It kinda sucks that San Diego just won't support pro teams very well. I think it suffers from too much other stuff to do, just like LA, which hardly deserves a 2nd NFL team (they really made the effort to keep them the LAST time they had two). At least the Padres appear to be sticking around, in spite of their perpetually half-empty stadium.
Chargers Moving to Los Angles
- Thread starter ISU1294
- Start date
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,618
- 33,473
- 113
absolutely. He'll make money in LA. It's almost impossible not to in the NFL. It's estimated that the Rams doubled in value with their move to LA. Just the market alone makes a team more valuable. And that, in turn brings up the value of the other teams in the league.
Here's an excellent article on the move:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2017/01/12/san-diego-chargers-los-angeles-relocation-stadium-frenzy
I don't believe the flow of fans from LA to OC is as high as the other way. One thing I kept hearing is the Rams left LA not for STL but when they played in Anaheim.
Personally I believe the Angels missed an opportunity not building a new stadium in downtown LA. Opens up the LA, Riverside, Ventura, and OC markets better than an aging yard in the shadow of Disneyland. Now the 2nd LA MLS team is in that slot
Here is an excellent article (sent to me by a Chargers fan) detailing the financial boom of moving to LA, even when the LA fans don't care and the fans left behind are hurt:
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-diego-chargers-los-angeles-move-relocation-011217
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-diego-chargers-los-angeles-move-relocation-011217
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,618
- 33,473
- 113
good article. Viewership is a very small part of this. Ratings don't even really matter that much.
Sure, but Orange County by itself is bigger than a lot of NFL markets even without LA.
OC itself is roughly the same size as San Diego County
OC - 3.114 million
SD - 3.211 million
Iowa - 3.107 million
OC being lumped in with the Los Angeles MSA makes all of the difference. I'm about the same distance between Dodger Stadium and Petco Park. The Padres could be on another planet. No coverage. The Dodgers....same thing but only because no one has their channel on cable
I think people choosing to watch coverage of the election ****-show over the NFL says enough.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,618
- 33,473
- 113
i don't know. From an entertainment standpoint, can you blame anyone?
If we end up with a Dallas/New England Super Bowl, (as much as I would hate that) it's going to break records for eyeballs, and the NFL will just keep on chugging along. It's going to take a lot more than half a season of lower ratings to derail the train.
Or even a Pittsburgh/Dallas Super Bowl! Nostalgic for us older folks...and some young stars to please the kids! One of those two combinations is what the NFL and the networks want!
I just don't see this working. I worked in L.A. for eight years at the Coliseum when the Raiders were there.
Unless the teams are dominant winners, LA cannot and will not support 2 teams. Even when the Raiders were good, we only averaged about 60,000 in attendance in a stadium that held over 90,000. The Rams certainly did not draw any more than that.
The Charges would be smart to try and build their own stadium in Orange County, the Valley, or downtown L.A., in that order, imho. Orange would be the best bet because of the population and the money that is in that area. The Valley would make sense because of population and access to Simi Valley and Ventura.
If in the end they are just sharing the new stadium in Inglewood, I don't think that will last long. So far, I guess sharing Staples is working for the Lakers and Clippers, but not sure it would work for football. Hell, even USC and UCLA didn't want to share the Coliseum. Of course, the Rams were playing there too back then.
It will be fun to watch.
Unless the teams are dominant winners, LA cannot and will not support 2 teams. Even when the Raiders were good, we only averaged about 60,000 in attendance in a stadium that held over 90,000. The Rams certainly did not draw any more than that.
The Charges would be smart to try and build their own stadium in Orange County, the Valley, or downtown L.A., in that order, imho. Orange would be the best bet because of the population and the money that is in that area. The Valley would make sense because of population and access to Simi Valley and Ventura.
If in the end they are just sharing the new stadium in Inglewood, I don't think that will last long. So far, I guess sharing Staples is working for the Lakers and Clippers, but not sure it would work for football. Hell, even USC and UCLA didn't want to share the Coliseum. Of course, the Rams were playing there too back then.
It will be fun to watch.
Translation: We screwed the pooch and negative reaction caused us to change our minds on this ****** logo.
Maybe they can hire the people that invented the blender Cy and inserted blue into our color pallet...can't go wrong there either
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,618
- 33,473
- 113
Fans support doesn't really matter, though. Attendance is a tiny, tiny bit of the revenue stream. The Fox Sports article linked earlier in the thread does a good job of breaking it down. It's all about the new stadium. Even though they have to share it, the Chargers are still going to make a mint on those PSLs. Way more than they would have at Qualcom. The NFL is a much different beast than it was when the Rams left LA. The money comes from different places than it used to.
Except the first time NFL teams fled from LA, the Rams actually fled from Anaheim, not LA (they shared the stadium with the Angels). I'm not saying the Chargers shouldn't be playing in Anaheim instead; it would actually throw the people living in SD a bone because it's a lot closer so you would keep some of the existing fans. I'm just saying that history proves putting an NFL team in Orange County is not an automatic recipe for success.
Speaking of recipes for success, you know what that is? Winning. It doesn't help that both the Rams and Chargers suck.
And for those that think the Chargers need to go with a new name/color scheme/uniform/identity, due to the NFL rule that a team must wait a minimum of 5 years between identity changes, due to tweaks to their uniforms for the 2013 season, the earliest the Chargers can change their identity again is the 2018 season, and no, the move to LA isn't enough to trigger the change other than identifying the team as LA.
