Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope not. Chargers or the Raiders sharing the Inglewood stadium with the Rams makes way more sense (preferably the Raiders). Just tons of rumors and speculation all around, nothing new.
I read lots of comments all over the place saying "don't give public funding to billionaires", "it's corporate welfare", etc, and I agree for the most part, but let's get one thing straight, not ALL "billionaires" are alike. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Mark Davis (Raiders owner) and Dean Spanos (Chargers owner) are worth over a billion dollars only when considering their team's value, meaning they're not cash-rich, liquid billionaires. I heard on the radio yesterday that Spanos is worth roughly $1.2 billion, but $1 billion of that is the value of the Chargers, essentially paper money. So these guys don't have the capital to build a new stadium with just THEIR OWN dollars. Now obviously they could figure out a way to get a loan for it, of course, but they don't have it all there just sitting in their bank account the way some commenters seem to believe.
This is why Oakland and SD haven't been able to build a stadium in forever, cause they keep needing/wanting public funds for it, partly because their owners aren't Bill Gates rich, they're just regular multi-millionaires with one giant asset that they don't plan on selling anyway. They'd need other entities to contribute.
Now Stan Kroenke on the other hand, he's a no-doubt-about-it-cash-coming-outta-his-ears billionaire, and his wife is a Walmart heiress, so his plan is as legitimate as it gets. The Raiders and Chargers should really be racing to Kroenke's doorstep asking for the privilege to rent out his new Inglewood toy for 10 Sundays a year. They could ride his coattails pretty nicely.
It's interesting to note that the three franchises talking about moving to Los Angeles are the three franchises that used to play in the Los Angeles (the Rams for 49 years, albeit 15 of those years in Anaheim - the Raiders for 13 years - the Chargers for 1 year).
Of course, the move of all three is very unlikely that it will happen.
Currently, New York is the only metropolitan area with three franchises in one major sport (the Rangers, Islanders and Devils in the NHL). Previously, MLB had three teams in the city (the Yankees, Dodgers and Giants).
Of course, greater Los Angeles (Ventura east to San Bernardino, Orange County north to the Antelope Valley) has 18+ million people - the next largest metropolitan areas without an NFL team barely hit the 3 million mark (Orlando and Portland). So it does make some sense.
One side note:
If Los Angeles or one of its peripheral cities ever gets a modern, world-class stadium, you can pencil in 3-4 Super Bowls/decade for that facility.
I read lots of comments all over the place saying "don't give public funding to billionaires", "it's corporate welfare", etc, and I agree for the most part, but let's get one thing straight, not ALL "billionaires" are alike. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Mark Davis (Raiders owner) and Dean Spanos (Chargers owner) are worth over a billion dollars only when considering their team's value, meaning they're not cash-rich, liquid billionaires. I heard on the radio yesterday that Spanos is worth roughly $1.2 billion, but $1 billion of that is the value of the Chargers, essentially paper money. So these guys don't have the capital to build a new stadium with just THEIR OWN dollars. Now obviously they could figure out a way to get a loan for it, of course, but they don't have it all there just sitting in their bank account the way some commenters seem to believe.
This is why Oakland and SD haven't been able to build a stadium in forever, cause they keep needing/wanting public funds for it, partly because their owners aren't Bill Gates rich, they're just regular multi-millionaires with one giant asset that they don't plan on selling anyway. They'd need other entities to contribute.
Now Stan Kroenke on the other hand, he's a no-doubt-about-it-cash-coming-outta-his-ears billionaire, and his wife is a Walmart heiress, so his plan is as legitimate as it gets. The Raiders and Chargers should really be racing to Kroenke's doorstep asking for the privilege to rent out his new Inglewood toy for 10 Sundays a year. They could ride his coattails pretty nicely.
If the owners of the Raiders and Chargers cannot afford to operate their teams (including stadium funding) they can sell or go out of business.
Wouldn't that mean a game would be played there every weekend with of them being intra-division games?
If so that sounds pretty exciting actually.
In my opinion I'd like to see the Rams back in LA and Raiders/Chargers stay in their respective cities.
I agree with you 100%, The Chargers should stay in San Diego and the Raiders in Oakland, they just need those cities to step up and get a stadium deal going. But if one team was to move to LA with the Rams, I would want it to be the Raiders.
That would be nice for the Rams, Raiders and UCLA to make the stadium in Inglewood their home fields.
It's interesting to note that the three franchises talking about moving to Los Angeles are the three franchises that used to play in the Los Angeles (the Rams for 49 years, albeit 15 of those years in Anaheim - the Raiders for 13 years - the Chargers for 1 year).
Of course, the move of all three is very unlikely that it will happen.
Currently, New York is the only metropolitan area with three franchises in one major sport (the Rangers, Islanders and Devils in the NHL). Previously, MLB had three teams in the city (the Yankees, Dodgers and Giants).
Of course, greater Los Angeles (Ventura east to San Bernardino, Orange County north to the Antelope Valley) has 18+ million people - the next largest metropolitan areas without an NFL team barely hit the 3 million mark (Orlando and Portland). So it does make some sense.
One side note: If Los Angeles or one of its peripheral cities ever gets a modern, world-class stadium, you can pencil in 3-4 Super Bowls/decade for that facility.
I agree!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
