DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Chargers moving to LA

I think that is a very good point.

Places like Cleveland, Green Bay, Indy, Minni, etc don't have all of the attractions that places like San Diego, LA, SF, Miami, and even Tampa have.

Why sit inside watching a game when you can be outside surfing, hiking, mountain climbing, trail riding, white water rafting, etc?

I'm not even trying to bad mouth places like Cleveland, but it's true. San Diego is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. If you're going to pay a Kings ransom to live there, why spend your time and even more money for the Chargers? It's why I think LA having 2 teams will flop.

Yeah, San Diego was great when I visited there. I lived in Hunington Beach for awhile and then in Palm Springs. Didn't care too much for LA, but SD was freaking awesome! Cleanest big city I ever saw!

There is such a thing as too much. The Chargers and the city wanted the stadium on the coast in the city to show the beautiful city. They were going to soak the hotels with a bigtax to fund it. Construction costs were outrageous, partially because of seismic considerations.

In the end, it was too grandiose of a plan and fell apart from its sheer weight.

That really is a shame. Great city. Had a lot of fun out there on a short visit.

Oh well

Charger' is right.

Qualcomm Stadium is a dump. I was there for the Browns game last season. I could write pages on how dumpy that place is. It's also well-outside the downtown area. The surrounding area is nice enough, but...

Look at Petco Park (Padres field). The Chargers probably have been drooling over that for a while. That ballfield has a legit argument for being the nicest ballpark in the US. It's beautifully built into that area of downtown. It's almost like you don't know where the park starts and the outside area ends (sorta). The surrounding areas are the hoppin parts of town (Gaslamp, nice hotels, etc. are short walking distance). There's an area nearby that is, shall we say, prime for some of the same treatment. The other half of the argument is the non-football events. San Diego is a big and awesome city, but they really don't have a great setup to host big events. I've heard that Comic-Con is busting at the seams in the current Expo center. There have been murmurs over the last few years that San Diego is going to lose that event to a city that can accommodate that size of event. Big concerts in the city are held at Petco, which does not have a roof. Adding the football stadium would probably bring more big ticket events (concerts, championship games, etc.) to San Diego, and more specifically, the downtown area.

The vote went the way it did for a couple reasons. They structured the vote for failure, and taxpayers might have been on the hook for bill (if the added hotel tax didn't fully deliver).

Oof.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18458717/san-diego-chargers-desperate-move-shot-nfl-vitality-2017

Now that San Diego needs a team let's all hope that the crook and his front office of know nothings move. Take this garbage dump of a team and your thievery of this city and it's great fans with you. The weather is better and there is probably more cash available. Perfect fit for the thief. Buh bye!

Hopefully they throw BIG money at the thief. Get rid of this garbage dump of a team already. LOL

I criticize the Browns, but I don't think you are a Brown's fan. And I don't see anything funny about your comments.

I agree. If we lose this team I don't see us getting another one, let alone being able to keep our history like we did the last time.

No thanks, rather suffer through this, we've got the Cavs and Indians to soften the blow till the Browns turn it around.

Well, yes and no ... having just the Chargers probably doesn't benefit the city as it is only 8 days out of the year there's a game. Unlike the Padres' stadium, which gives you 80'ish games a year, and which completely rejuvenated the downtown area.

But a stadium in San Diego would be used for much more than the Chargers. Like I said, if they paired it with a new Convention Center, and had a retractable roof, it could be used as additional convention space and probably be used just about every day of the year. San Diego is already one of the top Convention destinations, and new stadium/convention combo would would easily make them one of the best destinations in the world. The NFL would probably consider moving the Pro-Bowl, Combine and every 4th Super Bowl here. Sports writers already raved how the Super Bowl should be held in San Diego more often, and that was with the derelict fossil that is Qualcomm Stadium.

I agree. SD botched it. How many teams need to move because of stadium issues before the cities realize that stadiums are not 50-60 year venues?

The Georgia Dome opened in 1992. Turner field opened in 1997. Both the Braves and Falcons will be playing in new stadiums next season.

