Skip to content

Should the Chargers stay put?

GettyImages-457517872 Getty Images

As the Chargers and Rams continue the process of working out the details for sharing space in Kroenkeworld, a local theory is emerging that runs counter to the looming partnership. Maybe the Chargers should stay where they are.

Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times makes the case for the ongoing existence of the San Diego Chargers, based on both the team’s failed one-year residence in L.A. (when they shared a stadium with the Rams) and the anecdotal sense from Plaschke that there are few if any Chargers fans in Los Angeles.

This isn’t a Chargers town,” Plaschke writes. “This has never been a Chargers town. The Chargers had 21 years to woo us as an uncontested suitor and still couldn’t make it a Chargers town. . . . There are more Raiders fans here than Chargers fans, and it isn’t even close.”

Plaschke then delves into the details of the former Coliseum cohabitation by the Rams and Chargers. The details are intriguing (Plaschke shares a tidbit from a 1985 column in which former Chargers coach Sid Gillman is quoted as suggesting that they introduce the smattering of fans in the stands instead of the players), but it’s important to remember that the Rams had been entrenched for more than a decade as part of the old-guard NFL. It was the first year of the fledging AFL, and dropping a team in a city that already had an established NFL franchise was risky, to say the least (although it eventually worked in New York).

Failure of the Chargers 56 years ago doesn’t ensure failure of the team in 2016 and beyond, but it’s critical that both teams sharing a market that was empty for more than 20 years at least wonder about the willingness of fans to fill the venue on a regular basis. Perhaps Kroenkeworld will be so compelling that people will flock to the structure at any chance they can get, whether to see the Rams, the Chargers, or whoever the visiting team is.

From the Chargers’ perspective, the prospect of competing with the Rams should be taken seriously. While it wouldn’t be quite the same as sharing Lambeau Field with the Packers, the Rams seem to already have a clear advantage.

There’s another reason for staying put that Plaschke didn’t mention. It’s one that’s been rattling around inside my limited brain for the last eight days. With the NFL making an extra $100 million available to build a stadium in San Diego and with the Chargers avoiding a $550 million relocation fee by staying put, that’s another $650 million that can be dumped into a one-team stadium in San Diego. If owner Dean Spanos chooses the partnership option in Inglewood, he’ll have to come up with a lot more cash to foot half the bill for building the place; some of that extra money would be devoted to a San Diego venue, too.

Maybe the Chargers should drop the effort to get public money and build their own stadium in San Diego. While that would entail surrendering to local politicians who, by all appearances, have been pushing hollow offers to protect their own interests, it could be a far more prudent business decision.

Of course, that would open the door for the Raiders to become the NFL’s version of the L.A. Clippers, with two teams again residing up the road from San Diego instead of none. But if Plaschke is right, it won’t matter; it’s not as if thousands of people were driving from Los Angeles to San Diego to see the Chargers, anyway. And any who felt strongly enough about the Chargers to make that trip likely won’t flip the switch to the Rams or the Raiders simply because it will be a shorter drive.

So maybe the Chargers shouldn’t make the permanent drive to L.A. at all. And maybe they’ll be better off over the long haul remaining in their current market, paying for (and owning and controlling) their own stadium.

Permalink 90 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers
90 Responses to “Should the Chargers stay put?”
  1. stipez says: Jan 20, 2016 8:16 AM

    Please call Spanos and say everything here, exactly as written.

  2. jackmurphyboltfan says: Jan 20, 2016 8:17 AM

    Bingo! Is Deano smart enough to see this and recognize it? Not likely He may move to LA to play second fiddle. Raiders then move to SD. Deano really takes it on the chin and ten years from now they’ll be writing about the epic blunder.

  3. vickisgarbage says: Jan 20, 2016 8:18 AM

    The Chargers have no fan base in LA. The Raiders do.

    The city of St Louis had a plan to keep the Rams, Oakland did not.

    And yet Jerry Jones..errr the NFL decided the 2 teams that should move to LA were the Chargers and Rams.

    Makes perfect sense!

  4. 6ball says: Jan 20, 2016 8:21 AM

    .
    Every morning I wake up and wonder where Jeff Fisher is going to go 8-8. The rest of the day is spent raising money for Stan Kroenke to help him pay his relocation fee.
    .

  5. codiablo says: Jan 20, 2016 8:23 AM

    Or maybe a state with huge drought, water & money problems shouldn’t have 3 nfl teams – move them to texas or st louis or london (same goes for jaguars)

  6. tomtravis76 says: Jan 20, 2016 8:25 AM

    If they do go to LA they should rebrand. While it’s not an expansion team, it gives LA a fresh start to grow with the organization. The Chargers have too much league history for any fan to just suddenly accept especially with another option in town being a team that has lots of LA history.

  7. bobnyjets says: Jan 20, 2016 8:28 AM

    In 10 years the Rams will be looking to get out of LA because they can’t fill the stadium.

    Unlike sitting court side in the NBA celebs won’t get any face time sitting in a luxury box (or god forbid with the commoners).

    Stupid idea moving to LA.

