Hacker News Reader

Comment by s73v3r_ | Hacker News Reader

San Diego did just that, and said no to the stadium the Chargers wanted, next to downtown (they were willing to build a different stadium elsewhere). So they left for LA.

View on HN

That's been working out pretty poorly for them. Stuck with a $650 million dollar fine from the league and the lowest attendance in the NFL. And stuck as a second-class renter of a stadium that's controlled by a University.

Poorly in other ways as well - https://deadspin.com/faa-gives-pilots-thumbs-up-to-fly-rude-...

The highlight - "However, the FAA only grants TFRs for stadiums and arenas that hold 30,000 or more, and since the StubHub Center capacity is under 30,000 — the Chargers announced a sellout at 25,386 during their game with the Kansas City Chiefs last Sunday — the FAA will not grant the TFR."

Well, that's a separate matter. They made the horrendous mistake of agreeing to a fine structure which includes a 650 million dollar penalty for doing the right thing, chances are that it would cost them similar over the years to subsidize it.

Do you mean the city of San Diego got fined for letting their team go? or the team got fines for leaving?

You're right - it's silly:

"Spanos had pledged $350 million to the stadium project in San Diego. But now that he’s moving, he’ll have to pay the NFL a $550 million relocation fee.

That’s right. For roughly the same amount of money he’s spending to flee the city that has loved his usually woeful team unconditionally for 56 years, Spanos could have had his new stadium. Instead, he fire bombed his fan base to relocate to a city so enthused by the move that it couldn’t even manage to stifle its yawn."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour...

Yawn isn't the half of it. The most popular football teams in LA are:

1. The Raiders (like, it's not even close)

2. The Rams (probably a little more popular after their good season last year)

3. The LA Galaxy (that's right, a soccer team)

4. The Chargers.

There's also UCLA and USC in there before the Chargers...

Is LAFC (MLS) more popular than the Chargers yet?

I gather from this thread that LA has a lot of stadiums now.

The outlier here is that the new Rams/Chargers stadium (and retail/residential/office that it includes) in LA is privately funded. (Actually, CA in general doesn't spend as much on stadiums as other places have been.)

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-201...

>For decades, Angelenos went without a hometown NFL team in part because they were notoriously loath to spend taxes on one. Rams owner Stan Kroenke, worth $7.4 billion according to Forbes, made the league's return to Los Angeles possible because he was game to use his own money to develop the $2.66-billion Inglewood stadium that, starting in 2019, will be home base of his team and the Chargers.

>Inglewood will ultimately pay the project an estimated $60 million as a reimbursement for the development of roadwork, utilities and public parks on the site of the property.

>James T. Butts Jr., mayor of Inglewood, said he would not have agreed to a new NFL stadium if it required fans to chip in.

>"From our first talks, we made it clear that was not something we were going to do," Butts said. "We wanted a model that basically insulated the city from the buffeting winds of both the economy and ticket sales, and we have that now."

It's an open question who it'll work out for: both the Chargers and Rams were in LA before, before leaving for perceived greener pastures. The Rams' owners seem to be hedging their bets this time with the multi-purpose real-estate nature of the stadium. But will STL or SD really be that badly off? We'll see if they end up spending money in the future to get a team back... LA didn't, though.

Really though, he was able to privately finance this one because he screwed St. Louis with the costs of another stadium.

It is the second biggest city in the country. And technically, many of them are not in the City of LA, but the LA Metro Area.

People seem to forget, LA somehow lost their previous teams. Maybe people in LA have better options than just getting drunk and burning up a Sunday and don't attend much.

I've noticed USC fills their stadium only when they're spectacular. Whereas other teams across the country fill it up when they're only OK (most of the big 10).

Anecdotal but probably understandable via stats.

Presently, the Chargers and Rams are sharing the old Coliseum stadium, similar to how the New York Giants and New York Jets share a stadium in New Jersey.

The Chargers and Rams do not presently share a stadium. They have proposed to fund a joint stadium, but that is in the future. Presently, the Rams play at the Coliseum and the Chargers play at Stub Hub Center (LA Galaxy soccer specific Stadium with seating for 27,000).

Oh. Thanks for the correction!

Isn't there something in a contract that a city has with a team saying that the city owns the name and/or trademarks? I mean, some places have an intimate relationship with the place they were created in. Minnesota Vikings come to mind, due to the primarily Scandinavian descendants in that frozen tundra. Why not say, sure you'll get your stadium but in exchange you don't get to keep the name if you move.

I wonder how much that would matter. The NBA has had team name changes. Recently it’s been Seattle’s team to Oklahoma City changing names. Then New Orleans changing to Pelicans.

The Pelicans as far as I know don’t even get the historical numbers and seasons of the original location (Charlotte) team either. They go to the current Charlotte Hornets.

As a new team (Charlotte Bobcats) was created in Charlotte and fans had a successful campaign to rename that new team back to the Pelicans original team name, Charlotte Hornets.

Sorry if it’s confusing, but basically two NBA team name changes in this century and it wasn’t the biggest deal for the teams.

I can’t see the Chargers or Raiders being particularly hurt if they had to change their names when moving to their new location. Rams I guess would hurt a bit, but even then, doubt that much.

Do you see many lakes in LA? They used to be in 'the land of 10,000 lakes' (Minnesota)

Good point.

As a european football (you might call it soccer) fan, this sounds absolutely insane. Having a club move to a different city is a sure way to alienate large parts of the fan base.

Moving to LA has mostly upside though. The city hasn’t had a steady NFL team in a long time and the leading favorite team for locals, the Oakland (aka San Fran area) Raiders are relocating to Vegas themselves so that’ll probably make it easier to get more fans for new LA teams. I’d think it would be profitable or fine enough for any team to move to a top 5-10 non- sports congested metro area in the US. Adjust that amount for other country’s sizes and I’d think it’s the same.

Also, what are fans going to do if their only local team that they’ve been long time fans of leaves? It’s hard for many fans to get emotionally invested into another team. And people enjoy being fans of local teams so the new location will bring new fans. Maybe Europe isn’t like that. I personally am not like that, but I’m def not the norm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com