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 am about to say something I think is going to be wildly unpopular. While the Chargers in L.A. may not be the right fit, the Chargers in San Diego wasn't either. San Diego was an awful NFL city. OP referenced 80% Chiefs fans in stadium of 25,000. Qualcom has a capacity of around 65,000 and when the Chargers played there that place was routinely orange during Broncos game, black during Raiders games. It's not like the team left a city that supported it.
During the NFL's "blackout policy" days the Chargers were blacked out locally multiple times every season. (The Raiders had the same problem, raising a fair question about just how loyal their fans are. I believe the extend of Raider fandom is greatly overstated by NFL talking heads.) The 2007 season's wild card game between the Chargers and Titans was nearly blacked out, but the team pulled some strings and had the game shown. What kind of fan base allows a playoff game to risk getting blacked out?
The Chargers had some great players and moments in San Diego but this era of San Diego residents did not embrace the team on a level that warranted them staying in place. I know Spanos had one foot out the door long before the team actually left. I know there aren't too many people who are willing to consider a billionaire's perspective in the matter, but I will. Has anyone ever given any thought as to why Spanos started itching to relocate? Now I don't think he made the smartest decision to move to L.A. either, but it has been obvious for a long time: San Diego is not an NFL city. An NFL city supports its team and say what you will about public money funding a stadium, but an NFL city ponies up. San Diego not only didn't support its team but the city leadership couldn't get out of their own way.
I wonder how successful the Los Angeles Chargers will be once they shack up with the Rams. If it's not successful it won't surprise me to see them looking around at other potential locations. San Antonio and St. Louis come readily to mind. I don't necessarily like any of those options, and hope Los Angeles does work out for the Chargers. Whatever the case, I don't blame them for looking for a city that would actually support them.
I disagree that the Chargers were awful in San Diego and I think they should have just built a new stadium there instead of moving to Los Angeles
I disagree that the Chargers were awful in San Diego and I think they should have just built a new stadium there instead of moving to Los Angeles
The team itself was good and bad in their time there, same as any team. You have good seasons, bad seasons, stretches of both. That's not something I'm debating.
What I am saying is that the city couldn't get out of its own way to get a stadium approved. There's a lot of politics involved and I won't pretend to understand it all. Suffice to say other cities that are serious about having an NFL team get it done. And the stadium issue is really the culminating point. One of the reasons the city couldn't get it done is local demand for the team, that is to say fan support, was not as strong as in other NFL cities. Elected official knew this. If they feared the public backlash for allowing an NFL team to walk out the door for lack of a stadium deal then there would have been a stadium deal.
This isn't the Colts moving to Indianapolis under cover of night. This isn't the Browns moving to Baltimore and rebranding as the Ravens. This isn't even the Rams moving to St. Louis from their rightful home in L.A. This is a team assessing it's own demand in a given market and concluding they are better off elsewhere. I don't know that L.A. was the right decision, but staying in San Diego was definitely the wrong decision.
We shall how this all plays out. The Chargers are a pretty good team in '18, but can they share the spotlight with the Rams? Yet to be determined. Once the two compete in the same stadium in Inglewood, the jury is still out. The NY Giants and NY Jets have managed to do such, but I wonder if LA can support the same paradigm. The biggest difference is the culture of the two cities as in LA is not as big of an NFL center than metro New York. Will the Chargers last in LA?
Or will they explore greener pastures such as St. Louis, San Antonio, or even London, England?
The fact that the Chargers are not fully selling out a 27,000 seat soccer stadium is pathetic and add in the fact that more often than not, the stadium is 70% opposing fans is also pathetic. In San Diego they had a fan base and while there were games where you had a large presence of opponent fans, at least you could still hear and see Charger fans. How the heck will this team sellout a 68,000 seat stadium once they move to Englewood?
I’m actually not surprised the Chargers are having problems in LA. But the Chargers having problems in general is nothing new. Along with the Cardinals and Lions, they have a fairly consistent history of poor ownership. Add the Browns and ‘Skins to that list over the last several years.
