Chargers to LA

[sdhusky]

They got the Padres, too.

The Chargers messed up with colors. Had they done the right colors, would have looked better to everyone.

 

[Adios]

 

[BugsyCT]

These were the best Charger unis IMO - the Air Coryell era.

 

[uconnfan68]

Anytime the Raiders played in San Diego it was a home game easily. In LA RaiderNation is ten times the size. Very little love for the Chargers in LA bro, rebranding best option

Yup, just like the Clippers (NBA)

 

[Nostical]

That type of logic has led cities to fork over hundreds of millions of public dollars to billionaires.

For the public good--for civic pride--for tourism--for employment--for boosting the image of the city--for driving other business development--for increased convention activity--etc, etc---not just the owner's own pockets. Your comment is extremely short sided. Consider this: Do you think Indianapolis benefits from the Colts and their stadium?

 

[Pudge]

This is like the Red Sox moving to New Haven. Wacky stuff.

I think you miss the sheer scale of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties. And the dynamic of Pro Sports in Southern California (which is far different than Northern California). They CAN be dominant and valued brands in that region. But you have to win ... and you have to say buzzed. If you start to look tired and unkempt ... the fans dump you in an instant and will go watch bikini volleyball or surfing or just hang out on the Strand. They - once in awhile - can jump on an up&coming Team. But momentum is very important. And SD Chargers seemingly had died about a decade ago.

 

[WestHartHusk]

For the public good--for civic pride--for tourism--for employment--for boosting the image of the city--for driving other business development--for increased convention activity--etc, etc---not just the owner's own pockets. Your comment is extremely short sided. Consider this: Do you think Indianapolis benefits from the Colts and their stadium?

1. what does public good mean?
2. employment? the 8 home games where a few thousand people make $10/hr?
3. boosting the image of the city, whatever that means, assumes winning. you cannot ignore that losing as the opposite result (e.g. Cleveland Browns, Rutgers, etc.)
4. what does a football team have to do with conventions? the cities with the most conventions don't have a football team (Orlando, LV, Miami - Dolphins in the burbs).
5. a football stadium is used 10-20 times per year, there are other ways to foster economic development (see Rentschler v. New Haven).

I am sure Indianapolis benefits to some extent, but that isn't the question. The question is whether the money on a stadium is the most efficient use of that money. In almost every case, including San Diego, the answer is no. I can provide you with hundreds of economic articles on this topic.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yawn. Nobody cares about the Chargers and nobody in LA will either.

My opinion is that they botched this a bit. I know they needed a stadium, but San Diego population keeps growing north and LA grows south. The Orange County-San Diego (LA South) metroplex should be their target audience. There's a reason the Patriots aren't the Boston Patriots, so RI, ME and NH and parts of CT can claim them as their own.
They should be the SoCal Chargers, thus minimizing the alienation of the existing fans.

 

[BugsyCT]

Golden State Chargers?

 

[Adios]

Golden State Chargers?

Southern California Chargers could have worked. But no idea why that did not happen. There used to be the Southern California Sun of the World Football League in Anaheim in 1974-75.

 

[Adios]

A comparable theoretical franchise move in this case would be the Hartford Whalers moving back to Boston. Except there were more Whalers fans when the Bruins visited.

Given that, the uproar is just a bit much. The Chargers couldn't let the Raiders set up shop in LA. This was the best business move for the Chargers. Al Davis should have never left LA in the first place.

 

[Nostical]

The question is whether the money on a stadium is the most efficient use of that money.

That's your question, it's not my question. My question is less data driven and more visceral. Does the rise in a city's prestige from housing an NFL franchise provide its citizens with a sufficient degree of increased civic pride (by knowing they're considered "in the big leagues") to justify the expenditures and debt financing to make it happen. Buffalo is the 73rd largest city in America. Do you think Buffalo feels different (larger, more important) to its population because it has the Bills? Absolutely. And it was worth whatever the cost may have been to make it happen. And don't think that much larger cities such as #19 El Paso, #20 Memphis, #29 Portland, #39 Virginia Beach all wish they had an NFL team. You don't think it makes an enormous difference to perception and pride? You can argue all day about the efficient use of money. In the end lots of dollars are wasted on inefficient and non-impactful projects. You can analyze the data, I'd rather be inefficient spending my city's tax money for an NFL franchise--like #62 Pittsburgh did.

