Chargers, Raiders Plan Joint Stadium in LA Area

[Brian in Mesa]

Goodell Sets Stadium Deadline for San Diego

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...html?_osource=Newltr_Station_Hdlines_SanDiego

The clock is running out for the city of San Diego to work a deal to keep the Chargers.

NFL commissioner Rodger Goodell announced Wednesday city officials have until Dec. 28 to come up with a proposal to keep the Chargers in town. Goodell spoke to reporters after the NFL owners meeting in Dallas, saying the same deadline applies to Oakland and St. Louis.

"We believe the stadiums in Los Angeles, as well as other markets that are large markets, should be capable of hosting two teams. That's a very important imperative for us,” said Goodell.

The owners also agreed to meet Jan. 12 and 13 in Houston to discuss the move of an NFL team to Los Angeles for interested franchises.

 

[Buckybird]

do you go to local games? Have you dealt with with LA rams fans? There are still existent, even today.

Sure they still exist & will always have fans in So Cal.

I'm just trying to say that even though the LA market is #2, fans just don't support football in that city like most other cities. Never have never will for whatever reason. Once the honeymoon is over, their stadium will go back to 2/3's or less full. That place is just like Jax, Stl & Miami & IMO ain't changing.

 

[chickenhead]

Well, I think the idea of LA not supporting football is a bit of a misnomer. It's supported two major college teams very well, and the Rams had record attendance while they actually played in the city of Los Angeles. (I was interested to learn that the Chargers actually moved to SD to avoid competing with them.) Moving to Anaheim seems to have been a mistake in retrospect--especially when the Raiders moved to Coliseum and outflanked them for the city they'd left.

If the Rams had stayed in LA, they probably would have gotten a new stadium built, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But LA's teams haven't exactly had owners that play nice. There are two main reasons why LA doesn't have a team, and those reasons are Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere.

 

[Bert]

I wonder if this thing with the Chargers, Raiders, Rams is going to drag out for years like the Coyotes situation... I'm already over it.

What happened to the good old days when teams snuck out of town in the middle of the night and were like; 'oh by the way, hey, we're in Baltimore now!'

 

[NJCardFan]

I find it amazing how teams hold taxpayers hostage like this. The only reason why teams want to move out of perfectly good stadiums is revenue for themselves. They use taxpayer dollars to build the thing then have the audacity to charge these same taxpayers PSL's to cover the cost of building the stadium essentially pricing the actual fan out of the stadium.

 

[CardsFan88]

This is a difficult situation. Carson/Inglewood can't afford these stadiums, nor can San Diego. California is broke. NFL teams are guaranteed a profit. Something is wrong with this picture. What's better a few billion on water management or a stadium or two for teams LA doesn't even love?

But since Carson/Inglewood want to be fools, it's pretty much assured at least one of them will get to screw over their populace and bring a team... maybe two on board.

So the question then becomes... who should move there?

Personally I think Rams should have first shot, since they are from there. It's their market more then anyone else's. Plus it makes sense from an NFC west perspective.

The Raiders would be 2nd, since they once were there, since the demographics of LA tends to support the Raiders.

The Chargers are 3rd, and they themselves create a crazy situation where they want to partner with the Raiders. But one of them would have to move to the NFC, which means one of the NFC west teams would have to move to the AFC west.

St. Louis can be forcibly moved to the AFC West (or any division/conference) per their agreement they had when they moved to St. Louis, but it's also possible they may ask someone else.

The Raiders/Rams would make the most sense, but Mark Davis clearly is trying to latch onto one, rather then lead, so that's not happening, especially since he latched onto the Chargers stadium.

The Chargers/Rams situation could make sense, but both owners want their own mecca, and the profits that come with it. There is not room for two egos, and one of them would have to give up the add on developments the stadium uses as a good excuse to build.

It does seem funny though. Three teams vying for a location where few care if there is even one. The NFL could also try to only allow one team to relocate by 'barring' one or the other. But as Al Davis showed, such a vote has no legitimacy, and they could move anyways. It's just a mess all around.

You also have to think of all the mom and pop shops, probably minority owned, that will get hurt by these mecca stadiums and the swanky places built in the 'developments' around the stadium. That's where the traffic will go, while the local traffic will tend to stay away from the regular stuff on gameday. I also wonder how much local services will be cut to the average Carson/Inglewood resident for this. I wonder how emergency services will be affected as well.

 

[crisper57]

This is a difficult situation. Carson/Inglewood can't afford these stadiums, nor can San Diego. California is broke. NFL teams are guaranteed a profit. Something is wrong with this picture. What's better a few billion on water management or a stadium or two for teams LA doesn't even love?

But since Carson/Inglewood want to be fools, it's pretty much assured at least one of them will get to screw over their populace and bring a team... maybe two on board.

So the question then becomes... who should move there?

Personally I think Rams should have first shot, since they are from there. It's their market more then anyone else's. Plus it makes sense from an NFC west perspective.