Atlanta understands.

Our stadium opened in 99. I know we just made some serious upgrades, but how many more years will it be before talk begins to surface about a new stadium in Cleveland? And this time make it with a friggen roof you can open or close.

While I get the realities of NFL teams needing sweetheart stadium deals to maximize their financial outlook, I really do feel bad for Charger fans in SD. I have a bit of a soft spot for them because the Chargers were a distant 2nd team for me as a kid, when they were in the AFL. They had an explosive offense with John Hadl and Lance Alworth, so they got featured a lot on the late NBC games. NBC did the AFL back before the merger (CBS had the old NFL). It was always strange to me as a kid to be sitting here in freezing temps, bare trees, gray skies to watch these late games from San Diego in bright sunshine, palm trees, and fans in short sleeves. I wanted to be there.

Fast forward to the late 70's, early 80's, when they had that juggernaut offense led by Dan Fouts, TE Kellen Winslow, WR's Wes Chandler, John Jefferson, Charley Joiner, and RB's Chuck Muncie and James Brooks. A fine-tuned offensive machine; they were really something to see. A lot of Browns' fans mis-remember that RR88 loss to the Raiders as the game that kept us out of the SB back in Jan '81, but if we had won that game we'd have had to travel to SD and face Fouts and Co. in the AFC title game. Sipe, Rucker, Logan, Newsome, and the Pruitt boys vs Fouts, et al, might have been a game for the ages.

I totally agree with this. This is the reason why fans in places like Seattle, SF, NYC etc. are not as completely rabid as a fanbase in Cleveland. There are just too many things to do and when the team tanks....they turn it off. I see it here with Seahawk and Niners fans. When the 'hawks sucked, with exception to the diehards from working class areas like Tacoma etc. , the fans abandoned them and latched on to good teams. Now they are good again and they are all the "12th Man". Same with the Niners fans.

Oakland has a rabid fanbase because it is a traditional working class, poor area. It is changing, however, with gentrification but, it still has deep roots.

NYC has its true die hards in areas like Queens, Staten Island etc. and New Jersey but, Manhattan? Forget about it.

Also, these cosmopolitan high profile places like LA, SF, NYC....you have so many people who have moved there from other areas of the country that they have their own allegiance to wherever they moved from. Esp if they came from the midwest like KC, Chicago, Cleveland, Green Bay etc.

I don't like this at all. LA doesn't need two teams. I feel bad for San Diego. I would abandon the Chargers if I were a fan

ssdd.
just an excuse to get tax payers to build a new stadium,they'll be back.
Build another over priced pos,with tiny seats and crazy prices,that last about 20 years.

I have become less interested in the Browns since they continue to absolutely suck. I detest Haslam and his systematic theft of money from people who really do care about the Browns and what they ONCE were. I could really care less if they moved because they are an embarrassment to the city of Cleveland (where I grew up) and an insult to the fans who continue to financially support them (why I have NO idea). I pretty much burned my PSLs after 10 years of donating. If the Browns EVER want another dime from me, they WILL put a competitive NFL product on the field. Until that day happens, they can forget it. And yes, I will continue to be critical of the garbage dump that is the Cleveland Browns. Finally, please do not confuse me with someone who cares about what you think.

I agree Peen.

Fans need to have zero input on the design of the stadium. They will bitch about a possible retractable roof. They should not be allowed to let emotions dictate a billion dollar stadium.

I will also admit, if the Browns left I would have zero issue never watching the NFL. I don't really watch anyways. The quality as a whole is awful.

If you don't want fans bitching about or dictating the design of a billion dollar stadium then please stop asking them to pay for it. It's not these NFL owners are starving.

NFL football is fine. Hopefully Cleveland will have an NFL franchise. If they leave, Pittsburgh is close by. No worries.

NFL ratings continue to tank and this concussion issue will eventually lead to its end. Don't understand the Pittsburgh comment.

Then don't pay for it and let them move. However, if you're gonna pay for a stadium it's common sense to make it something which can be used the entire year.

