Dea Spanos vs. Dean Spanos

[Guest]

This is way too low a bar. haha.

This severely simplifies what actually happened.

I disagree with most of this. "The team now plays in a better stadium in a larger market" is about the only thing I agree with. But the same could be said about virtually every team in the NFL.

There certainly is something to see here. What affect it will eventually have is unknown and very entertaining, but still "some to see". haha. Go Dea!

1. Including 1994, the Chargers have had at least mid level success in the league. They made one Super Bowl and made the playoffs nine times. They have been more successful than many teams, so ownership should be viewed along those lines and not criticized to the degree that ownership has been criticized. To be clear, I am not suggesting that we should all celebrate the team's ownership, but they should also not be vilified. In my view, the team's fans have been too critical of ownership.

2. My response was simplified to a degree because I am not attempting to a write a novel about old news. The fact remains that Spanos attempted to work toward a new stadium for many years and, unlike what happened in other locations, neither the local government nor the voters ultimately did enough to make that happen. The situation was allowed to fester and San Diego lost the Chargers.

Also, the possibility of the Raiders returning to Los Angeles was not viewed as a positive development by ownership. The only way to block that was to relocate.

3. The Chargers fanbase is growing. This is evidenced by team merchandise sales among other indicators. It also supported by common sense. Further supported by common sense is the concept that the Raider fanbase will erode over time as the team becomes more removed from its presence there. Younger people new to NFL football around Los Angeles are much more likely to be fans of Justin Herbert than they are to be fans of Marcus Allen. A fair percentage of them may not even know who Marcus Allen is.

Further, while I will always love my childhood stadium where I first watched Dave Winfield hit a grand slam over what was then the 420 foot sign to dead center and where I first watched the Chargers play in the mid 1970s, going from the 2010s version of Qualcomm to SoFi is very nearly going from the outhouse to the penthouse. I would not underestimate that difference and would not underestimate the impact of SoFi in impressing potential new fans that may enjoy their Charger experience in part because it took place in the best stadium in the league. Though not a primary factor in building team support, it is at least a small factor not be discounted entirely.

You are free to disagree. That does not alter the reality.

4. You should read Popper's article on Dea's legal action set forth above in this thread. This will give you some indication regarding why the matter is not likely to have any impact on Dean Spanos' control of the team. As I said, nothing to see here....

[La Costa Boy]

We have all wanted the Spani in the rear view mirror for so long now, that I just can't get excited by this. Let me know when they go back to Modesto or Bumfuckville, wherever they came from...........

[dmac_bolt]

When they moved they accrued nearly $1 billion in debt. If they sell now, Dean takes a bath.


Oh fun, we've got until 2024 to discuss this painful and fascinating issue of Fight For LA actually means My Investment Needs Maturing Until I Can Sellout.

It all depends on the price and the buyer. That debt is owed by the team, not Dean personally. Whether the entire debt load is subtracted from the value at point of sale is not clear to me - often companies are bought with their debt assumed and its not an exact dollar for dollar calculation. There’s implied future revenue to pay off the debt. He’d need a deep -pocketed buyer who values the trophy status of NFL team ownership - because straight business economics doesn’t get him whole - agree.

I’m very curious if the trust debt Dea claims is solely the trust’s implied share of the relocation cost, or if there is other debt tied to the trust unrelated to the move. If the trust debt is simply the relocation loans, thats a big nothing burger.

[Guest]

All this talk about Dean being a "decent" owner (paraphrasing some of the comments) is sort of comical to an old-timer like myself. For YEARS the boards that I've posted on have wanted the team to be sold. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. And the fact that he pulled the team out of my beloved San Diego...well, that makes him the worst owner in my book. Sure, a case for Dan Snyder, for one, could be made for the title of "Worst NFL Team Owner" but, really, does that matter? He/his family have had 40 years to bring a championship to the Chargers and they've failed. 40 years of frustration; many poor coaching hires; bad personnel/contract decisions - the list goes on and on. If I had a nickel for every post made calling for the Spanos' heads, I could buy the team myself and move them back to where they belong: in San Diego.

It is obvious that this is the position taken by many in San Diego. It is not based on how well Spanos has actually run the team (which is somewhere in the middle), but rather based upon dislike of Spanos for relocating the team.

With no disrespect intended, I think you and others have an extreme bias against Spanos for relocating the team that causes you not to have an objective view of his performance as the guy running the team (1994 to the present). Objectively, the team has been in the middle in terms of the quality of its performance. We have not been the Steelers or Patriots, but we have not been the Browns, Bills or Lions either since Dean has been running things. Dean has been a middle of the road owner in terms of what the team has done on the field.

Spanos is nowhere close to being the worst owner in the league.

[Guest]

We have all wanted the Spani in the rear view mirror for so long now, that I just can't get excited by this. Let me know when they go back to Modesto or Bumfuckville, wherever they came from...........

