New stadium in LA

[richpjr]

You know, the argument that the Chargers won't draw in LA is kind of funny, because they don't really draw well in San Diego. Blackout threats and a stadium half full of opposing fans doesn't exactly speak well for a large dedicated fan base here. As Wheels states, if they win, they will draw fans no matter where they play. All over SoCal it's pretty evident that if you don't win you don't usually draw.

[Wheels]

You know, the argument that the Chargers won't draw in LA is kind of funny, because they don't really draw well in San Diego. Blackout threats and a stadium half full of opposing fans doesn't exactly speak well for a large dedicated fan base here. As Wheels states, if they win, they will draw fans no matter where they play. All over SoCal it's pretty evident that if you don't win you don't usually draw.

I think that's the case almost everywhere. It's reciprocal, as it should be. There are a few places where the demand just outweighs everything, like the Redskins, Patriots, etc. But they are huge metro areas and the fans from the whole state or region follow that team.

But the Chargers would have a ton more competition up in LA. There are likely going to be the Rams, then you have USC, UCLA, Lakers, Clippers, Galaxy. Down here's it's the Pads and the Chargers, and that's about it.

[Den60]

Who knows if they even pay the exit fee? They may do so to avoid a lawsuit, but if they're leaving town, I can see them refusing to pay claiming some sort of breach by the city. None of have seen the contract, although the 'behind on scheduled maintance' line makes me think that the team is positioning itself to make a breach claim.

The Chargers would have to claim the stadium is dangerous or uninhabitable in order to get out of the exit fee. Perhaps Fabiani will be asked to drop chunks of concrete on unsuspecting fans (he probably would) but it is unlikely that the Chargers would be able to make this claim and have it stand up in court.

[Den60]

I live in Mission Viejo and on a Sunday morning it would take about 35 minutes to get to the Carson site. From my house to the Q is about 60 minutes, again WITHOUT traffic. So a little over an hour and a half from San Diego to Carson on Sundays as long as there are no wrecks. But, for a Monday/Thursday night game? You better leave early because the 405 North jams up starting in Costa Mesa at about 3:30 or 4:00. You would also have to leave early for Sunday night games too because of the rotten northbound traffic in north SD County.

Bottom line, I bet very few fans from San Diego proper would make the journey. At least not for very long especially if they are losing. But I don't think that Inglewood being 10 miles further than Carson is any issue.

I didn't say it was a deal breaker, only that it is easier for San Diego fans to get to Carson than Inglewood. The Chargers have also made the claim that the Carson site has better freeway access. But I do agree, most Chargers fans wouldn't go to Carson or Inglewood.

[Den60]

I did the Sunday morning drive yesterday and the traffic was surprisingly pretty light. Of course, if a NFL game is going on in Carson or Inglewood or both, I'm pretty sure adding all those fans on the road is going to turn the 405 into a mess on a Sunday morning. All it would take is one fender bender to turn it into a parking lot.

BTW, one hour from Santee to Westminster? I thought I drove fast lol. I consider one hour from Miramar to the 5/405 split good time, especially on a weekday.

Yeah, I have a rather heavy foot which is why I have a radar detector.

[Panamamike]

The Chargers would have to claim the stadium is dangerous or uninhabitable in order to get out of the exit fee. Perhaps Fabiani will be asked to drop chunks of concrete on unsuspecting fans (he probably would) but it is unlikely that the Chargers would be able to make this claim and have it stand up in court.

chunks of concrete may very well fall on in their own.

http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?showtopic=48983

[sandiego17]

The Chargers would have to claim the stadium is dangerous or uninhabitable in order to get out of the exit fee. Perhaps Fabiani will be asked to drop chunks of concrete on unsuspecting fans (he probably would) but it is unlikely that the Chargers would be able to make this claim and have it stand up in court.

Without having read the contract, can't be sure. Could they claim they lost revenue because they couldn't raise prices due to the fact that the city didn't properly maintain the facility? Or that they paid for some maintenance the city was responsible for? Most likely, the maintenance thing is just another way to say that the stadium is inadequate and they need a new home. I do think they would most likely pay the exit fee if they were to leave, to avoid bad PR and lawsuits (and of course, the next few years of rent).

[Viejo Bolt]

One thing I don't see or hear discussed very much if at all (sorry if I missed it): If Spanos can't afford to build his own stadium, how the hell is he going to pay the $500M or $1B relocation fee?

[Viejo Bolt]

Well damn... All these years and I thought you were just an OLD Guy...

And I am! It's one of those double entendre thingees.

[richpjr]

Game not over, but Bolts set to score in LA
By Kevin Acee
9 A.M. APRIL 21, 2015

We’ve talked a lot about the stadium game here being in the waning minutes of the fourth quarter, with San Diego playing from well behind.

Simultaneously, the Chargers have been playing catch-up in a similar contest in Los Angeles. The team’s underdog status there has given San Diego some sense of reprieve.

Well, that game in L.A. may be about to draw essentially even. The Chargers might yet be great longshots to prevail, but their remaining competitive and even gaining steam is significant (and troubling for San Diego).

As Chargers coaches and players began the offseason workout portion of their next/last season in San Diego on Monday, the team sat at the threshold of a week in which it will take the next step in the bigger game in which it is involved.

