Talks between San Diego, Chargers are all but dead

As NFL owners prepare to meet in Chicago to discuss the inevitable return of pro football to Los Angeles (sorry, L.A. Kiss, but you’ve had two years to prove that you’re playing pro football — and you’re not), it’s looking less and less likely that pro football will stay in San Diego.

Via Kevin Acee of U-T San Diego, local politicians have “all but abandoned” hope of working out a deal with the Chargers in 2015.

And so the Chargers will continue to pursue options in Los Angeles, with San Diego becoming the Plan B.

But if two teams are going to move to L.A., it’s hard to imagine the Chargers not being one of them. And if the Chargers aren’t going to move to L.A., it’s hard to imagine the Chargers tolerating the Raiders and Rams moving right down the road, 20 years after both franchises left the region.

Still, without significant taxpayer money, it will be difficult if not impossible to pay for two different stadiums for two different teams in Southern California. So it will be two teams in L.A. (more likely) or two in San Diego (highly unlikely).

That’s the simplest way to look at this. A new stadium won’t be built in L.A. unless two teams play there, and cramming three teams into a region that has had only one for two decades will be a tough sell — especially with no blackout rule to cajole fans to buy tickets.

70 responses to “Talks between San Diego, Chargers are all but dead

  1. But if two teams are going to move to L.A., it’s hard to imagine the Chargers not being one of them. And if the Chargers aren’t going to move to L.A., it’s hard to imagine the Chargers tolerating the Raiders and Rams moving right down the road, 20 years after both franchises left California.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I might not be completely up to date on my geography, but isn’t Oakland still in California?

  2. Wasn’t it 12 years ago when LA lost to Houston in getting a franchise? They wouldn’t pay for a stadium then, they haven’t done anything since then either. Yet, the NFL claims that two franchises will be located in LA.

  3. I understand that most of California probably wants to pretend that Oakland is not in the state, but the Raiders didn’t leave California 20 years ago.

  4. Curious:

    If the Chargers and either the Rams or Raiders share a stadium, would San Diego still be willing to have a Chargers game or two? I am thinking Buffalo in Toronto, Packers in Milwaukee type of arrangement.

    As a fan of none of these teams, and a former LA resident, I would be curious to hear from their fans or residents of LA on this.

  5. Tough to see. As a Bills fan I know how relocation talks can be. Hope they stay in San Diego, I don’t see LA working out much different than the last time for the NFL. Two teams at once is way too much for one city to take on, no matter the population.

  6. I think St. Louis is doing the most out of the three cities, San Diego and Los Angeles. The NFL will want to take advantage of that.

  7. There is absolutely no decent reason for the Chargers to leave San Diego. Ownership is consumed by projected potential profits in Los Angeles with the NFL paying for the billion dollar stadium.
    I’m not a Charger fan but they should stay in San Diego.

  8. Acee is one of the Chargers’ local writing puppets. That worm is always trying to persuade readers to follow the whatever narrative the chargers want him to write, ie the article he wrote a few months ago about how the chargers should get rid of Rivers.

    The voice to follow in this whole LA stadium fiasco is Sam Farmer from the LA Times, all other writers have no idea what they’re talking about

  9. “That’s the simplest way to look at this. A new stadium won’t be built in L.A. unless two teams play there”

    That statement is just flat out wrong. There is still a decent chance that Kroenke builds his stadium, the NFL uses it for leverage to get San Diego’s stadium built and the Raiders move.

  10. There’s only three teams that really make sense, and all three have previously called LA home. And it sounds like the Chargers would not tolerate a team in LA if they were still in San Diego.

    All that’s left to speculate is whether it will be the Raiders or the Rams that will be joining them in LA.

  11. Los Angeles…..that great NFL bargaining chip to push current NFL cities to pay for new stadiums or upgrades lest they lose their franchise to Los Angeles.

  12. @djaehne:
    Yes LA lost the bid because there were two competing factions for stadiums. One was pushing the Coliseum, which the NFL didn’t want and the other was a private bid that didn’t get political support. Both were woefully unacceptable to the NFL. Houston had their stuff together and got the team.

