Spain Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Scenarios like this must lose them a massive amount of respect from those more neutral fans too though surely. If I was visiting LA on holiday I know I'd be more likely to try and go up to a 9ers game than try to watch either the Rams or the Chargers now. Unless of course the Texans were playing either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Scenarios like this must lose them a massive amount of respect from those more neutral fans too though surely. If I was visiting LA on holiday I know I'd be more likely to try and go up to a 9ers game than try to watch either the Rams or the Chargers now. Unless of course the Texans were playing either. [emoji47] why ruin a decent holiday? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 9 hours ago, Spain said: Scenarios like this must lose them a massive amount of respect from those more neutral fans too though surely. If I was visiting LA on holiday I know I'd be more likely to try and go up to a 9ers game than try to watch either the Rams or the Chargers now. Unless of course the Texans were playing either. although it will be easier to get a ticket for a fiver to see the Chargers. you can pick any seat cause they will be empty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deplorable Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 One thing that's been bothering me about the commentary on this move is how people are throwing all the owners into the same boat where all they care about in owning their team is money. We are getting this from the snarky left perspective trying to make all rich people look evil or immoral and from the pro-business commentators seeking to defend owners moving their team. There are numerous owners throughout the league who wouldn't move their team for any amount of money. There are owners who specifically bought franchises to prevent a move to where the team could supposedly make more money. Short of both financial problems that threaten your family's wealth (which doesn't exist in the modern NFL) and the inability to sell the team for a fair sum (again, doesn't exist), you are almost assuredly a scumbag if you move a team. I might give the Jags guy a pass. Maybe. Also, if you buy a team specifically to move to your hometown. That's understandable in a way as well. Other than that you're a piece of shit. 11 hours ago, Spain said: Scenarios like this must lose them a massive amount of respect from those more neutral fans too though surely. If I was visiting LA on holiday I know I'd be more likely to try and go up to a 9ers game than try to watch either the Rams or the Chargers now. Unless of course the Texans were playing either. The NFL survived moving the Browns and the Colts, but the league was nowhere as popular back then. Obviously this year has seen a fairly big drop in popularity. Lots of theories are out there, and I don't have a favorite. However, three teams moving in two years, if the Raiders go, can't help but give the perception that the league doesn't care about the fans. I'm positive that this perception will turn off a good chunk of casual fans, and maybe even a small number of hardcore fans. It's a saturated sports market with lots of options. Nothing is going to take down the NFL, but this might not help at the margins. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Sounds like the Raiders are filing the papers this week for their move to Vegas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride_of_the_Clyde Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Deplorable said: One thing that's been bothering me about the commentary on this move is how people are throwing all the owners into the same boat where all they care about in owning their team is money. We are getting this from the snarky left perspective trying to make all rich people look evil or immoral and from the pro-business commentators seeking to defend owners moving their team. There are numerous owners throughout the league who wouldn't move their team for any amount of money. There are owners who specifically bought franchises to prevent a move to where the team could supposedly make more money. Short of both financial problems that threaten your family's wealth (which doesn't exist in the modern NFL) and the inability to sell the team for a fair sum (again, doesn't exist), you are almost assuredly a scumbag if you move a team. I might give the Jags guy a pass. Maybe. Also, if you buy a team specifically to move to your hometown. That's understandable in a way as well. Other than that you're a piece of shit. The NFL survived moving the Browns and the Colts, but the league was nowhere as popular back then. Obviously this year has seen a fairly big drop in popularity. Lots of theories are out there, and I don't have a favorite. However, three teams moving in two years, if the Raiders go, can't help but give the perception that the league doesn't care about the fans. I'm positive that this perception will turn off a good chunk of casual fans, and maybe even a small number of hardcore fans. It's a saturated sports market with lots of options. Nothing is going to take down the NFL, but this might not help at the margins. They've also tried to manipulate the rules to produce a high-scoring, 'only offense really matters' game that has frankly made it a far less interesting sport to watch. I think within the last few years fans have lost a degree of interest due to this. I used to watch every week but then a change of circumstances meant I missed a season and I was surprised how easily and quickly I lost interest. There is also a suspicion amongst some fans that matches are - if not outright fixed - officiated in such a way that certain teams are assisted when they need a win. I'm no conspiracy theorist but I certainly think there have clearly been instances of