Tuesday night, the Carson City Council could make it a tie ballgame in L.A.

The council, which has to this point shown unequivocal support for the stadium proposal in that city by the Chargers and Oakland Raiders, has the choice of either approving the plan for a public vote or simply approving it without a public vote.

Should Carson follow the path of the Inglewood City Council, which last month voted to bypass a public vote, the Chargers would be able to say Wednesday in New York in front of the Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities that their project is entitled, same as Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood development.

Kroenke’s group would still have the ball driving for another score, in that it has had a month to plan for the next steps.

It is also possible that if the Carson council green lights the proposal there would be legal or political opposition. However, the NFL has been assured by Carson officials that no significant objectors have surfaced yet.

Fact is, entitlement would be yet another indication the Chargers could be closing in on victory in Los Angeles – whatever form that takes.

That there are people intimately involved in the San Diego stadium push that still suspect Carson is a leverage play speaks to the distrust that permeates and pollutes the efforts here. It also might indicate an acute case of denial.

Some in San Diego are even banking on the Chargers bluffing.

That’s pretty big gamble.

The Chargers have spent a lot of money – almost certainly millions, taking into account legal fees and the signature-gathering campaign – in Carson. They will present to a committee of owners in New York further financing updates and more detailed stadium renderings on Wednesday.

Kroenke’s group will do the same. And we could find out the Rams’ owner is ready to pull permits and is weeks from tractors moving dirt. Many in the NFL believe the Rams and another team will end up sharing the stadium in Inglewood.

Regardless, the point is that the process in Los Angeles is progressing rapidly.

And how it is doing so – with the teams pushing citizens’ initiatives for friendly city councils to consider – points out one of the disadvantages San Diego faces in its comeback effort.

Only in the most optimistic view can it be fathomed such cohesion resulting in a ballot measure in San Diego in time to beat the NFL’s vote on relocation.

Considering the timeline that will commence on May 21, the day after the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group submits it financing plan to Mayor Kevin Faulconer, political operators agree the earliest the San Diego City Council could consider a referendum would be October. That would mean the earliest a special election could be held would be November. The absolute earliest. December is more likely.

The NFL is expected to vote on relocation in November, though NFL relocation and retention point man Eric Grubman did not rule out a short delay to accommodate a public vote.

Now, the above assumes the Chargers become the willing partner in San Diego they have not been so far. It would have to be the team that initiates and bankrolls the citizens’ initiative and signature-gathering campaign.

It remains to be seen if that will happen.

Whatever may or may not occur here, we know what’s happening in L.A. well before that.

[Den60]

I don't doubt that an NFL team will be playing in LA at some point. I've just been trying to make sense of the timelines, because it seems like people are going all Chicken Little about how soon and claiming "time is running out for San Diego". #1, there HAS to be a place for 1 or 2 teams to play and its asumed that will be either the Rose Bowl or Colesium or both. It simply doesn't matter who makes proposals or threats or noises about playing in LA now as we've seen/heard it all before. What matters is when an ironclad agreement is reached to refurbish 1 of the old LA stadiums for a new NFL tenant and any conflicts of schedules/events worked out with existing tenants resolved to accomodate the NFL team.

What is the timeline for 1 of those stadiums to be ready? Could 1 be ready for the 2017 season? 2018? or? Figure that out and you'll know when the NFL returns to LA.

Also, I've seen a couple people reference "the NFL only wanting 1 or 2 teams/stadiums in Socal". Can someone provide a reference for that? I have not see or heard it anywhere but here, and without citations. Admittedly I don't follow ALL football developments as closely as some here, so I'll stand corrected if someone provides a credible source.

What I did see and hear with my own eyes and ears on TV was Goodell maybe 1 year ago when asked about teams moving saying the official NFL position was they wanted all current teams to stay in their current cities with new stadiums where needed. I don't see a conflict with the Chargers getting a new stadium deal in San Diego and new stadium in LA for the Rams or whoever can jump through all the hoops and actually end up there after upgrades to 1 of the older venues (whenver that happens to be).

Spanos has repeatedly said that the Chargers cannot compete if there is even one team in LA. Grubman, when he was here, said that two teams in LA would make it difficult for the NFL to consider expanding (or "backfilling") back into San Diego https://(http://www.utsandiego.com/n...?#article-copy). Robert Craft has said that in order for LA to work it will require two teams to relocate there and said if a team were to relocate from St. Louis then the NFL needs to relocate a team back in there: http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-england-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-believes-los-angeles-have-two-teams-within-year-032315 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...-move-togetherhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/s...e-2016-season/. So read between the lines. Please note that Kraft is considered one of the most powerful owners and sits on the committee for relocation. He doesn't say the move has to be simultaneous but there will be a race to see who's number two.

Kroenke's stadium is estimated to take 3 years to build: http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la...22-column.html. He also is building a stadium to accommodate two home teams: http://stlouis.suntimes.com/stl-spor...e-los-angeles/

As for where a team or team will play in LA during the construction of a new stadium the answer is either the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum (or both). No team will move until the deal for a new stadium is done but once that is they will have to commit to a move. Once they commit they are not going to want or even be able to stay in their current cities.

[Wheels]

So why the double-standard. No vote necessary in LA, but it's a requirement of the team in SD?