Sorry, I don't buy any of that. Fan loyality isn't just reserved for the middle class. The reason these teams are moving is the folks with the money to purchase premium seating, can't.

I don't blame Art for moving the Browns. He and the city had been talking about a stadium for 10 years and the city kept dragging their feet.

My comment above was actually in reply to whoever mentioned that SD has a lot of things to do and football is a lower priority. I hit reply on the wrong dude.

I see it here with Seahawk fans....when the Hawks are bad they don't care as much. They have plenty of other things to do in their city. I suspect as such in SD or LA.

Cool. I may have misunderstood.


There are lots of other things to do in other cities. Chicago, NY, Cleveland, New Orleans, Miami, Tampa, DC..others can be named. Maybe all except Green Bay, and I'll bet they do as well.

The fact is a NFL team brings in $millions a year to a host city. Probably measured in hundreds. How many jobs are related? Parking lot's, restaurants, hotels, airports, cab drivers, the actual team employs dozens of non players in various functions, many making a better than average wage. All those folks pay taxes. Visiting fans pay taxes. The players pay taxes....both home and away players.

It's a little short sighted for a city to think their team is going to be fine playing in a 50 year old stadium when a owner can probably double the income in a modern stadium.

I don't get it.

Also, I take back I totally disagree after reading again. I have a connection to the Tampa Bay, Sarasota, Florida area.

There are a lot of snow birds who show up to watch the Lightning against their hometown team. The Rays is a little differnt, they are mostly locals, but many are locals who relocated.

They are Rays fans until the Indians or whoever show up for a 3-4 game series.

Chargers logo just got booed at a clippers game.

On a design point of view the logo is atrocious.

This is just wrong.

Two words for any team wanting to put people in seats....




Johnny Manziel

Las Vegas is actually closer to LA than Oakland is.

Your Browns membership card should be revoked for that one. [censored], [censored], [censored] Pittsburgh.

I wouldn't watch NFL football till the Super Bowl anymore if the Browns were moved again. I just don't think moving a team is right.

There isn't one of these owners that couldn't foot the bill for a new stadium themselves. The Cowboys stadium was what $1billion? What's Haslem worth, $10billion?

I've yet to go to a movie theater that asked me to pay for the construction of the theater. But an NFL fan is asked to pay for a stadium with their taxes, over pay for bad food and beverages and who knows what they get from production on the field. For that reason alone, if your franchise is making money from the fan support you have, you can't go anywhere.

Let me explain the dynamics of California. It almost works like three big city states. Northern California, Southern Cal, and San Diego County. Neither region really cares for the other two either (And the rest of the state isn't big on the population centers either). No Cal and So Cal may as well be separate states as well.

LA may be a 2 hour drive from San Diego, but it would be like the Browns moving to Cincinnati. Even if it was a two hour drive, nobody would really stay a fan. People from San Diego generally don't like Los Angeles.

Las Vegas also acts as a little side-playground for Southern California. It's only about a 4 hour drive or cheap airline flight. I'd say most of Vegas's visitors are probably from the LA area. The Raiders moving there is actually a strategic move. For whatever reason, Raider fans stayed with the team when they moved. I think a lot would make the trip over to Vegas during game days now.

It might not be most of the visitors, but LA is a pipeline on the weekends. No doubt a lot of people head out over the desert on Fridays after work. It is amazing how traffic picks up on the strip around 10-10:30PM once the pipeline flow starts to arrive for a 2 night stay.

I have been to Las Vegas maybe 30-40 times over the years. You can always tell when LA arrives.

That said, I don't know how many Raider fans in Oakland will continue to support. The drive from Oakland to Las Vegas isn't very direct because of the mountains...they almost have to drive to LA. I'd say it is close to 600 miles. Maybe more.

It's like $100 for a Southwest flight from the Bay Area to Vegas if you plan it right.

I still don't think many are going to follow the team.

When the Browns moved to Baltimore, did you follow them? Would it have made any difference had the team in Baltimore kept the "Browns" name?

Didn't think so.