    SD should stay where they are and build their own stadium.

    They’ll make more in the long run.

  8. battmanri says: Jan 20, 2016 8:29 AM

    I hate all of the relocation. I’m glad the Rams are back in L.A. because they were always the “Los Angeles Rams” to me…even when they were in St. Louis. The Raiders are the “Oakland Raiders”. And the Chargers are the “San Diego Chargers”. I think most NFL fans feel the way I do about this. The Chargers can move to Kroenkeworld if they want. But they’ll just be the Chargers, not the L.A. Chargers. Because most us will still think of them as the “San Diego Chargers”.

  9. pwellz says: Jan 20, 2016 8:30 AM

    San Diego isn’t much of a Chargers town either, in all fairness. Would like to see them stay there though, been in San Diego forever aside from their inaugural season in LA.

  10. Seprix says: Jan 20, 2016 8:40 AM

    Either way, the Chargers burned the bridge to any fans in San Diego. It would be very awkward for the Chargers to stay. However, I don’t think LA is the best choice for them. I’m certain the Chargers can move into plenty of empty markets. London, Toronto, St. Louis, etc…

  11. 8oneanddones says: Jan 20, 2016 8:41 AM

    Funny how Dean has $550 million to move the team but cries poverty to the taxpayers of San Diego.

  12. intrafinesse says: Jan 20, 2016 8:47 AM

    Why drop the effort to rip off the city? It works for other owners in other cities. Look how the Bengals ripped off Cincinnati. Why not try and get what you can. I would hate it if I was a taxpayer there, but there are plenty of dumb and corrupt politicians.
    In the case of the Chargers, they blew it. No sympathy for a “hapless” billionaire who inherited his money from dad.
    Spanos going against Kroenke is like me playing basketball with LeBron James.

    >>Maybe the Chargers should drop the effort to get public money and build their own stadium in San Diego. While that would entail surrendering to local politicians who, by all appearances, have been pushing hollow offers to protect their own interests, it could be a far more prudent business decision.

  13. abanig says: Jan 20, 2016 8:47 AM

    They should definitely stay put and NFL owners should quit crying to NFL cities and states that they don’t have the $ to build NFL stadiums. It’s about time the American tax payer quits having to subsidize the billionaires and their toys.

  14. justintuckrule says: Jan 20, 2016 8:49 AM

    They should build a quaint, modest, 60,000 seater with some limited high end amenities. The weather is 80 year round. You don’t need lux suites. Build something like the Pirates did in Pittsburgh and you’ll make a perfect home field advantage for yourself.

  15. pftthoughtpolicemostwanted says: Jan 20, 2016 8:49 AM

    Yes. Next question.

  16. Sinuous Sausage says: Jan 20, 2016 8:50 AM

    This makes too much sense

  17. ttommytom says: Jan 20, 2016 8:51 AM

    Old saying in NY:

    ‘A Jets fan is someone who couldn’t get Giants tickets’.

    50 years later and the Jets still get 2nd billing by the News and the public.

    The Chargers have no fan base and are renting. 2nd billing from day 1 means 2nd billing now and forever.

  18. drtharrison says: Jan 20, 2016 8:51 AM

    Or maybe, LA should only have one team…

  19. realfootballfan says: Jan 20, 2016 8:54 AM

    I’ve said this forever. The Chargers barely can hold their own in San Diego in popularity with the Raiders, let alone LA. The Rams and Raiders are the teams for that market, and if any team moves there, it should only be the Raiders although imo they belong in the Bay area. Spanos needs to get something done down in San Diego like the Padres did, period. The Raiders need to be sold to someone who can get something done for them in the Bay or let the new owner move in with Croenke in LA.

  20. sfm073 says: Jan 20, 2016 8:55 AM

    I said this a week ago, how does it benefit the Chargers to move? They get to play in a new stadium that they don’t own in a market they’ll have half the fan base.

  21. jayhawk6 says: Jan 20, 2016 8:55 AM

    This would probably be the best outcome for the NFL’s musical chairs charade. Self righteous Stan would succeed or fail on his own and the long suffering Chargers and their fans would have a shot at new digs for the team.

    And maybe the Raiders could also benefit–they have the most colorful, and perhaps the most loyal, fans in the league.

  22. magnusthe1st says: Jan 20, 2016 8:58 AM

    Yes, they should stay in San Diego. If for any other reason, it’s that L.A. has proven they can’t successfully sustain ONE team, let alone two. 2nd largest U.S. market be damned!

  23. stl45fan says: Jan 20, 2016 8:58 AM

    Complete the LA-Triangle Disaster! Have 3 sub par NFL teams within 90 miles of each other!

  24. danimal760 says: Jan 20, 2016 8:58 AM

    Even if the Chargers move they will still be lead by Deano and his crony sons. And by that I mean they will still be an inept franchise incapable of success.
    Moving to Kroenkeworld is like polishing a turd, no matter how you try to glitz them up they are still a pos.

