|
Have they solved the traffic issues? From what I understand weeknight games in any location that isn't downtown would cause massive traffic jams that would last for hours and affect large areas of the city.
|
# ¿ Feb 20, 2015 20:19 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:12 |
|
It's a pity that stadium couldn't be built since there isn't any way to incorporate the huge block of luxury boxes that every stadium needs to have.
|
# ¿ Mar 4, 2015 19:15 |
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:Why is this basically a rule? The CBA requires players get a percentage of revenue from ticket sales, but that doesn't apply to luxury boxes, so every dollar made from luxury box sales is worth double to the owners.
|
# ¿ Apr 3, 2015 20:43 |
|
No Safe Word posted:Yeah some weirdos think Colorado is in the Midwest but Texas? You could make a case for the part of Colorado east of Denver being the midwest, since there aren't any mountains and cows outnumber people.
|
# ¿ May 12, 2016 08:08 |
|
Here is their idea as to what the stadium will be used for: Seems quite optimistic to me. I'm not sure what they mean by "corporate/public show". Rugby isn't a major draw, I doubt you could get more than a few thousand people for a rugby game in the US unless you had the US national team playing an elite opponent, or a game with two elite national teams. Major soccer games won't happen without a natural grass surface, which would require an insane amount of maintenance. Two neutral site college football games plus two bowl games probably won't happen every year, nor would two stadium concerts. Konstantin fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Oct 10, 2016 |
# ¿ Oct 10, 2016 20:31 |
|
That ship has sailed, sports betting is legal in the UK, so the NFL can't deny a team to Vegas because of it without sounding like giant hypocrites.
|
# ¿ Oct 21, 2016 11:01 |
|
Zurreco posted:I think most everyone just wants then to tear down and rebuild Qualcomm rather than give the Chargers ANY land while there is still a giant concrete structure collecting dust. Where would they go in the meantime? The Rose Bowl has said they won't host an NFL team, and having them in AZ would anger the Cardinals' ownership.
|
# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 04:10 |
|
Is half of LA really a more valuable market than all of SD? I think that "half" is a bit generous, since the Chargers have to actively win over new fans, while competing with the Rams and whatever other teams LA football fans root for now. Doing that without winning will be tough, especially since they may be playing in a tiny soccer stadium with facilities that are worse than many college teams. This may also be bad for the NFL in general, since San Diego fans won't root for the Chargers and may stop watching football altogether. If this move reduces the total number of fans doing things like watching games on TV and buying branded merchandise then the NFL may have reason to block it.
|
# ¿ Dec 14, 2016 20:39 |
|
That's insane, SDSU pays $500k a season to use Qualcomm, and that figure includes the staff needed to run it.
|
# ¿ Dec 16, 2016 03:54 |
|
Since this is being done to make as much money as possible, they should just sell the team name to the highest bidder. I look forward to rooting against the Los Angeles Red Bulls.
|
# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 01:36 |
|
St. Louis is a cautionary tale, as they built a new stadium to attract the Rams, and that only bought them 25 years. It seems the NFL expects a new stadium or major renovation every 25-30 years, otherwise the team may be moved. Buffalo, Jacksonville, Carolina and Washington look to be the next targets, and already Jacksonville is getting home games taken away from them, while Dan Snyder is agitating for a new stadium in Washington.
|
# ¿ Dec 19, 2016 20:30 |
|
Chris James 2 posted:
This is a huge concession, and a big gently caress you to the Rams. If the Raiders continue to perform well on the field they could eat into the Rams' market share with this deal, especially if they are smart about marketing. Many LA fans would rather fly down to Vegas to see a good Raiders team rather than see a bad Rams team at home. If the Chargers end up moving, it will make it even more difficult for them to get fans, as they would start off third behind the Rams and Raiders. Also, if the Raiders decide to play in Sam Boyd for a year or two, you can bet the NFL will accommodate them with several road games and night games to start the season.
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2017 20:01 |
|
kiimo posted:I feel like this statement can't be verified at all until the Inglewood stadium is built. That thing is going to be spectacular and if the Rams ever get decent a lot of families will go. 2019 is a long way away, fan loyalties could shift a lot during that time. People will check it out once or twice, but I'm not sure large numbers of people will pay a premium to attend multiple games year after year if the team is bad. If the Rams become good that won't be a problem, but that is a big "if."
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2017 20:41 |
|
Jeff Fisher is available, and you won't even have to pay his relocation costs! It's not like the Chargers can attract anyone much better playing in a MLS stadium.
|
# ¿ Jan 12, 2017 05:03 |
|
San Antonio could, but Jerry Jones would never let that happen.
|
# ¿ Jan 12, 2017 06:02 |
|
I'd be more worried about the burn hazard, there is a reason why most real baristas wear aprons.
|
# ¿ Jan 17, 2017 00:19 |
|
They won't have too much trouble, Mayflower is still in business after all.
|
# ¿ Jan 18, 2017 07:16 |
|
Elite soccer teams won't play on any kind of artificial turf, so it's probably to tap into that revenue source.
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2017 12:02 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:12 |
|
Part of that is the fact that football is much more reliant on individual performance, especially at QB. No matter how good a baseball player is, they are only one of nine players batting, or they only pitch a small fraction of a team's innings. A quarterback handles the ball on almost every offensive play, so having a great one means you win a lot.
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 07:09 |