First of all, sellouts are overrated. Overrated by die-hard fans and the media. It’skind of an outdated measuring stick. The owners don’t really care that much about them. TV deals, luxury suites, Sunday Ticket, Red Zone, sponsors, that’s what drives revenues these days. It’s not about filling up the last 10 rows of the upper decks of the stadium (ie, cheap seats).
What's happening with the Chargers is a little extreme, sure, but it’ll be the new normal soon enough. It’s not that the NFL’s popularity is dwindling, it’s just that the in game experience isn’t up to par with TV. Apparently, even the Redskins didn’t sell out yesterday (and they were coming off a Week 1 win on the road). Seriously, yesterday’s 12pm to 1pm (west coast time) window was awesome, where the morning games were coming down the wire. I was at a bar (showing all the games) where there were Vikings fans, Packers fans, Bills fans, Browns fans, etc, all cheering and agonizing. The vibe was great. I love the Rams, but I’d much rather have that sports bar experience with a bunch of my friends than sit in the hot sun with no shade in the Coliseum (only getting to watch 1 game).
The Chargers played their first season in LA so they have history there too, just not enough for anyone to remember or care.
The league should have let the Raiders move back to LA since that's where most of their fan base is anyway, and let Vegas have the Rams or maybe the Jaguars. But at least the Raiders will be closer to their fan base than they are in the Bay area.
The Raiders being the only team to move to LA would never happen, Stan Kreonke is financing the stadium in LA with his own money, not the taxpayers. So the Rams had to be one of the teams.
I think the Raiders will be fine in Las Vegas. The Raiders in sin city, it's a perfect fit!! Plus only a three hour drive from LA. Also the Raiders have fans all over the country if not the world. Having them living in a destination city like Las Vegas is perfection.
As for the Chargers, they should've stayed in San Diego. But they too needed a new stadium and Spanos doesn't have the money to build his own like Kreonke.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,748,461 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just One of the Guys
The Raiders being the only team to move to LA would never happen, Stan Kreonke is financing the stadium in LA with his own money, not the taxpayers. So the Rams had to be one of the teams.
I think the Raiders will be fine in Las Vegas. The Raiders in sin city, it's a perfect fit!! Plus only a three hour drive from LA. Also the Raiders have fans all over the country if not the world. Having them living in a destination city like Las Vegas is perfection.
As for the Chargers, they should've stayed in San Diego. But they too needed a new stadium and Spanos doesn't have the money to build his own like Kreonke.
I’m totally curious, what was so wrong with Qualcomm that could not be renovated? Maybe I’m just more tolerable to mediocre Stadiums since I’ve done a bid at FedEx field for the Redskins game day. But I don’t get it.
I’m totally curious, what was so wrong with Qualcomm that could not be renovated? Maybe I’m just more tolerable to mediocre Stadiums since I’ve done a bid at FedEx field for the Redskins game day. But I don’t get it.
Qualcomm Stadium needed at least $100 million in long-term upgrades and lacked the luxury suites, and 7,500+ premium club seats like you have at the newer stadiums (Niners, Cowboys, Falcons). The voters in SD rejected paying for the new stadium on both Measure C and Measure D roughly 60/40 vote, back in Nov 2016. Measure C and Measure D would have increased local hotel taxes to pay for a combined convention center and new stadium next to Petco Park in downtown East Village. This plan was nixed when voted down by a majority of SD county voters who already despised the Spanos family.
Spanos tried to negotiate different deals with the SD Mayor including looking at different sites in San Diego County outside the city limits, but Spanos as usual failed miserably at all of these.
They did however play really well this past Sunday, beating the living daylights out of the Bills.
I would've liked to see Qualcomm renovated, it had the potential to be a great stadium, host more Super Bowls etc. I really like what the Bears did with Soldier Field, it's like a completely different stadium and still looks very modern despite being completed 10 or 12 years ago.
$100 million, $200 million, that's a drop in the bucket compared to $1.5-2 billion for a brand new stadium.
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.