    Don’t get me wrong I’ve been a die hard bolts fan my 30+ years of existence, but I have seen this team continuously make self inflicted wounds time and time again. Look at the two coaches in the NFC championship. Rivera Was interviewed And passed over for Norv Turner. While Bruce Arians, who had ties with our current GM in Indy, was looked pass for Mike Mccoy?? C’mmon man.

    I think the Chargers have dug themselves into a hole by putting all their eggs in the Carson basket. Like Plashke said, LA isn’t a Chargers town. Not even close. Maybe a starving NFL fan base in LA will think the crackers they’ve been handed is cavier. But one whiff, one taste, will show you otherwise.

    I have been saying the same thing about having to cough up $550 million to relocate and leaving the $100 million (has a $100 million dollar loan ever seemed so small?) from the NFL on the table. However, and maybe big Mike can look into this, but Goldman Sachs was going to foot the bill for the cost of relocation and construction had the Chargers gone to Carson. Is there any talk of that still being a possibility in Inglewood?

    Either way the Chargers should stay put. If/when they decide to stay I think the San Diego community would embrace the team with open arms (one fans opinion any way) and all would be forgiven. That way while us San Diegans are soaking in the sunshine, craft beer, and high cost of living we can look back and say,”Remember that one time our Chargers almost went to LA?”

  25. ravensfan56 says: Jan 20, 2016 9:00 AM

    Los Angeles does not need the NFL.

    -former LA resident

  26. TheDPR says: Jan 20, 2016 9:06 AM

    I agree with this. I never thought the Chargers should move to Los Angeles or anywhere else, nor that Los Angeles needs two football teams.

  27. nflhof says: Jan 20, 2016 9:15 AM

    The Chargers belong in San Diego. It’s really that simple!

  28. jimmyt says: Jan 20, 2016 9:16 AM

    They should move to St. Louis. Cali has too many NFL teams as it is and to many concentrated in one region. All will suffer in attendance and interest.

  29. fedegene says: Jan 20, 2016 9:19 AM

    Finally some sanity. Why only now? I remember that for months many gave for granted that the Chargers to LA was a done deal, that the league would approve it, etc. I wrote many times that for a cheap owner 0.5+ bln in relocation fees was a more than half of a very good stadium in the market where the team has been playing for half a century. There is a problem between Sandiegans and the Spanos now. It will not be easy for this wound to heal.

  30. icanspeel says: Jan 20, 2016 9:22 AM

    Those are a lot of good points, but I get the impress Spanos would rather be Kroenke’s B*tch than work with San Diego.

  31. 2manyconcussions says: Jan 20, 2016 9:23 AM

    Rams fans in LA? Now that is a hoot. What do you think the Rams ended up in St Louis. Arguing whether LA is a Rams or a Chargers town is like arguing whether Rio prefers FoxNews or CNBC–no one is paying attention to either.

  32. stevent92 says: Jan 20, 2016 9:25 AM

    This is the most common-sense take on the Chargers’ situation I have read to date. Especially considering the relocation fee.

    Put that money into a park you DON’T share with someone else

  33. scrimshawturtle says: Jan 20, 2016 9:25 AM

    Spanos should sell the team to someone who will see the value of staying in San Diego and who will run the team in a competent manner.

  34. uglydingo says: Jan 20, 2016 9:27 AM

    Yes, they should stay in San Diego. However, Dean Spanos is fixated on greater wealth and will trample on everything in his path.
    What he doesn’t understand is the high risk associated with the possible/probable relocation. If the team stinks in LA, the fans won’t come and he has a alienated the loyal San Diegans like Ron Burgundy.

  35. cafetero1075 says: Jan 20, 2016 9:27 AM

    NFL owners should built their own stadiums. How greedy they can be.

  36. iamtomzo says: Jan 20, 2016 9:29 AM

    I think Bill is right here – there are very few Charger fans in LA. When the Raiders play here in San Diego, the 5 and 15 freeways heading south are filled with cars bearing Raiders flags – not Charger flags.

    With that said, I do think that the prospect of having the Raiders and Rams in LA may be more than Spanos can take and he will go to LA anyway and hope for the best…

  37. PokeSalad says: Jan 20, 2016 9:33 AM

    I think putting the Chargers and Rams in one stadium would be a serious mistake. If the NFL is serious about re-grafting the Rams back into the LA area, it makes no sense to ‘dilute’ their impact by forcing a stadium-sharing arrangement on both teams – the league should be 100%, acorns-to-the-wall, laser-focused on growing the Rams, and the Rams alone.

    I have my doubts about the Rams being viable over the long-term in LA anyway…there will be an immediate “high” of interest for a few seasons, but again I think the LA fanbase will turn indifferent to the Rams – which is why they ended up in St Louis in the first place. The LA fanbase has too many sports options and is simply too blase’ about the entire thing to sustain a strong interest in the Rams over the long haul.

  38. pastabelly says: Jan 20, 2016 9:34 AM

    Hate to say it, but Spanos’ best move is to St Louis. He should take the deal they offered to Kroenke.

  39. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 20, 2016 9:37 AM

    The Chargers scumbag owner should pay for his own building wherever they go.

