Chargers back to San Diego?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
now that the Raiders are committed to Las Vegas.

There is no such thing as commitment in this game. We've learned that much at least.

All this musical cities absurdity is a slap in the face to all fans.

If there's any right way to move a team--and of course there isn't--the Browns did it by leaving the name/colors with Cleveland so they could at least revive their team.

The Browns and Art Modell didn't leave the name, colors and history, it was taken from them because they were violating a lease. The city, which owned the stadium and held the lease, had a silver bullet and knowing how greedy Modell was they offered a deal and the jackal took it to save himself money.

He was a disgusting piece of shit, as bad as any owner we see these days. He was the role model.
 

Loyal

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
29,457
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #43
There is no such thing as commitment in this game. We've learned that much at least.





The Browns and Art Modell didn't leave the name, colors and history, it was taken from them because they were violating a lease. The city, which owned the stadium and held the lease, had a silver bullet and knowing how greedy Modell was they offered a deal and the jackal took it to save himself money.

He was a disgusting piece of crap, as bad as any owner we see these days. He was the role model.

But Les, even with your greedy owner scenario, why would Davis give up the new stadium in Las Vegas? For pure entertainment value, I myself would rather travel to Vegas to see and NFL game, and then do everything else available in Vegas than go to LA and have to drive everywhere to do anything. You are makinga ssumptions that Davis would even want to be in LA now and I don't think that's where his head is at these days.
 

jetplt67

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth...
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
1,006
Chargers back to San Diego would be a dream come true. LA can support 1 team and that team is the Rams.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
But Les, even with your greedy owner scenario, why would Davis give up the new stadium in Las Vegas? For pure entertainment value, I myself would rather travel to Vegas to see and NFL game, and then do everything else available in Vegas than go to LA and have to drive everywhere to do anything. You are makinga ssumptions that Davis would even want to be in LA now and I don't think that's where his head is at these days.

Money, that's why.

What you, or I or anyone else would rather do as a fan means shit to owners, that's truer than ever. The NFL actually thinks it has reached the point of popularity that they have a window in time to shit on fans and get away with it.

There are a lot of reasons ratings and viewership are down, IMO one is the blatant greed and middle finger that fans get from the league.
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
I bet the parking prices and the ticket prices are keeping people away...I hear their tix are almost double the Rams. They actually play some decent football...I'm surprised...Really surprised they moved....San Diego is jinxed with sports teams.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,918
There is no such thing as commitment in this game. We've learned that much at least.

Ehh, the Raiders signed a contract and others have spent money on their end - millions of dollars. I doubt that the Raiders have an out of "we'd rather play in LA". Besides, the league approved it, despite historically not wanting a team in Vegas. I doubt that the owners whose arms were twisted, and who probably are still smarting from the Raiders' previous LA debacle, will agree to rescind the move.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
Ehh, the Raiders signed a contract and others have spent money on their end - millions of dollars. I doubt that the Raiders have an out of "we'd rather play in LA". Besides, the league approved it, despite historically not wanting a team in Vegas. I doubt that the owners whose arms were twisted, and who probably are still smarting from the Raiders' previous LA debacle, will agree to rescind the move.

Another thing we have learned is despite appearances otherwise a team owner can do what they want.

Al moved the team to LA and won in court remember.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,918
Another thing we have learned is despite appearances otherwise a team owner can do what they want.

Al moved the team to LA and won in court remember.

And didn't have a new stadium contract with the ink still fresh.

Given the Raiders' history, do you really think that there aren't strong guarantees in the Vegas contract?

And given the Raiders' history, do you really think that the NFL is likely to help the Raiders to screw Vegas? Or for that matter, require the Rams to share facilities? Or give the Raiders the G-4 loan to build another stadium? They can just point that it was budgeted for Vegas, not LA.
 

fearsomefour

Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
17,079
Man, I am listening to Colin Cowherd and he is reporting that Don Banks (longtime NFL reporter) is saying that his sources are saying the NFL is going to try and force the Chargers back to San Diego. It's a disaster so far for them, being the 2nd fiddle in LA and can't fill a soccer stadium.
Well in terms of football that would be the fourth fiddle.
USC, UCLA, RAMS....
 

LARAMSinFeb.

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
4,436
Another thing we have learned is despite appearances otherwise a team owner can do what they want.

Al moved the team to LA and won in court remember.