this in the past decade or so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakebite Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 LA is a ridiculously saturated sports market at the moment. Almost certain they will shed a team or two in the next few years, and its not like the colder northern markets or small southern markets. Theres so much to do in LA as well with the weather and the beaches and so forth. Can see the Chargers leaving there again in a decade or so, nobody will care about them in addition to being Kroenke's rent bitches. The laughable thing is, the Raiders will take a shitload of fans off both of them being over in Vegas. Can fly there on a Southwest flight from multiple LA area airports for peanuts. I can understand the Rams, they had a lot of tradition there and the St. Louis thing was a disaster. The Chargers is just nonsense and greed. Spanos is one of the poorer owners as well, don't really think hes got the clout, financially or business wise to make this work, its all inherited from his father. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I wonder if they'd do better if they called themselves "California Chargers"? Try to appeal to people on the outskirts while the Rams attract those within the city boundaries. A bit like the Lazio/Roma dynamic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I wonder if they'd do better if they called themselves "California Chargers"? Try to appeal to people on the outskirts while the Rams attract those within the city boundaries. A bit like the Lazio/Roma dynamic. They could get loads of new-Nazi fans or go down the Roma route of stabbing the opposition in the arse cheeks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 I wonder if they'd do better if they called themselves "California Chargers"? Try to appeal to people on the outskirts while the Rams attract those within the city boundaries. A bit like the Lazio/Roma dynamic. They could call themselves the USA Chargers and they still won't be popular 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deplorable Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 20 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said: I wonder if they'd do better if they called themselves "California Chargers"? Try to appeal to people on the outskirts while the Rams attract those within the city boundaries. A bit like the Lazio/Roma dynamic. I wondered if they would try and go out of their way to try and keep their existing San Diego fanbase as much as possible. It appears with the new logo, especially copying the Dodgers logo, that they are going all out with trying to build a new LA fanbase. I'm not sure how they could specifically market themselves to a different geographic region while sharing a stadium almost from the start. I don't think a "California" brand would really matter. The Angels tried that brand for awhile and I don't think their fanbase really ever expanded outside their base in Orange Country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afro Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Raiders have submitted plans to move to Las Vegas. Pants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Oddly they still seem intent on staying in Oakland until 2019. Surely noone will turn up to watch them?Elsewhere, the Jets owner is going to be the new American Ambassador to the UK.I guess that means the Jets might be over a few more times for London games? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Hope the league rejects it.Would rather they just kept trying to sort something out around the Oakland area. Not sure why nothing can be agreed, could they not just build a stadium outwith the city like a lot of other teams have done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakebite Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said: Hope the league rejects it. Would rather they just kept trying to sort something out around the Oakland area. Not sure why nothing can be agreed, could they not just build a stadium outwith the city like a lot of other teams have done. Alameda County is skint, has put forward no plans to contribute anything and still making payments on the previous Coliseum renovation when the Raiders came back in 1995. Plus, it's California where state tax is through the roof and the public don't want to contribute to stadiums, so it's dead without nigh on 100% private financing. There already is another team with a spanking new stadium across the bay. Oakland versus Vegas is a no brainer in this case. It's not like San Diego and LA where the Chargers go to an already congested market as Stan Kroenke's bitches. The Raiders get their own stadium with lots of private financing and their own market, and they get to be even closer to the LA market than before, which is a short cheap hop away from any of the LA area airports. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 Vegas Raiders would be cracking 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Vegas Raiders would be cracking Think of all the gambling scandals 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSaint Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 32 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said: Oddly they still seem intent on staying in Oakland until 2019. Surely noone will turn up to watch them? Elsewhere, the Jets owner is going to be the new American Ambassador to the UK. I guess that means the Jets might be over a few more times for London games? What the f**k does the US Ambassador to the UK actually do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, GingerSaint said: What the f**k does the US Ambassador to the UK actually do? Dish out the Ferrero Rocher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Dish out the Ferrero Rocher. I found this far to funny 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.