 

[WestHartHusk]

That's your question, it's not my question. My question is less data driven and more visceral. Does the rise in a city's prestige from housing an NFL franchise provide its citizens with a sufficient degree of increased civic pride (by knowing they're considered "in the big leagues") to justify the expenditures and debt financing to make it happen. Buffalo is the 73rd largest city in America. Do you think Buffalo feels different (larger, more important) to its population because it has the Bills? Absolutely. And it was worth whatever the cost may have been to make it happen. And don't think that much larger cities such as #19 El Paso, #20 Memphis, #29 Portland, #39 Virginia Beach all wish they had an NFL team. You don't think it makes an enormous difference to perception and pride? You can argue all day about the efficient use of money. In the end lots of dollars are wasted on inefficient and non-impactful projects. You can analyze the data, I'd rather be inefficient spending my city's tax money for an NFL franchise--like #62 Pittsburgh did.

In short...who cares what it costs, I want it. Let me guess, you have wait in line for the latest apple watch?

 

[Adios]

In short...who cares what it costs, I want it. Let me guess, you have wait in line for the latest apple watch?

The economy is driven by blind self gratification. C'mon.

Just an aside note, the Bills might become the AFC's version of the Packers. The league has roots in Buffalo in it's first year, before Green Bay. But as Nostical stated, only so many franchises. You can definitely bet London will have a team soon (Jags move and switch to AFC East, Dolphins go to AFC South?); London has the people and desire to support an NFL franchise.

 

[ZooCougar]

So now we'll have a team in Las Vegas--and none in Oakland or San Diego. Oakland can blame the Raider's moving out on being, well, Oakland; a place Gertrude Stein described as "there's no there, there". As for San Diego, they can blame themselves. The city fathers (and mothers) refused to finance a big new stadium and the Chargers called their bluff. Say what you will about civic financial priorities and the like but once a city loses its NFL franchise (or can't get one--like Portland) it becomes diminished.

As if Portland would even want an NFL team lol.

 

[Redding Husky]

My pro teams (Cubs & Patriots) have a zero chance of ever moving. But like a lot of us, I had my heart torn out with the Whalers move. As a result, I no longer follow pro hockey ... at all. Screw the NHL.

I feel the pain of the San Diego fans.

 

[Adios]

My pro teams (Cubs & Patriots) have a zero chance of ever moving. But like a lot of us, I had my heart torn out with the Whalers move. As a result, I no longer follow pro hockey ... at all. Screw the NHL.

I feel the pain of the San Diego fans.

NOW the Patriots have zero chance of moving. Moving them to Hartford would have been awesome.

 

[BugsyCT]

NOW the Patriots have zero chance of moving. Moving them to Hartford would have been awesome.

That was never gonna happen. Hartford was Kraft's bargaining chip.

 

[Alum86]

it looked like it was. UComn waS gonna play on Saturdays there.

 

[BugsyCT]

That was the original plan, so if any good came out of it, it probably helped push momentum to build UConn's stadium.

 

[ZooCougar]

That's your question, it's not my question. My question is less data driven and more visceral. Does the rise in a city's prestige from housing an NFL franchise provide its citizens with a sufficient degree of increased civic pride (by knowing they're considered "in the big leagues") to justify the expenditures and debt financing to make it happen. Buffalo is the 73rd largest city in America. Do you think Buffalo feels different (larger, more important) to its population because it has the Bills? Absolutely. And it was worth whatever the cost may have been to make it happen. And don't think that much larger cities such as #19 El Paso, #20 Memphis, #29 Portland, #39 Virginia Beach all wish they had an NFL team. You don't think it makes an enormous difference to perception and pride? You can argue all day about the efficient use of money. In the end lots of dollars are wasted on inefficient and non-impactful projects. You can analyze the data, I'd rather be inefficient spending my city's tax money for an NFL franchise--like #62 Pittsburgh did.

Billionaires should build their own stadiums not ask for handouts.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

My pro teams (Cubs & Patriots) have a zero chance of ever moving. But like a lot of us, I had my heart torn out with the Whalers move. As a result, I no longer follow pro hockey ... at all. Screw the NHL.

I feel the pain of the San Diego fans.

Today this is true but 25 years ago (in my eyes this is not that long ago) the Pats almost moved to St Louis.

 

[Adios]

And then after St Louis, they were going to move to Hartford for 6 months.

When the Hartford Patriots Almost Happened

Pro teams helped UConn elevate it's profile.