Pretty much. I often wonder how, back during the inception of pro sports, individual owners somehow were able to market their teams as intrinsically attached to a locale anyway (falsely advertising), since they're essentially autocratic and can move the team away with impunity. Logically we should be cheering for "the Jones Cowboys," "the Kraft Patriots," "the Spanos Chargers," etc.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-chargers-back-to-san-diego-20170922-story.html

Chargers moving back to San Diego? Not much of a chance
Sam Farmer

The Chargers’ move to Los Angeles has been more underwhelming than any franchise relocation in memory.

The club doesn’t have a big fan base here, and failed in its debut to sell out the 27,000-seat StubHub Center, less than half the size of the next-smallest NFL stadium. Although the team has talent, it lost two close games to slip to 0-2 in a division where everyone else is 2-0. It has been a turbulent start made even bumpier by the recent success of the Rams, who are finally gaining some traction after stumbling last season and going 4-12.

San Diego is seething about the Chargers, and — as many predicted before their final decision to move — Los Angeles greeted them with a yawn.

There are a lot of people in the NFL who likewise were (quietly) unhappy about the Chargers leaving San Diego, and thought the decision of owner Dean Spanos was impulsive — even though he had flirted with the idea of moving the team north for more than a decade.

Recently, there have been rumors in NFL circles that the Chargers might wind up moving back to San Diego, talk that has gone crazy on the radio and web. While that ostensibly might avert a situation that could go from bad to disastrous in L.A., there’s nothing to suggest at this point that it’s anything but a remote possibility.

For the Chargers to unwind this relocation, which would be unprecedented, it would almost certainly mean the Spanoses would have to sell the team, which the family has long insisted it has no plans to do. Certainly Spanos couldn’t bring the team back; he’s loathed in his former city. His sons might have better luck, but it’s highly debatable whether even they could rebuild that blown-up bridge.

And the NFL wouldn’t simply let the family turn around and sell the team, reaping the benefits of moving to Los Angeles. Financial penalties are in place to discourage owners from acting like house flippers, even if they were they so inclined. That goes for the Rams, too.

Say someone did buy the team and move it back. San Diego would still have the stadium problem Spanos complained about for so many years. Unless someone is willing to privately bankroll a billion-plus-dollar stadium (on top of buying the team), that’s not going away. What’s more, the Chargers’ former home will be imploded at some point, so it’s not as if a return is an infinite possibility.

The NFL knows the Los Angeles situation is a problem. The attendance part is unquestionably embarrassing. But there will be political spin from all corners — “This is only the first quarter … ” or “It’s far too early to judge … ” — but there’s no denying this has been a colossal belly flop.

There is a caveat to that, and a big one: winning. The Rams’ worldview looked very different before the offense came alive, and they started scoring points and won a couple of games. The Chargers are banking on the notion that if they can win some games, they will win over a lot of undecided fans.

Is a return to San Diego realistic? Probably not. But the fact that people are ruminating about it now, nine months after the move, speaks volumes.
 

Loyal

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
29,457
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #54
Well in terms of football that would be the fourth fiddle.
USC, UCLA, RAMS....
Man, that's the junior leagues as far as I'm concerned..!beneath our notice!
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
And didn't have a new stadium contract with the ink still fresh.

Given the Raiders' history, do you really think that there aren't strong guarantees in the Vegas contract?

And given the Raiders' history, do you really think that the NFL is likely to help the Raiders to screw Vegas? Or for that matter, require the Rams to share facilities? Or give the Raiders the G-4 loan to build another stadium? They can just point that it was budgeted for Vegas, not LA.

We know guarantees, assurances, promises, contracts and all the rest means nothing when it comes to the NFL and the team owners. They do what they want, say what they want and act as they please.

And the NFL wouldn’t simply let the family turn around and sell the team, reaping the benefits of moving to Los Angeles. Financial penalties are in place to discourage owners from acting like house flippers, even if they were they so inclined. That goes for the Rams, too.

Farmer knows better than this. Not one of the owners will EVER vote against a team being sold out of fear of retribution of not being able to buy out minority partners of their own team or simply selling a part of their team. So the penalties in place will get waived or ignored. Look at what just happened with the Rams moving. Not a single one of the "conditions" added to the bylaws regarding relocation were met. They got set aside. The rules will always get set aside when it comes to making money...........because that's really the only rule.

And the general attitude this current group of owners is, in part, why people are tuning out the NFL. This "new crop" is hurting the sport as much as anything IMO. The greedy money grabs are turning people off, and they are losing younger fans and female fans for that and other reasons.

Mark Cuban called it. This doesn't mean that the NFL will disappear but they are hurting themselves long term for short term gains.