    No city or state should give a dime to these billionaires for their buildings that they can easily afford to pay for themselves.

    Furthermore, on top of all the billions of regular revenue, the league is now raking in further billions from their shadow ownership of the daily fantasy sties. And they still want to extort billions from the public.

    Disgusting

  40. 3menandablog says: Jan 20, 2016 9:39 AM

    Im a huge Chargers fan that now lives in LA (from SD). I honestly have never met a single Chargers fan here since I moved here 15 years ago. And I also know this town has absolutely zero desire for them to move here. Their thirst for the NFL was already taken care of with the Rams.

    Being an SD sports fan is probably one of the least rewarding things you could ever be. The Spanos family has produced 7 playoff wins since buying the team in 1984. One super bowl appearance where we got humiliated. Yet we still LOVE our team. We still show up at the worst stadium in football to watch them. And yeah, sometimes opposing fans have a large presence at games, but they are all the transplants that live in LA that drive down for a rare chance to see their team.

    Now imagine how bad that will be if they actually play in LA? It would be an embarrassment to the league to hav every home game dominated by opposiing fans while the Rams own the city.

    That being said, you have the 8th largest city that loves their team despite over 50 years of little success at winning. To give up that market would be foolish for the NFL. The NFL also should be careful about getting LA wrong once again.

    The Chargers are San Diego’s team. The only city that will love them.

  41. dontouchmyjunk says: Jan 20, 2016 9:39 AM

    The people in Los Angeles who drove the 125 miles south to Qualcomm usually did it to see their home town team from back east like the Bears, Jets, Eagles, etc. play the Chargers. Chargers games in LA would be half-filled with the opposing team’s fans just as they are in San Diego most Sundays now. As Plaschke points out, there are exponentially more Raiders fans here than Chargers fans. Most of them don’t have enough money to buy modern day NFL tickets but they have enthusiasm.

    As a long time LA resident, I and most other NFL fans preferred the return of our Rams. Now that that’s a done deal, the Raiders make the most sense to be a second team if there’s going to be a second team.

  42. hmx147 says: Jan 20, 2016 9:45 AM

    I say stay in SD. The people in LA do not want the Chargers. Why force something when the people don’t want them. Work somethings out in SD. Fire Fabiani and negotiate in good faith.

  43. ReligionIsForIdiots says: Jan 20, 2016 9:48 AM

    Spanos will be begging San Diego to take them back within five years.

  44. Getoffmylawn! says: Jan 20, 2016 9:52 AM

    jimmyt says:
    Jan 20, 2016 9:16 AM

    They should move to St. Louis. Cali has too many NFL teams as it is and to many concentrated in one region. All will suffer in attendance and interest.
    ————————————————
    Why St. Louis?
    They have shown TWICE that they can’t keep a single football team there! It’s a baseball town.
    Don’t put football back in St. Louis they have failed every time with the NFL.

    So those of you arguing against this, just put Los Angeles in place of St. Louis and you will know how silly you have been sounding.
    It has nothing to do with the fans!!! It’s Billionaires doing what Billionaires want to do.
    Not one city has been able to keep their team once the owner wanted to leave.

  45. realfootballfan says: Jan 20, 2016 9:54 AM

    2manyconcussions,

    Because Georgia Frontiere is from there and she got a good stadium deal? Just a thought. As far as the tired football won’t work in LA mantra, the stadiums for the Raiders and Rams when they were there 20 years ago were atttrocious by NFL standards (the Coliseum is literally in the hood). There are 30 million people in greater LA, and the Rams played there 50 years before the 20 they’ve played in St. Louis. So yeah, there are lots of their fans still there, and they’ll be fine with a destination stadium with all the bells and whistles being put in by a guy who specializes in real estate development, namely shopping centers. Phoenix is a much more fickle town about sports with all of the older snowbirds, and they’ve been selling that stadium out over in Glenddale out since it opened. I don’t have to do the math for you to tell you that not all of those were Bruce Arians or Super Bowl bound teams. Lot of bad teams mixed in there too dating back to the Denny Green era. However, the stadium is nice as opposed to Sun Devil when they played in Tempe. It makes a big difference.

  46. joetoronto says: Jan 20, 2016 9:55 AM

    San Diego does NOT support the Chargers, that’s been made real clear, there is no fan base to speak of there at all.

    In LA they have a SHOT at growing a fan base, more than they’ve had since moving to SD.

  47. itswhereyourmindsat says: Jan 20, 2016 9:55 AM

    The Spanos family is stupid and they’ve already burned too many bridges here in SD. Being born and raised in SD and dealing with the chargers crap for this long, I say just get out of here and save us the misery

  48. umrguy42 says: Jan 20, 2016 9:58 AM

    Not Kroenkeworld.

    Enosville.

  49. radrntn says: Jan 20, 2016 10:04 AM

    spin it however you want, but at the end of the day for all involved, after the Dodgers and Clippers sold for two billion each, how much is an nfl team worth in LA

    rule #1 “never under estimate the other guys greed!”

