drive time and they have distinguishable climates.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
SA2K posted:In what universe is San Diego dry and hot? I mean, sure, you might need to use the air conditioner for two weeks out of the year, but that's not a hot climate. I moved there from Chicago and even after ~15 years living there I never got used to the heat or the dryness. It even gets exacerbated by the Santa Ana winds, which is essentially heat and dryness incarnate. San Diego is literally a desert. Zurreco fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
SA2K posted:Well when your baseline is "lovely cold Midwestern weather", I guess you don't know how to react to it feeling nice outside Everyone I know who has lived in both Southern CA and somewhere with actual weather patterns has distinctively preferred the latter. Leaving SD was one of the best things I ever did for myself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Metapod posted:is there a san diego suburb that could possibly be easier to build in? Miramar maybe? It has a shitton of open land and is pretty accessible. It's also starting to see a pretty big boom of thriving companies (especially breweries). They're already planning on extending the trolley lines up to UTC so adding another few miles or so to the East wouldn't hurt. It's easier to work with than staying where Qualcomm is, anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Tzen posted:Yeah serious answer: Miramar, Santee, or I suppose redevelop the Qualcomm site in Mission Valley. If you build in Santee none of the Marines from Oceanside or rich folks from Del Mar/La Jolla are going to bother making the trek down. You need to build somewhere between downtown, Encinitas, and Rancho Bernardo in order to serve the vast majority of ticket buying fans. Meanwhile, Phillip Rivers has all but acknowledged that if the team moves he won't be resigning with the Chargers because that's easier than relocating his brood 100 miles to the North.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
SA2K posted:Except the Rams Visiting teams will have an easy time preparing for their wins. Better facilities, shorter flights, still facing the Rams, etc etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Nothing makes more sense than an AFC East team being in Southern California.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:One of the SD Councilpeople (whose district Qualcomm is in) released a mocked up new stadium shot: This is so ludicrous. Just look at what that area looks like right now. They're going to remove all of the parking in a part of town already known for it's terrible parking? And they're probably not going to upgrade the trolleys or increase parking capacity at the trolley stops, so it's not like mass transit is going to help with that. You need to maintain that stupidly large parking lot in order to maintain your crowds. Meanwhile it looks like they have a ~100+ ft wide walkway between that stupid sundial and the stadium to help ease congestion for all of the fans leaving games early in the third quarter. The unusable greenspace that will be dry and brown for the majority of the year is the icing on the cake. The saddest thing is that they're going to get rid of the huge circular ramps at Qualcomm. Those were arguably the best part about going to games there. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why the Chargers are handling this so much differently that the Padres. You would think that every major sports team in the country would look at how the Padres were able to swing PetCo without pissing anyone off as a guideline for upgrades.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
If Rams get their deal secured is it a race between Raiders and Chargers or are they gonna try to force 3 teams? Or, more realistically, is Dean Spanos just going to take the standing offer from SD and shut up?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
LockHeart posted:Seriously, it took me two hours and change to get from Carlsbad to being parked in the stadium last season. Coaster to Trolley, mang. Why would you ever want to be on any of the highways during a home game at Qualcomm? As if traffic wasn't bad enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
LEGO Genetics posted:Oakland couldn't even get a dog park approved much less a billion dollar football/baseball stadium. They should just build a dog park / football stadium in Oakland! That way someone is actually using the land after January.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
I would rather the Raiders went to San Antonio regardless of who else ends up in LA. This whole ordeal is getting tiresome.Sour Diesel posted:and besides if anyone posted their heart out it was wheez Fin.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:the biggest tragedy of the Chargers moving would be the inability to use this anymore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw5mkSnqOM8
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Cruel and Unusual posted:Seahawks to Oklahoma City, Chargers to Seattle. It's really quite simple. Nah, I moved to Seattle to get away from the Chargers. Don't do this to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:Highway 5 is neat because you can tell what part of the state people are from by their opinion of it. The 5 doesn't get enjoyable until you hit Weed heading North.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:Back in the good old days my grandfather watched football from a wooden bleacher, and he enjoyed it. I would kill for a stadium that was just seats, bathrooms, and hotdog + beer vendors. The amount of poo poo that they cram into arenas nowadays is stupid, and it gets reflected in capital costs and ticket prices.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
So the Qualcomm plan involves moving the stadium even farther away from the trolley? It legit looks like you have to walk a half a mile just to get to the concourse with the incredibly oversized jumbotron and the little helmetless kid kickflipping off of a cement... thing directly into an even more awkward looking skater. I've been working with the new Sonics Arena folks and even their quick and dirty renderings make the SD contributions look like hot garbage soup. Did they even attempt to put anything to scale?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Yeah no, it's already way too close to the 15. The Friars/15 interchange is bad enough when it isn't a game day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Brazil has a shitload of empty stadiums they built for the world cup that are basically going unusued. The Rio Raiders sounds pretty good to me. And they're in a way better time zone than London, for having normal games at normal times. We see enough folks puking on the field from concussions. No need to add intestinal distress.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:What makes San Antonio a better destination than St. Louis? Residents would actually want them there. Residents could also probably afford to go to games. Texas can handle three teams. Missouri can barely justify having one. Color scheme matches Spurs. St Louis is going downhill incredibly fast while SA is actually kind of getting good at a healthy rate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