  13. All 3 teams have LA History.
    All 3 moved out of LA.
    The Chargers were originally the LA Chargers,.but moved to San Diego in 1961.The Rams moved to LA in 1946 and then moved to St. Louis in 1995 The Raiders moved to LA in 1982 then back to Oakland in 1995

    Two teams returning for another try ?
    Why not one and see how it does. I’m sure once the novelty wears off, one team will be plenty.

  14. Solution: The NFL should have one team that changes cities every 5 years, with the city decided by random lottery or thumb wrestling contest. Next question…

  15. This whole talk about two teams relocating to LA is simply the NFL trying to get as much $$ out of the San Diego, Oakland and St. Louis governments to pay for new stadiums. There is no way two teams will be moving to the area next year. It isn’t feasible. Maybe a few years from now, if/when a new facility in LA is built, but not next year.

    My best guess is that the Rams move to LA next year and San Diego and Oakland stay put. Kroenke seems dead-set on moving the Rams franchise to LA and he has the most money to make it happen. Mark Davis and the Raiders need to bring in another owner(s) with some money and try to build a new stadium in Oakland, where the City seems to be supportive. San Diego is a problem because a new stadium is needed, but the City has not been too supportive. The Chargers probably sign a short term lease and if the team and the City cannot come up with an agreement on a new stadium in a year or two, then they move into the new stadium that gets built by Kroenke (or possibly move to a new location–St. Louis, San Antonio or maybe Salt Lake City, which is one of the fastest growing areas in the country).

  16. The Chargers and Rams will share a stadium in L.A. The Raiders will stick in Oakland or get tempted away by San Antonio or St. Louis. No change in divisions or rivalries needed.

  17. steelerben says:

    I might not be completely up to date on my geography, but isn’t Oakland still in California?

    50 2
    Report comment

    ———————————————————————

    …..he means right down the road in the same city there bub

  18. I still cannot get the fact how badly the NFL wants back in to LA. I understand the second largest TV market angle. Yet, no NFL team has had long term success there. I remember Todd Lyght years ago when he played with the Rams saying he could not find any LA Rams gear/swag at local stores.

    If it was so good to be there, why have the teams all left? And what exactly has changed?

  19. Having lived in Diego when the Chargers were at their best (79-83 with Fouts, JJ, etc.), the team barely made a ripple within the community. I guess San Diego is just too laid back for the NFL.

  20. Good, San Diego doesn’t need football anyways. There’s a 1000 things I would rather do in that city than watch a game in that horrible stadium on Sundays.

    Kudos to the government of San Diego! Let LA deal with the head ache and 30,000 empty seats.

  21. Agree, I certainly don’t expect to see 3 teams in Southern California again soon, but I will say that the media in general seems to think the LA and San Diego markets are one big SoCal market, just not the case. I have lived in San Diego my whole life and these are 2 completely separate markets with the majority of San Diego sports fans wanting nothing to do with LA or its teams. IF the Chargers move to LA their fans here will not go with them. Perhaps the NFL is fine with San Diego being NFL agnostic (which is what will happen), but it will lose a loyal fan base developed for 50 years. I don’t consider that smart business.

  22. the chargers are going to get zero love in LA unless they win a lot. I could see the raiders doing ok though, no matter what

  23. Newsflash: We taxpayers in Los Angeles aren’t going to pay for your lavish, gold-plated stadium either. You want to come here? We don’t care how you do it: Get a loan/ search your couch cushions/ use the collateral of your billion dollar team, etc. Just build it yourself and quit holding the taxpayers hostage. Otherwise, tuck your tail between your legs and get the hell out of here.

    /end rant.

  24. 50 years from now Raider reps will be roaming the country side calling “Here Stadium, Here Stadium.” They simply will never understand that Mafia negotiating tactics are not a good ploy to have others give you millions upon millions for something that is not yours.

    I have a business? Want to give me donations? Pleeese?

  25. Los Angeles Chargers…… huh??? That hurts my brain. Rams moving to L.A. huh?? didn’t they win a super bowl in St. Louis. only logical team moving to LA is the Raiders and that worked out real well the last time. This is a disaster.

  26. This is sad for Chargers fans. As a Bills fan we went through this for years with the fear of the team moving to Toronto. The frustrating part is it really doesn’t have to be that way because none of these teams really need new stadiums for a whole 10 games a year. It’s just a way the greedy league try’s to milk more money from the taxpayers and fans.