  50. daneraider1 says: Jan 20, 2016 10:05 AM

    It makes no sense. just goes to show how out of touch the owners are. Jerry is trying to keep his Cowgirl foothold in so Cal and knew Keeping the raiders out of LA was key to that. Hence the politicking. it’s all about money.
    Watch, the only sellouts for the chargers in LA will be Oakland games.

  51. diveleft says: Jan 20, 2016 10:13 AM

    Yes.

  52. R.J. says: Jan 20, 2016 10:16 AM

    Your entire premise is based on Spanos being smart. As a native San Diegan, the Spanos family starting with Alex has shown over the past three decades they are anything but that.

    Now that they’ve burned their bridges with San Diego, I can’t see this team working out here or in LA. If they were smart, and we know they’re not, they would go to a place like San Antonio or St. Louis where those cities are willing to give them what they want.

    The smartest thing the Spanos family can do is sell the team to someone that will keep it in San Diego, but that option makes too much sense for it to be considered.

  53. whatwouldvindo says: Jan 20, 2016 10:32 AM

    codiablo, aren’t drought and water problems the same thing? Always makes me laugh when people so eager to bash California don’t bother to ask themselves why there’s such a historic drought…as they eat they produce California supplies to the rest of the country.

  54. jayyemm77 says: Jan 20, 2016 10:35 AM

    Los Angeles Raiders are only welcome here

  55. kane337 says: Jan 20, 2016 10:50 AM

    Please stay in San Diego. It’s a really dumb idea to move to L.A.

  56. bearflagfan says: Jan 20, 2016 10:52 AM

    Plaschke is right, there are few Chargers fans in LA. A big lie the Chargers keep telling people is 25% of their season ticket holders are in the “LA-OC-Riverside” area. It isn’t the statement that’s a lie, it’s the facts underlying the statement.

    What most of the country doesn’t know is that while all of Riverside County is considered part of the Greater LA area (see MSAs), most of SE Riverside County (Temecula, Murreta, Lake Elsinore) is actually a de facto suburb of San Diego. That area went from a population around 10,000 in 1990 to 400,000+ today. SE Riverside County is a hot-bed of Chargers fans. If Spanos would ever release the ZIP Code plot of their season ticket holders, I’d bet 90%+ of season ticket holders outside SD County are located in that region. The only Charger fans in OC or LA are San Diegans who moved to those areas for the greater job base.

    In short there is no Charger fan base within the practical LA market, which should exclude SE Riverside County.

  57. stlouisfan says: Jan 20, 2016 11:05 AM

    I have seen many comments about the Chargers moving to STL. The stadium deal that STL had for the Rams is not on the table any longer. The Chargers or the Raiders are not coming to STL. I doubt any other team is coming to STL either. After the way The King of California ( Stan ) and the NFL treated us during the relocation sham , the appetite for brining a team to STL has soured. I strongly doubt that any public money will be available in STL ever again for any NFL owner . So when and if you ever hear of an owner or anyone with the NFL talking about coming to STL its probably a scam to extract money from their current city. Spanos and Davis have few options. They both want everyone to believe that every city that doesn’t have a team would bend over backwards to get them. I don’t think that’s true. San Antonio is not an option. Jerry will never let that happen. London ? No one is going to London. The choice for Spanos is to go to LA. Davis will move to SD. That’s what the NFL wants and that’s what will happen. SD is in the best barging position. They can pretty much tell either owner this is what we want if you stay or move here. If they lose the Chargers they shoudnt bend over for Davis. Where can he go ? The sad part about what the King of California has done is create this mess. I don’t think either team wants to move. The NFL did not help either team .

  58. atthemurph says: Jan 20, 2016 11:12 AM

    They should continue playing At The Murph

  59. iowahbr says: Jan 20, 2016 11:34 AM

    SF does not need to 2 teams (Niners and Raiders) and LA doesn’t need 2 teams either.

    Fan interest and money pays so little economic interest at this point that the NFL will most likely ignore this reality.

  60. realfootballfan says: Jan 20, 2016 11:38 AM

    To make this point of how the building and location make a big difference, here in Phoenix where I don’t think anyone would confuse the population with any Northeastern die hard team fan base, the Cardinals have sold out every game they’ve ever played at their new stadium while they had 12 sellouts the whole time they played at Sun Devil. People simply don’t want to spend their money going to a dump. With 30 million people in LA and a nice stadium, the Rams will be selling out from now on regardless of whether they’re good or not. Now, whether those people always stick around through games will be up to the product on the field, but that’s neither here nor there for the bottom line of attendance numbers and tickets sold.

  61. NinersRule says: Jan 20, 2016 11:46 AM

    Well said bearflag— tons of SD county folks have moved up there over the last couple decades and anyone driving the 15 weekdays knows many of them still work in the south.

  62. damacnut says: Jan 20, 2016 11:47 AM

    SOME REALLY EXCELLENT COMMENTS HERE!!! I wish I could add more, but I DO have something to say …

    1) danimal760 – I totally agree with your posting … what is BS is that Spanos is willing to “finance” the $550M relocation fee to the NFL, whereas he could EASILY be spending the money, at least PART of that, on building a state-of-the-art stadium here in SAN and being majority owner of the facility with the city of SAN.