I wonder what happens when Oakland decides to throw the Raiders a bone and STL approves their new arena. All of a sudden the race for LA becomes moot and the Chargers have to confirm that they're going to LA purely because of a fancy new handout in spite of their fanbase. Hopefully the Chargers leave and all of the locals decide to support the best team they have: THE GULLS. If the Chargers want to be a mediocre team in LA for a few years before the new car smell dissipates and their attendance plummets, so be it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Ross Angeles posted:LA wants the Rams. LA kind of wants the Raiders. LA would rather not have a team than get the Chargers. All of my LA friends say they're open to the Raiders and ambivalent about the Rams. They really don't want the Chargers though. Obviously the Chargers and Raiders are gonna get the OK because Kroenke basically has his stupid STL stadium funded. Chargers will get almost zero traction in LA compared to the Raiders and then they'll look into relocating back South, especially when they get relegated to playing "home" vs the Jags in London.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Realistic possibilities: One bad team goes to LA. More than one bad team goes to LA.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted: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. 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. The amount of Orange County folks who are happier about the shorter drive aren't going to fill an arena and the majority of people attending Charger home games in LA will probably just be folks trying to network ā la Levy's Stadium today.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:How so? If they stayed, the 25% of people who go to their games in LA would gradually drift to an LA team due to convenience. So they lose that market. What do they lose if they move to LA? Where do SD Charger fans go? Sure they have a longer drive and you're going to get less people from San Diego at games, but that's easily outweighed by the perks of having a city as massive as LA to get fan outreach going on. Not to mention that being in LA with such a huge amount of people means they'll be getting larger turnout from fans of other teams that come to visit, which sells tickets. From a business sense, they're absolutely right in trying to get into LA. To drag this up from a few pages ago, I think you're drastically overestimating the amount of fans in SD that are willing to drive up to LA. It takes forever to get anywhere in SD county, and if you add an extra 100 miles of highway driving through one of the worst traffic corridors to that, no one south of Oceanside is going to make that trek. Also keep in mind that the vast majority of Charger fans in SD don't have a lot of money: hell, not many people in SD have a lot of money. The only reason that Qualcomm doesn't have last place attendance rates is that it's fairly easy to get to, is relatively affordable to enter, and has parking lot is practically designed for cheap tailgating. I think it would be healthy to say that, as it pertains to fans that live in SD county: -30% of current fans will just give up on the franchise and focus on the Padres/change allegiance to the Cardinals. -50% won't be able to afford LA tickets plus travel plus tailgate, won't even make the effort to attend home games. -15% of the fans who would could afford to go to LA won't travel for logical/logistical reasons because oh my god it's a not fun drive, especially during checkpoint or PM peak times. -5% remainder that can and will travel will do so, but you're talking about a net loss of millions of ticket sales per home game, exacerbated over the season(s). Spanos is making a huge gamble hoping that LA folks will be willing to shell out any money in order to attend games for a team that they don't give a poo poo about. You can't build an attendance model around the hopes that transplants will want to see their teams playing because the Chargers can only play the Bears or Steelers so many times every decade. If the Chargers decide to shack up with Kroenke, they're not going to see any cashflow from PSLs or advertising because the Rams have no intention of sharing that poo poo. Also, attempting to get your foot in the door in LA alongside a resurgence of the Raiders or Rams returning to LA, especially with how both teams are on the upswing, is a incredibly naive. tl;dr: The amount of fans they will gain by moving will not outpace the amount of fans they will lose, SD fans don't travel well, LA Chargers is a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-stadium-20160110-story.html So what happens when 2 teams go to LA and the third doesn't? All of a sudden Goodell will be OK with said stadium proposals so long as the public funds them? Seems like he's talked himself into a pretty stupid hole.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:What does it matter? The nfl will get what it wants anyway. Because when the Raiders relocating gets voted down, all of a sudden Oakland has a shitton of leverage over the Raiders and they'll use Goodell's comments to force Davis into shelling out more money to make any new stadium "satisfactory." Not that I have an issue with any of the franchises being forced into paying for their own stadium, but Goodell could have literally said nothing and the relocation votes would still go through.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
He's right, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Does this mean that Chargers/Spanos essentially get zero money from advertising in the Inglewood stadium? Also, RIP SD Chargers fans. You'll all be Raiders/Cardinals fans before next season even starts, hopefully.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:If Chargers fans are looking for someone to root for, you do still have a recent national champion football team: Uhh SD has the Gulls and the Soccers. I think they're gonna be ok.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
I like how they don't even mention the city of Oakland in there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Well hey, at least Spanos can go back to SD and say "they would have given me $100m to back out of LA but I still think that you should pay it instead."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Makes sense. If Chargers are just occupying Kroenke's stadium when the Rams aren't playing, Spanos and co will probably get zero (or very little) income from vendors/parking/advertising. I doubt Chargers would be able to buy enough season seats to compete with the Rams offering a better product in the same location (in a more dynamic division)?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 05:28
|
|