The Raiders would be 2nd, since they once were there, since the demographics of LA tends to support the Raiders.

The Chargers are 3rd, and they themselves create a crazy situation where they want to partner with the Raiders. But one of them would have to move to the NFC, which means one of the NFC west teams would have to move to the AFC west.

St. Louis can be forcibly moved to the AFC West (or any division/conference) per their agreement they had when they moved to St. Louis, but it's also possible they may ask someone else.

The Raiders/Rams would make the most sense, but Mark Davis clearly is trying to latch onto one, rather then lead, so that's not happening, especially since he latched onto the Chargers stadium.

The Chargers/Rams situation could make sense, but both owners want their own mecca, and the profits that come with it. There is not room for two egos, and one of them would have to give up the add on developments the stadium uses as a good excuse to build.

It does seem funny though. Three teams vying for a location where few care if there is even one. The NFL could also try to only allow one team to relocate by 'barring' one or the other. But as Al Davis showed, such a vote has no legitimacy, and they could move anyways. It's just a mess all around.

You also have to think of all the mom and pop shops, probably minority owned, that will get hurt by these mecca stadiums and the swanky places built in the 'developments' around the stadium. That's where the traffic will go, while the local traffic will tend to stay away from the regular stuff on gameday. I also wonder how much local services will be cut to the average Carson/Inglewood resident for this. I wonder how emergency services will be affected as well.

I thought the Inglewood stadium would be built with private dollars and development around the stadium would occur on land already owned by the Ram's owner. I don't see you it is a financial burden on their taxpayers.

I am less familiar with the Carson proposal.

 

[CardsFan88]

I thought the Inglewood stadium would be built with private dollars and development around the stadium would occur on land already owned by the Ram's owner. I don't see you it is a financial burden on their taxpayers.

I am less familiar with the Carson proposal.

Obviously it's hard to get accurate figures for a proposed project, but from what I understand, he is willing to put up a decent bit (as opposed to St. Louis where he basically wants a freebie), but not all of it, and it's a huge project.

Even if it were 'mostly', say 75 percent privately funded, for a 2 billion dollar project, that would still leave 500 million on the hook for Inglewood.

There's also other things that sometimes make their way in, like the cities backstopping something, or paying for overages, or even if the interest rate on the private loans were 'high', and all sorts of city services that need to be constructed, connected, and maintained. Plus all the ancillary stuff like the community may need to create brand new off site utility stuff because the demand from the zone might create a lack of say water pressure in the surrounding areas.

Look at the Coyotes disaster with Glendale. It definitely can happen.

We need more figures, but at this point I'd error on the side of what every other owner but Kraft did and stick it to the taxpayers and local communities (and that's just the NFL, let alone the other ~100 stadiums built for the other big three sports)

 

[chickenhead]

The best relocation/realignment (of the ones on the table) in my opinion would be:

AFC West
Denver Broncos
Kansas City Chiefs
Los Angeles Raiders
St. Louis Rams

NFC West
Arizona Cardinals
Los Angeles Chargers
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks

I know this doesn't restore the Rams-Niners rivalry in California, but I think the Rams would be right at home in the AFC West with the Chiefs. Meanwhile the new NFC West looks pretty good to me as well. It's all better than any situation that moves the Cards to the AFC West, anyway.

 

[ajcardfan]

The best relocation/realignment (of the ones on the table) in my opinion would be:

AFC West
Denver Broncos
Kansas City Chiefs
Los Angeles Raiders
St. Louis Rams

NFC West
Arizona Cardinals
Los Angeles Chargers
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks

I know this doesn't restore the Rams-Niners rivalry in California, but I think the Rams would be right at home in the AFC West with the Chiefs. Meanwhile the new NFC West looks pretty good to me as well. It's all better than any situation that moves the Cards to the AFC West, anyway.

If they are truly interested in restoring rivalries and traditions, then the most logical to move would be the Seahawks back to the AFC West. But, I am far from certain they would move Seattle back there over the Cards or the Rams. The NFL already forced a move the Cardinals didn't want when they moved them from the NFC East to the NFC West.

 

[chickenhead]

I'd have to ask a longtime Seahawks fan, but from my perspective, Seattle's rivalries are better now than they were in the AFC West. They've had more meaningful games against the Rams, then Niners, and Cards than they had against the AFC West rivals (they were always the odd team out compared to the original AFL West teams).

 

[ajcardfan]

I'd have to ask a longtime Seahawks fan, but from my perspective, Seattle's rivalries are better now than they were in the AFC West. They've had more meaningful games against the Rams, then Niners, and Cards than they had against the AFC West rivals (they were always the odd team out compared to the original AFL West teams).

Oh, I think the Seahawks and their fans would also prefer to stay right where they are too. But someone is going to have to move, and I think the only team in the NFC West not in danger of getting kicked in to the AFC West is the Niners.