    2) Regarding public financing, I believe this is a NECESSARY evil. The reason WHY is because the stadium isn’t used ENTIRELY for NFL games. It could be used for the Super Bowl, which benefits the city HUGELY in terms of hotels, restaurants and transportation benefits, et al. The city would earn MILLIONS if we hosted a Super Bowl every 5 years or so … SAN is one of the BEST PLACES in the U.S. to host Super Bowls … but we DO NEED A NEW VENUE for this purpose. So the CITY of SAN must invest in this structure as well. What percentage of this facility is not for me to determine, but I would guestimate that somewhere in the range of 25% to 35% would be reasonable. If we’re building a $1B stadium that would have multi-purpose benefits to the city of SAN, and NOT EXCLUSIVELY for 10 Charger home games (including pre-season), then $350M seems like a reasonable number. Of course the city accountants have done their homework, and it seems that they have capped the civic contribution at 30% of the $1.1B stadium currently proposed for the Mission Valley site.

    3) Regarding the Chargers STAYING in San Diego – naturally this makes the MOST sense for most of us – whether we’re Chargers fans or NOT. I am a Seahawks fan living here in SAN, but I still support the Chargers here locally as my AFC team. One of the reasons WHY Spanos would rather move to LA is because his franchise is increase in value dramatically by being in the LAX market. Secondly, the corporate sponsorships up there will generate FAR MORE than they will here in SAN. Thirdly, I’m guessing that revenues from TV contracts may be greater being in the LAX market than here in SAN. Not sure how that all works, but as a whole, advertising/marketing/TV contracts/etc. are going to be greater than staying in SAN … probably much much higher. So it’s ALL about greed and future equity … and when you have an owner like Spanos, you can see the writing on the wall … it’s been scribbled for quite some time.

    4) I know this is kind of conspiracy theory-like, but maybe the reason why the Chargers have always seemed to hire the WRONG coach instead of Arians or Rivera is because the Spanos’ wanted mediocrity. They wanted to put out a mediocre and inferior product so that our fans wouldn’t miss them too much if they moved to LA. It was a plan for a long time to sabotage the team from a personnel and coaching standpoint. From Norv Turner to Mike McCoy. Nice guys but they are NOT leaders of men … at least not to Super Bowl events.

    5) Time to go walk our dog!

  63. cards1man says: Jan 20, 2016 11:51 AM

    Tired of people saying St. Louis lost two teams and are not a NFL city! LA lost three teams, yet it is OK for them?

    St Louis was ready to build Rams a new stadium with over $400MM of public money and another $160MM in PSL.

    They lost out due to greed by Stank, Goodevil and Snake in the grass Jones!

    Cardinals are supportive in St. Louis because they win, year after year.

    Rams were sold out for 11 years because they won…it’s simple!

  64. umrguy42 says: Jan 20, 2016 11:55 AM

    @Getoffmylawn!

    “Why St. Louis?
    They have shown TWICE that they can’t keep a single football team there! It’s a baseball town.
    Don’t put football back in St. Louis they have failed every time with the NFL.

    It has nothing to do with the fans!!! It’s Billionaires doing what Billionaires want to do.
    Not one city has been able to keep their team once the owner wanted to leave.”

    Not sure if that was you arguing the first point but St. Louis failed because:
    1. Bill Bidwell wanted a new stadium for the football Cardinals, the city said “no way”. So he moved. It wasn’t about fan support at all.
    2. ES Kroenke saw $2+ billion in team worth in LA, and didn’t give a crap about staying in St. Louis (entirely your last point). The fans, recognizing this + his extreme lack of involvement with the city + putting out a crap product for years on end, responded in the only way they could – by not coming. The city, knowing where it went wrong with the Cardinals, put together a stadium plan.

    Seems a little unfair to say “the NFL failed twice in St. Louis” when it was the owners both times. Not like they were losing money on the deals (heck, according to Forbes, the Rams almost doubled in value between when Kroenke bought them completely and today, all while in St. Louis with a historically bad team).

  65. iowahbr says: Jan 20, 2016 12:01 PM

    Given how the NFL rules have changed over the last 10 years to produce a QB focused game I am shocked at all the Super Bowl talk as the true measure of success in the NFL. There are 4 or 5 teams with really high quality QBs in the league and they will continue to be the ones playing to be at the Super bowl or among the final 4 trying to get there.

    With 32 teams and a real shortage of elite QBs most teams and fans need to start understanding same.

  66. aaronb77 says: Jan 20, 2016 12:37 PM

    I see old Deano as having 3 options:

    1. Be a man and admit he was wrong to walk away from San Diego prematurely. Restart negotiations with the city. Launch a PR campaign to win back the citizens of San Diego. As a first step, fire Fabiani to show he is serious.

    2. Realize he has been sent to the kiddy table by the NFL. Admit he doesn’t have the business acumen, money, or influence in the NFL to ever get what he wants. Sell the team.