  27. We’ll pass on the 2 NFL teams…just sent us some water instead.

    Regards,
    SoCal

  28. Well, if we’re talking history the Rams won twice as many championships in LA as they did in St Louis.

  29. If a PODUNK town like Seattle can have a team, then LA can have at least two.

    Seems like one poster is from the former, San Francisco has a team and their stadium is down the 101 in Santa Clara.

  30. How many times has L.A. had an NFL team? What makes the NFL think that putting not one, but two, teams there…again…would have different results than any of the previous times?

    Love,

    35yo native San Diegan

  31. zielinski18 says: >blockquote>Tough to see. As a Bills fan I know how relocation talks can be. Hope they stay in San Diego, I don’t see LA working out much different than the last time for the NFL. Two teams at once is way too much for one city to take on, no matter the population.

    As an Angeleno, I actually agree with this. Relocation talks are terrible from a fan’s point of view, and it really should be only one team coming back into the region.

    (and from a personal bias, that one should be the Rams)

  32. Hopefully the Chargers will want to leave town and can’t. Then San Diego can tell them to leave. Grass isn’t always greener on the other side Spanos. Once the Chargers say we are leaving I hope San Diegan’s never go to another game nor support the Team at all.

  33. I still don’t get why there is a rush to put two teams in a city that wouldn’t even support a single team.

  34. The Chargers are going to force themselves on a city that is Pro Raiders.

    Try Las Vegas or San Antonio, with Vegas no state tax and you still can be viewed in the L.A. Market.

    San Antonio would lift the spirits and give the team a much needed HFA with less taxes.

    L.A. will be a disaster, as the Chargers will be servants of the Raiders and their fans.

    Try Orange County instead -and go with the “California” Chargers mantra.

    As the Angels do quite well, and they should go back to the “California” name, as OC and L.A. despise each other.

    Raiders in L.A. County.

    Chargers in Orange County.

  35. “Well, if we’re talking history the Rams won twice as many championships in LA as they did in St Louis.”

    You need to brush up on your history, the Rams won three championships, one each in Cleveland, LA and St. Louis.

  36. So why do the Chargers think they have the rights to L.A. (i.e…they won’t tolerate a team moving there) when the Rams called it home for 50 years?

  37. The NFL needs San Diego San Diego doesn’t need the NFL.Let them leave San Diego has so many better and cheaper alternatives than being hosed by the NFL.

  38. Just move the Chargers to St. Louis and the Rams to San Diego and be done with it.

  39. Bottom line is most people in LA are concerned with the entertainment industry and nothing else. Hence why a football team has never lasted in LA.

  40. Boy, the Jump to Conclusions chart is in full effect.
    Tell us what’s going to happen tomorrow.

  41. Whoever is left out of LA … Chargers or Raiders should go to Portland, SLC, or San Antonio. All would be great destinations.

    I also like Vegas but I doubt the league wants to have a team there due to the implications.

    St Louis has proven they will only do the minimum and then go back on their commitments. They don’t need a team there ever again. Better to let a new city.

  42. No way 3 teams end up in LA. Rams aren’t going to get the votes they need from the NFL owners to move. City of St Louis is working overtime to provide a new stadium there, plus they have tax payer funds to boot. City of Oakland and City of San Diego’s stadium plans are all but dead.

    Watch and see..

  43. I think it will be the Chargers and Raiders moving to LA.
    if the amount of money St. louis is willing to kick in for a stadium are true there is no way the nfl will let the Rams walk away from a sweetheart deal like that

    The Chargers and Raiders proposed stadium will be built with private money and both teams will do fine.

    the reason the Rams and Raiders did so poorly drawing fans was because of terrible facilities.
    with a brand new stadium the Chargers and Raiders will be fine

  44. They could always decide to close up shop and contract the teaming they cannot be profitable……oops,forgot that’ll teams got paid $225 M with a salary cap of $145 M.

    they are making a profit!! They just want more profit. go get a loan like everyone else does when you get a new house.

  45. Another option is teams calling themselves “Los Angeles”, while playing elsewhere. The Angels have shown that owners like the “Los Angeles” name for marketing purposes. So maybe one of the teams could be the Los Angeles Rams of St. Louis.

