Chargers stadium vote fails, opens door for move to Los Angeles

2/3 of public funding was never possible. I don't know what even gets 2/3 approval to begin with.

The Raiders have known this which is why they have not seemed to be slowing on the Vegas train. There is no reason to expect the Chargers to stay in SAN Diego after this year except if they can't find a place to play in LA

 

Vote had absolutely no chance. The culture here is dead set against the Chargers and wants them gone. That said, it is going to be interesting to see what the Chargers do. They want no part of playing second fiddle in the Rams building, which is exactly what would happen. They may take it because of no better options, but it would not surprise me to see them start looking in other cities that are willing to build a stadium (San Antonio?)

 

There is no chance the chargers will turn down a chance to go to Los Angeles where they have a fan base and an option to play in what will be the nicest stadium in the NFL to San Antonio where there is no stadium and no plan or money to build one. They will figure out an agreement with the Rams. The option to be a tenant is still a good financial opportunity.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-chargers-20160129-20-story.html

 

I'm kind of shocked no one is trying to be a co-tenant with the 49ers in San Jose.

 

I don't think any team wants to be second fiddle to another. The Jets/Giants have only worked out because the Jets fan base has been there since the 60s. It's hard to establish a fan base in a new city with a team already in the area. Even with big populations, you still would rather have your own city than having to cater to someone else's franchise.

 

I get that, but the Raiders and 49ers sharing a stadium seemed like a natural fit.

The Chargers and Rams, not so much, but that looks to be the end result here.

 

Good. Should've done that here.

"I believe billionaires should pay for their own f**king stadiums."

 

By what standards? Two teams repersenting LA should share a stadium in LA. Two teams that share a stadium that are suppose to represent two different cities that are each 40 miles away from the stadium does not make sense. Not to mention the raiders only draw 55k in the middle of oakland. They won't get fans to make the trip.

 

They may well take the deal with the Rams because they don't have a better option, but you better believe they would be the step-child in that relationship. That is why they tried so hard to team up with the Raiders to put together a stadium. I have never seen the Chargers work so hard at getting a stadium deal in San Diego as they have this past year and it was obvious to me they are not excited about going to LA and playing second fiddle.

 

Why would they build their own stadium when they can get someone else to pay for it somewhere else? They didn't become billionaires by making terrible business decisions.

 

I think they stayed in San Diego to save money. They don't pay rent but they would have had to pay $15 million in fees this year if they broke their lease. They still spent 10 million on the campaign to support the stadium vote but they still ended up spending less money then if they moved their entire operation and paid rent at the Rose Bowl or Coliseum that would likely not give them all of the ticket fees and concessions that they get in San Diego. There is 0 chance that anyone with the team thought that the stadium proposal would pass when it needed %67 voter approval and used public money. AT&T Ballpark had 2/3 voter approval but it used no public funds. Levi stadium never went to a vote. I don't think there has ever been a stadium referendum that passed with 2/3 approval. They have also used this year to work out their strategy for relocation instead of having to rush to it like the Rams did.

 

Once LA gets two teams... and Vegas gets the Raiders... it pretty much kills any major possibilities for teams to move to. And that's with teams already in cities that are leveraged to the hilt to support a team (Nashville, Jacksonville).

 

St Louis could always come back into play but it looks like they are putting their efforts into a MLS stadium and team.

 

I dunno... while St. Louis is still probably a tad better market than Nashville, Jacksonville, or San Antonio... it now has failed twice to retain an NFL team.

No city has ever gotten a 3rd chance.

 

D.C in baseball. I mean, if they have a stadium financed then they get a 3rd chance.

 

Stadiums by themselves aren't enough anymore. Very low chance that Nashville or Jacksonville would get a team now vs how the NFL structured finances then.

I guess San Diego would also be a possibility should they lose a team (and decide they want back in).

 

An Austin/San Antonio team would be amazing.

Central Texas Chargers. CTC.

I get it's not going to happen but it would be great. (I live in Austin)

 

I was thinking this very thing the other day. Back in the 90's when the Oilers moved out, it seemed the focus was entirely on stadium deal. Now they've learned from that...and seen what a move out of Houston to a place like Nashville does for the value of a franchise. Hell, the Rockets threatened Houston with Louisville. Talk about short-sighted. I can't see something like that happening again in the near future. And if it happened again here, I hope Houstonians/voters would be smart enough to call their bluff (and I voted FOR every stadium referendum in Harris County that's ever been presented to me).

 

Texans and Cowboys would block San Antonio or Austin.