    3. Accept and embrace that he can be no better than someone’s bitch. Lease from Stan and pray that luck is on his side because Stan will hold all the cards.

    Judging from the way Dean has conducted himself so far, I think he will go with #3.

  67. skinnylegspeytonmanning says: Jan 20, 2016 12:47 PM

    There are more Raiders fans here than Chargers fans, and it isn’t even close.”
    _____________________________________
    And yet the raiders couldn’t even make a dent for an invite to LA. Marky Mark, your Dad must be rolling in his grave. No wonder he wouldn’t let you ride on the team plane!

  68. richdogg231 says: Jan 20, 2016 1:55 PM

    The Chargers only chance to be well received in LA would be if they were a championship contending team. LA fans are not going to show up in droves to watch 8-8 or 4-12 teams.

  69. 1nationraidernation says: Jan 20, 2016 2:19 PM

    iowahbr says:
    Jan 20, 2016 11:34 AM
    SF does not need to 2 teams (Niners and Raiders)
    – – – – – – – – – – – – — – — – – – – –

    It’s ok San Francisco doesn’t have any teams.

    Yhat is unless you think San Jose is San Francisco….maybe the Raiders can move to Sacramento and still call themselves the Oakland Raiders as well

  70. justanotherfan101 says: Jan 20, 2016 2:21 PM

    That’s a tough decision for the Chargers on whether to move or not, but news reports state they are trying to trademark the name LA Chargers and Los Angeles Chargers already. The Chargers averaged 66,722 in attendance last year, which is good for a team that had a less than winning record. If they stayed in San Diego I would guess they would have to pay somewhere above 60% of the cost of a new $1.2 billion+ stadium. I believe they will stay in San Diego if they can drum up enough financial support locally and from the NFL.

  71. sdrn4l says: Jan 20, 2016 2:27 PM

    Mayor Faulkner Talk To Mark Davis,Bring The RAIDERS,Make This A Better City,More Jobs And Make Everyone Happy Being The An NFL City,They Will Sell Every Ticket,They Will B More Popular Than The Padres,RAIDERS have A Great Team And They Are Getting Better,It Will Work 200%

  72. pudgiechild says: Jan 20, 2016 2:47 PM

    The analogy that the Raiders would be “the NFL’s version of the L.A. Clippers” if they get the opportunity to move to L.A. (or Inglewood) is inaccurate because the Raiders are more popular than the Rams in Southern California.

  73. defender1844 says: Jan 20, 2016 3:10 PM

    Regarding San Antonio as an option: everyone says Jerry Jones won’t allow it. Well he and Bob McNair are 2 negative votes. They would still need 7 more to kill it.

  74. samquix says: Jan 20, 2016 3:11 PM

    Lots of ppl on social media want to know about the Raiders in SD and if it can work. I’m from SD. Born & raised. Been a charger fan since I started liking sports in high school 20+ years ago. But my loyalty isn’t to Spanos. Or any owner or team. It’s to my city. IMO one of the finest cities in the world. I’m not a MLB fan but I go to Padres games. I have had Chargers season tix for 3 years and I go to 6+ games a season. If they leave they’re dead to me. And I will 100% support any team that makes an effort to come here that WANTS to be here. Weather that’s the Raiders or an expansion team. If the name says SAN DIEGO they have my support. If Spanos doesn’t want to be here PEACE OUT. If Mark Davis does WELCOME. If an expansion team comes SIGN ME UP. Because it’s SD over fat rich guys pockets!

  75. realfootballfan says: Jan 20, 2016 3:38 PM

    lfdamacnut ,

    I haven’t been to SD in a few years, but I know when I was there years ago and heard the local perspective on this, it wasn’t that no one would give him money to build a stadium but rather it was where it would be built. He wants a downtown stadium like the Padres have and I think it was offered to be built in Mission Valley or something. Spanos is an idiot, something I think we all can agree on though.

  76. notcrazyleftorright says: Jan 20, 2016 5:27 PM

    Everybody believes that Spanos has only two options. SD won’t come close to raising the public money needed to build a new stadium. Remaining in a 60 year old baseball park isn’t a long term option. Partnering with and playing second fiddle to the guy that screwed you in the most important business deal of your life isn’t much of an option, either. San Antonio or St. Louis both seem to be more attractive business options. Even a child of SoCal should be able to see that.

  77. americanfootballarchive says: Jan 20, 2016 6:55 PM

    Notcrazyleftorright

    So the city and county of SD put a proposal on the table that included $350 million in piblic dollars that only needed a 51% vote, you somehow think that is San Diego not coming close to raising public money?

    A 51% vote is easy if you have two organizations working together to show the citizens how the plan is a win-win. Unfortunately Spanos and Fabiani have spent the last year simply bashing the city and spreading lies about the work being done FOR the Chargers so they could tell the NFL they couldn’t get anything done so they could move to LA.

  78. mdintino1420 says: Jan 20, 2016 7:37 PM

    They should save the Carson site for the Los Angeles Dodgers. They will need a new ballpark soon.