  46. Technically, Kroenke has said he would foot the entire bill himself to be in LA.

    So, it could still be one team in LA, with a stadium paid for by the owner, and one team in SD, partially paid for by taxpayers.

    Why does the NFL have to split a market? Kroenke can just write the Chargers a fat check for encroaching on the space.

    Raiders.. Good luck in San Antonio.

  47. Don’t worry San Diego, you’ll get a soccer team to play in your stadium full time, year round! Who’s geeked about that!

  48. There was a poll conducted the other day that surveyed residents of LA county, Orange, and a few other regions. 800 random people…and the Chargers were the most popular team people were interested in seeing come to Los Angeles. They slightly nudged out the Rams, and both teams garnered way more interest than the Raiders returning. The Chargers will do fine wherever they land in Los Angeles.

  49. Wake up San Diego. You have no NBA, NHL and your baseball team sucks! You call yourself a big city? I get it in Oakland since the Raiders can’t compete with Niners but what is your excuse! The fans are there just build a stadium. Unlike the Raiders you never had to tarp your upper deck right?

  50. ““That’s the simplest way to look at this. A new stadium won’t be built in L.A. unless two teams play there”

    That statement is just flat out wrong. There is still a decent chance that Kroenke builds his stadium, the NFL uses it for leverage to get San Diego’s stadium built and the Raiders move.”

    Agreed – he doesn’t need their money or their permission to move HIS team

    “steelerben says:

    I might not be completely up to date on my geography, but isn’t Oakland still in California?

    50 2
    Report comment

    ———————————————————————

    …..he means right down the road in the same city there bub”

    What he said was “left California”…so given that the language was direct and incorrect I’d say steelerben has it right.

    “granadafan says:
    Aug 10, 2015 4:22 PM
    Newsflash: We taxpayers in Los Angeles aren’t going to pay for your lavish, gold-plated stadium either. You want to come here? We don’t care how you do it: Get a loan/ search your couch cushions/ use the collateral of your billion dollar team, etc. Just build it yourself and quit holding the taxpayers hostage. Otherwise, tuck your tail between your legs and get the hell out of here.

    /end rant.”

    Newsflash: no one is asking you to. Neither of the stadiums under consideration currently require a dime of taxpayer money. Try researching the situation before commenting.

    “purpleguy says:
    Aug 10, 2015 5:02 PM
    I still don’t get why there is a rush to put two teams in a city that wouldn’t even support a single team.”

    This just isn’t true. The Raiders consistently sold 50k tix in Watts of all places and the Rams did fine, but Georgia Frontiere wanted to move the team because STL gave her a deal too good to pass up (which is why they built a crappy stadium that needs to be replaced so soon after being built). They could easily be just fine in that market today.

    “packerfaninsandiego says:
    Aug 10, 2015 5:39 PM
    No city should be allowed to have two NFL franchises.”

    Not even New York (well, New Jersey, but you get the point)? Technically, the bay area is the size of NYC and it has 2 teams. LA should absolutely have 2 teams. No way they get to 3. Wouldn’t even work logistically for scheduling purposes.

    “Silver and Black attack says:
    Aug 10, 2015 7:07 PM
    No way 3 teams end up in LA. Rams aren’t going to get the votes they need from the NFL owners to move. City of St Louis is working overtime to provide a new stadium there, plus they have tax payer funds to boot. City of Oakland and City of San Diego’s stadium plans are all but dead.

    Watch and see..”

    As Al Davis proved (and has since been done by other owners) the NFL ownership vote about relocation is purely symbolic. These are individual businesses who have formed a labor and marketing collective…they cannot legally prevent an owner from moving his/her team.

    Honestly, this stadium here in SD isn’t that bad.. Sure, it isn’t sparkly and fresh and all that, but it is just fine. The location is perfect – part of the problem here is that the team REALLY REALLY REALLY wants land to be given to them downtown so they can take full advantage of the “mixed use” zoning designation. Let’s not forget how the Spanos family made its money…real estate development. They want to open a fancy hotel and sell some fancy condos and take advantage of the waterfront real estate.

