Could the NFL really send the Chargers back to San Diego? It's something being discussed, according to longtime NFL reporter Don Banks.
The former Sports Illustrated reporter, who has worked for NFL Media and currently writes for The Athletic, told a San Diego radio station on Thursday the NFL never wanted to lose San Diego as a market and could force Chargers owner Dean Spanos to take the team back.
"I have been painted a picture from people I’ve talked to that the league was sympathetic … to Dean Spanos’ plight," Banks told The Mighty 1090. "Feels like he had been a ‘league guy’ feels like he had waited kind of his turn on the relocation front, thought he had the votes the year before — Jerry Jones and Stan Kroenke pretty much outmaneuvered Dean and Mark Davis with the Raiders to be the first in line for LA. So it was almost as if this was a bit of a make up.
"There are people in the league — including the commissioner — they did not want to see San Diego forsaken. They would rather there be a team in San Diego. If there’s anything viable that they could find to put the league back in to San Diego, I think they will be in that camp strongly."
The Chargers failed to sell out their temporary home, the 27,000-seat StubHub Center, in their home opener last Sunday. Banks wrote at The Athletic the NFL is shocked by how quickly things have gone south for the Chargers in L.A. As the Rams struggle to draw fans to the L.A. Coliseum, Banks said the NFL does not want the bad "optics" of empty stadiums for three years before the Rams and Chargers are scheduled to move into a new Inglewood stadium in 2020. [Reply]
A major discussion topic among NFL owners/executives at this week’s league meetings is the Chargers’ viability in LA. PSL sales have been a struggle and team is expected to revise its Inglewood revenue goals sharply to a more realistic number: $400m to around $150m, per sources
Who ever did that first revenue projection better be fired! What a clusterfuck! :-)
Yep. That kind of a forecast adjustment gets people fired at both ends - the people that made the projection AND the people that failed to meet it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Right, that's the uniqueness of the NFL model. Like I said, if this were a normal, publicly-traded company, they'd be scrambling right now.
This whole mess is caused by the Raiders fan base being complete fucking morons. Raiders in Los Angeles and they are near Cowboy level in worth. But their fans are morons and the NFL can't have that. Las Vegas is a good spot for the Raiders and it works out for them there, but Vegas would have been good a spot for the Chargers as well. Chargers would have made bank there. But it all goes back to the fan base of the Raiders. [Reply]
This clearly needs to happen. Nobody in LA gives a shit about them, and a team not even being able to fill a fucking joke of a soccer stadium gives the league a perpetual black eye.
Of course, even if they go back, at this point, how much damage have they done to their old San Diego base?
This was dumb as fuck from the outset. Spanos should be shot out of a cannon into a brick wall. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
This clearly needs to happen. Nobody in LA gives a shit about them, and a team not even being able to fill a fucking joke of a soccer stadium gives the league a perpetual black eye.
Of course, even if they go back, at this point, how much damage have they done to their old San Diego base?
This was dumb as fuck from the outset. Spanos should be shot out of a cannon into a brick wall.
If they're Spanos-less, they will be welcomed back with open arms. As long as they pay for their own stadium. They better hurry though, that land is about to be used for other stuff. [Reply]
San Diego is not going to pay for Spanos' stadium. SD fans would welcome the Chargers back without Spanos. They'd even welcome them back WITH Spanos if he paid for a new stadium next to Qualcomm with his own money.
He doesn't have enough, though. What they are NOT going to do is pay for it themselves, as they shouldn't. [Reply]
But fans want a home team. Some don't mind the subsidy. Some go along with the accounting BS that having a team will some how raise more revenue than the city loans cost.
I'm a little surprised that San Antonio isn't in the discussion for the Chargers. Texas appears willing to support football at all levels. I don't think Jones has the clout to veto like he once did.
If you move to San Antonio and it doesn't work out, you can always move again.
Heck, the Chargers would probably get better attendance sharing a stadium in Arlington than they will get sharing a stadium in LA. [Reply]
Not going to happen. Where the fuck you gonna put them?
There's nowhere for them to play here as the Qualcomm site is as good as gone. You'd have to develop a whole new stadium on a new site somewhere else within the county. The city of San Diego itself isn't teeming with land viable enough to build a stadium on.
The people will vote what happens with the current Qualcomm site in November. Two initiatives are on the table right now: An FS Investors "Soccer City" vision and SDSU's new Aztec stadium/extended campus.
Qualcomm will be torn down in favor of either a 20k or a 35k seat stadium and a bunch of retail or living facilities.
That ship sailed, NFL. San Diego is moving on with out you. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Not going to happen. Where the fuck you gonna put them?
There's nowhere for them to play here as the Qualcomm site is as good as gone. You'd have to develop a whole new stadium on a new site somewhere else within the county. The city of San Diego itself isn't teeming with land viable enough to build a stadium on.
The people will vote what happens with the current Qualcomm site in November. Two initiatives are on the table right now: An FS Investors "Soccer City" vision and SDSU's new Aztec stadium/extended campus.
Qualcomm will be torn down in favor of either a 20k or a 35k seat stadium and a bunch of retail or living facilities.
That ship sailed, NFL. San Diego is moving on with out you.
Last I read (which was a while ago), both plans included a way to accommodate an NFL stadium. Soccer City was leaving an open area suitable for an NFL stadium, while SDSU's stadium would have an expansion option. [Reply]
Shiiiiiit...if they thought a new stadium in SD was expensive then, then good luck. Because any new stadium here will need to be 100% privately funded. The Tax payers didn't want to pay for Dean's shit BEFORE he moved, they sure as fuck won't be volunteering any money to bring him back. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Shag:
Last I read (which was a while ago), both plans included a way to accommodate an NFL stadium. Soccer City was leaving an open area suitable for an NFL stadium, while SDSU's stadium would have an expansion option.
"Expansion" would be gimmicky. The SDSU stadium would expand to something like, what, 55K at the most and would probably look rather cheap and gimmicky. I can't see an NFL team biting on a psuedo football stadium. [Reply]