  79. mdintino1420 says: Jan 20, 2016 7:41 PM

    Why pay a $550 million relocation fee to play in a city that does not want you. The Chargers have very little appeal in Los Angeles. They should try to get the league to help them with new stadium in San Diego. Come on Spanos, use a ticket tax and PSLs to fund a new stadium in your own city!!!

  80. mdintino1420 says: Jan 20, 2016 7:59 PM

    Spanos should try for a new stadium in San Diego between now and the end of March. If he isn’t getting anywhere, then he should look into St. Louis or San Antonio. Moving to Los Angeles would be a very bad idea.

    The St. Louis Stallions or the San Antonio Outlaws both roll off the tongue.

  81. jdanosborn says: Jan 20, 2016 9:47 PM

    Its a math problem and here is what we know. The deal in SD seems to hinge on Dean brining $365M to the stadium deal. A move to Carson would have required $550M in relocation fees. Stan will require Dean kay half of the $900M he is borrowing so another $450M. The Spanos family has some 90% of the net worth in the team. So how does this add up.

    If you do not have $365M for your home town deal how can you raise now close to $1B to move to LA.

    Then you have the pending inheritance tax issue as Alex passes of 55% of the total value of his estate who has to be another $300M or so.

    The only way the younger Spanos’ are going to come out ahead is to convince Dean its time to sell. In the end that was the message the other owners sent. Its a Multi Billionaire game now, not Multi- Millionaire. Smart people know when to step away.

  82. kingpel says: Jan 20, 2016 10:29 PM

    Stay in San Diego. Don’t let your pride make you look like a fool…..again!

  83. jtheboltsfan says: Jan 21, 2016 2:42 AM

    I’m so sick of hearing people talk bad about the chargers going to los angeles. People who honestly Believe there are no chargers fans in los angeles are far from correct I am from the inland Empire which is right above los angeles for those of you who aren’t familiar with the area. And there is nothing but chargers fans up here it seems like and they all want the chargers in Los Angeles so we can go to more games. Nobody up here likes the rams in fact we were all pissed off when they were chosen lol. So to those of you who thinks the chargers won’t do well in Los Angeles you are wrong. Go Los Angeles chargers I will be one of your first season ticket holders since you will only be an hour from me instead of 3 hours when you were in San Diego. P.S. to all of the people from San Diego everytime a team like the Patriots plays in San Diego it was like a home game for the Patriots so don’t complain when you can’t even show up for your team

  84. stlouisfan says: Jan 21, 2016 10:13 AM

    I hope the city of SD and Oakland dont give in to the demands of Spanos or Davis. If they can pay a $550 million relocation fee , they can find a way to build a stadium where they are at. The best option for both cities is for both to sell and get owners that want to be in those cities that will have enough money to make it work. The NFL took care of the King of California ( Stan ) but have done little have to solve any issues in SD and Oakland. Cities need to stop letting the NFL and its owners push them around.

  85. stlouisfan says: Jan 21, 2016 12:35 PM

    BTW…..If Davis does move , it will the third time this franchise has moved . The same family has owned the team since the beginning. Do you think that it might be the owners of the team that cant figure out how to get a stadium done ? Shouldn’t the owners have to do something besides say build us stadium or else ? If a city does help build a stadium , they should own part of the team.

  86. dsheik says: Jan 21, 2016 12:56 PM

    I dont think the Chargers are going to do well in LA. It should really just be the Rams and the Rams only. LA doesnt need 2 teams.

    While some arent going to like this, If they HAD to have a 2nd team in LA is should have been the Raiders. They get a lot of hate from non-Raider fans on fan forums like this, but they actually already have a fan base in LA. They would have an easier go of it in LA then the Chargers will.

    Regardless, the Raiders arent going and I dont think its going to work out for the Chargers.

  87. boltdaddy says: Jan 21, 2016 4:42 PM

    Among your finest pieces Mike, well done.

  88. powpow042 says: Jan 21, 2016 5:46 PM

    I’ve said for years the Bolts aren’t going anywhere.

    Get ready for the mayor to forego any public vote and build the stadium in MV.

    It’s coming.

  89. guyjuneguyjune says: Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM

    Spot on article and spot on comments for staying in SD. ALSO..did you check out this morning’s news stating “further delays”and “increased construction costs” for the Falcons stadium in Atlanta? Now, June of 2017 before they move in! The Chargers will have to play in “the hood”- pig sty- until 2021 before they can start playing in Kroenkeworld. L.A. with the corrupt city council, corrupt municipal and state environmental personnel…+$650,000,000 if the Chargers stay. ($2,000,000,000)if they move. Spanos: get ready for law suits from Kroenke if you deal with him! CORRECT! There are no Charger fans in L.A.!!!

  90. davew128 says: Jan 23, 2016 9:08 PM

    justintuckrule says:
    Jan 20, 2016 8:49 AM
    They should build a quaint, modest, 60,000 seater with some limited high end amenities. The weather is 80 year round.
    **********************
    It certainly is not. Night time around Qualcomm in December/January can drop into the high 30’s.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!