    Oakland has a stadium that needs a significant amount of work and it makes sense to start from scratch there. It needs a complete quake retrofit and more, and more modern, security entrances, wider concourses (can barely get to the restroom and back at halftime due to congestion). The age of the stadium isn’t as important as what it has right and wrong. Many stadia are older than Oakland and even more are older than here in SD. I’d love to see the Raiders stay in OAK, but I’m not sure the city and county can make it happen. The problem the Chargers have is that the city, while big, is very transient. Folks who are Pats, NYG, Baltimore, etc fans don’t much feel like chipping in for a stadium and likely won’t vote to approve the taxes needed. And despite the claims of some on here, Chargers fans aren’t generally very loyal, nor are they diehard. Most of them are bandwagon as all hell and absolutely the definition of fair-weather. To top it off, the seats are WAY too expensive for a town as young and service oriented to afford on a regular basis. Seats in Green Bay in the endzone lower level are $65ish/ea. They are $90 in the corners and less in SD. Their pricing model is terrible, which contributes to the lack of loyalty. The Spanos family has made it hard for young fans to get into supporting the team.

  51. However, it was said that the City of San Diego’s presentation in Chicago to the NFL was quite impressive today, unveiling both a financial plan and an environmental analysis of the stadium project.

    However, if the Chargers continue to ignore overtures from the city, all of these won’t mean much. In other words, if Spanos continues to march his a$$ clown Fabiani out to be his mouth to all concerned parties, there will be no progress.

  52. By November it will be a done deal – Chargers are gone. That will mean 8 games of lame duck status. You think the Q had a lot of visiting fans before, just wait until the final shoe drops. Someone above mentioned LA ‘lost franchise to Houston.’ As I recall NFL BEGGED LA to take a team; they extended deadlines at least twice. LA wasn’t least bit interested. Now they re being sent two teams? The league proving once again greed and stupidity a bad combo.

  53. All 3 teams have been in Los Angeles before…
    INSANITY!!!
    Its all about TV contracts, nothing more….

  54. “Hey guys, we are having a meeting about moving teams to L.A., meet us in Chicago??”

  55. Do we need BOTH.. NO do we need ALL 3!! Why are we REACTIVE instead be PRO active!! Why try to solve ONE problem (the football stadium).. We need 3 things here in San Diego AND the cost can be split with the CASINOS flipping for 50% of the bill!
    Options for a NEW football stadium:
    • First off (WE) San Diego is being re-active to the football stadium! We asked for a stadium-the Chargers asked for a stadium 3-4 years ago, and NO body budged! NOW that there is a threat of losing the Chargers we are reacting!
    • So, Option 1-The team doesn’t get a realistic good deal so they move to LA-Carson.
    • Option 2-reconstruct Mission Valley: Advantages:
    1. Lease costly- there is already pre built construction.
    2. It’s centrally located.
    3. It’s the quickest solution.
    Disadvantages:
    1. The traffic around there is already crazy, even on NON-Game events.
    2. It’s a band-aid because out of 4-5 locations, it’s the worse for a new stadium.
    3. We need a new convention center AND airport! We keep putting band-aids on these items, but the truth is we NEED ALL 3 of these venues. (if we are going to continue to grow!) We should be proactive and build ALL 3 of these necessities! Especially the football stadium AND the convention center!
    4. look at #1!
    • Option 3 & 4-Chula Vista & Oceanside-both viable, but expensive!

    • Option 5-Noone has brought this up, but not only does the Indian Reservation have A LOT of land, they probably would love to have you build on it! I have a suspicion that they would pay for 50% of this.

    A. with ALL the land they have, we can build a new stadium, an airport with TWO runways, (LA has 4-5 airports in their surrounding area) AND a new convention center.
    B. The casinos can be allowed to build new hotels & resorts (80% of their own and 20% others).
    C. this would create mass transit from San Diego to the Indian Reservation-Casinos.
    D. This would create a TON of jobs!
    E. This would alleviate traffic congestion.
    F. the BEST ways to build a city AND bring more money to a city is: 1. Out of country $$(from individuals flying into San Diego, for gambling, & visiting.) 2. Out of state $$ (from individuals flying into San Diego, for gambling, & visiting.) 3. Out of city $$ (from individuals flying into San Diego, for gambling, & visiting.)
    G. (being repetitive) The casino-reservation would put up 50% of the money for this project NOT the citizens!! With 50% of the money put up by the reservation-casinos-we can afford tickets AND food at the game!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.