Stockton, I think....

[Boltdiehard]

Stockton, I think....

There’s a lot of good people in Stockton.

[jamrock]

It is obvious that this is the position taken by many in San Diego. It is not based on how well Spanos has actually run the team (which is somewhere in the middle), but rather based upon dislike of Spanos for relocating the team.

With no disrespect intended, I think you and others have an extreme bias against Spanos for relocating the team that causes you not to have an objective view of his performance as the guy running the team (1994 to the present). Objectively, the team has been in the middle in terms of the quality of its performance. We have not been the Steelers or Patriots, but we have not been the Browns, Bills or Lions either since Dean has been running things. Dean has been a middle of the road owner in terms of what the team has done on the field.

Spanos is nowhere close to being the worst owner in the league.

Duh. Of course San Diego fans hate Spanos and rightfully so for moving the team. That’s the most impact a team owner has and the worst thing the can do to a city and fans. Like I said earlier Modell won a super bowl in Baltimore but to Cleveland fans he’s the worst owner in sports. It’s a fair metric to judge an owner.

By other measure he’s not the worst. Just mediocre at best. Is that good enough for you?

[SBbound]

1. Including 1994, the Chargers have had at least mid level success in the league. They made one Super Bowl and made the playoffs nine times. They have been more successful than many teams, so ownership should be viewed along those lines and not criticized to the degree that ownership has been criticized. To be clear, I am not suggesting that we should all celebrate the team's ownership, but they should also not be vilified. In my view, the team's fans have been too critical of ownership.

2. My response was simplified to a degree because I am not attempting to a write a novel about old news. The fact remains that Spanos attempted to work toward a new stadium for many years and, unlike what happened in other locations, neither the local government nor the voters ultimately did enough to make that happen. The situation was allowed to fester and San Diego lost the Chargers.

Also, the possibility of the Raiders returning to Los Angeles was not viewed as a positive development by ownership. The only way to block that was to relocate.

3. The Chargers fanbase is growing. This is evidenced by team merchandise sales among other indicators. It also supported by common sense. Further supported by common sense is the concept that the Raider fanbase will erode over time as the team becomes more removed from its presence there. Younger people new to NFL football around Los Angeles are much more likely to be fans of Justin Herbert than they are to be fans of Marcus Allen. A fair percentage of them may not even know who Marcus Allen is.

Further, while I will always love my childhood stadium where I first watched Dave Winfield hit a grand slam over what was then the 420 foot sign to dead center and where I first watched the Chargers play in the mid 1970s, going from the 2010s version of Qualcomm to SoFi is very nearly going from the outhouse to the penthouse. I would not underestimate that difference and would not underestimate the impact of SoFi in impressing potential new fans that may enjoy their Charger experience in part because it took place in the best stadium in the league. Though not a primary factor in building team support, it is at least a small factor not be discounted entirely.

You are free to disagree. That does not alter the reality.

4. You should read Popper's article on Dea's legal action set forth above in this thread. This will give you some indication regarding why the matter is not likely to have any impact on Dean Spanos' control of the team. As I said, nothing to see here....

Your first 2-1/2 points are spot on. For the argument that the raiders fan base will erode, I believe that they're going to have much higher visiting opposing fans attendance than they're used to but I don't think they'll experience a drop off of die-hards or of the low-rent dipshit merchandise buyers, especially if they string together a couple of good years. Hopefully the higher prices of the Vegas venue keeps the knuckleheads away.

As for point 4. it's quite possible that if the reported buyout agreement is already in place, then this is just a ugly negotiating tactic to get a higher buyout price. Guessing that family holiday get togethers are history.

[Xenos]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31179276/sister-los-angeles-chargers-controlling-owner-dean-spanos-petitions-court-put-portion-team-sale

The franchise's value is expected to increase with the NFL having agreed to a new media rights deal last month that will bring in more than $10 billion per year beginning in 2023. The Chargers also moved into SoFi Stadium last year and expect revenue to increase once fans are allowed.

[ghost]

Bezos could offer 4B today and end this shit.

Add Chargers to Cart.

[jamrock]

Your first 2-1/2 points are spot on. For the argument that the raiders fan base will erode, I believe that they're going to have much higher visiting opposing fans attendance than they're used to but I don't think they'll experience a drop off of die-hards or of the low-rent dipshit merchandise buyers, especially if they string together a couple of good years. Hopefully the higher prices of the Vegas venue keeps the knuckleheads away.

As for point 4. it's quite possible that if the reported buyout agreement is already in place, then this is just a ugly negotiating tactic to get a higher buyout price. Guessing that family holiday get togethers are history.

Point 2 is wrong. Spanos shares the blame with the city.

[chargeroo]

looking back to the beginnings of the Chargers, I don't think they ever had a top notch owner.