Successfully so far. But nothing is forever including Jerry being the owner.

Yea, Chargers were foolish were tying themselves to that long term lease. I don't think LA can support two teams. But if LA had a chance for two teams, they would have been better off building two, 2.5 billion dollar stadiums in different parts of the city.

NYC has the density and transportation to put two teams in the same stadium. But people can't get around LA that easily. If the Chargers had their own stadium in a different part of the city so a different fan base could identify with the team and had an easier time actually getting to the stadium, they would stand a little better of a chance. And the franchise would be worth more if they owned a stadium instead of paying rent.

Overall, they are probably screwed.

According to this article in LA Times. Chargers rent is $1 annual to the company owned by Kroenke.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story...0the%20stadium.

The only teams that own their stadiums and land are the Patriots, Panthers, Dolphins and Washington football team.

Even the Cowboys pay rent to City of Arlington. Only 2 million dollars a year but that is more than the Chargers pay, which is $1 a year.

Why not Salt Lake City?

There's a huge Charger's following in Utah and Oregon.

Almost double the size of Green Bay with a much larger metro area.

First off, Kroenke, who spent $5.8 billion to build the stadium, which includes new studios for the NFL Network, apartments, condos and shopping facilities, put this plan in place a decade before the Chargers even considered moving to Los Angeles. His facility will not only be used for the NFL but for Final Fours, the Olympics, World Cup, concerts and so on. The Chargers are a tiny component to his overall revenue stream.

Secondly, the city of Los Angeles had no problems supporting the Rams from 1950-1980 and haven't had any problems supporting them since their return. Their first preseason game in 2015 broke all preseason attendance records with more than 100,000 people.

Transportation is no issue, either. JFC, the Great Western Forum, which is adjacent to SoFi, was jammed packed during the 70's, 80's and early 90's before Staples Center was built and it's still jammed packed with concert events. I have no idea why you're conflating traffic and transportation to the area, which is near LAX for ****'s Sake, but that is absolutely no issue, whatsoever. Could public transportation be better? Sure, but that could be said about the city as a whole.

And if the location is so "bad", as you state, why is Steve Ballmer breaking ground on a new facility for the Clippers and why did he purchase The Forum?

:facepalm:

And finally, no one gives a flying **** about the Chargers. No one in Los Angeles cared about them when they were in San Diego and no one gives a **** about them in Los Angeles. That should have been absolutely clear before the Spanos family decided to put their fate in the hands of the man who made his fortune by running Walmart but they're so desperate and so ****ing stupid that they've completely devalued their franchise in terms of fan interest. The only fans that care about them live 90 minutes south.

And very few NFL owners own their stadiums, with the Rams being one of the few.

It's not really fair to make comparisons to Green Bay. They are a holdover from a bygone era and the if they didn't already have a franchise, the NFL would never choose to locate one there. That's not to say that they don't support the team, but just that the NFL would never take a chance on locating a franchise in such a small city in the current era.

There isn't much left out there.

You have Columbus, OH but already two teams in Ohio plus Indy and Pittsburgh in close proximity.
You have San Antonio or Austin, TX but already two teams in Texas
You have Orlando, FL but already two teams in Florida
Anything CA is basically worthless unless you locate back to San Diego

That leaves, basically, Portland, OR which would be similar to KC at least in terms of metro area size and city size of Atlanta and Las Vegas. It also has a notable amount of Chargers fans for whatever reason. But you have the earthquake factor for building a stadium. It makes the most sense overall and you're really only competing for Seattle fans.

or

Omaha, NE as the next biggest venture but the metro area included makes it actually smaller than Salt Lake City.

Some other cities like Louisville and St. Louis would be or are tough because of the proximity to other major franchises and established fandom... Chicago, Indy, Minnesota, or KC, especially. Same reason Milwaukee isn't really an option, everyone is a Green Bay or Chicago fan and you're not going to sway enough from 100 years of history. Similarly, OKC, but you're trying to pull fans from Dallas or KC.


It's a tough gig to move the team, honestly.

1. Move back to San Diego where they belong.
2. Move to Portland.
3. Move to Omaha or Salt Lake City.

I don't see too many other very realistic options.

I'm not debating about where or where not the NFL should locate a team, I'm just pointing out that comparing any locality to Green Bay isn't a great argument due to the nature of that particular franchise. The population there is around 100,000. The only reason there is a franchise there at all is the fact that it was located there in the very very early days of the NFL. The fact that the franchise hasn't been moved to a larger city is mostly due to the fact that the franchise is owned by the city of Green Bay. Those two situations make the Packers a clear outlier.

There's other factors at play that help the packers.

They draw about 100k from the Upper Peninsula of MI and another 100k from Northern WI, all within a 1.5-3 hr drive of GB. They draw about 3/4 of the city of Milwaukee and the surrounding metro area. If the team wasn't in GB it would be in Milwaukee, no doubt about it.

That said, you look at Milwaukee, it only has a metro pop of about 1.6 million. Salt lake is about 1.3. The comparison isn't all that invalid.

There is a big difference between locating in a city of about 100,000 with a metro of 1.6 million a couple hours away, and locating in a city of 1.3 million with some smaller metros surrounding. My original point stands that the NFL would never locate a franchise in a city as small as Green Bay in this era if it wasn't there already. However, if you want to dispute me, feel free. I'll let you have the last word if you want it.

You guys are forgetting about financial issues.

There's no way that Salt Lake can build a multibillion dollar stadium, let alone, support an NFL team with the Utah Jazz fan base.

Texas doesn't need three teams, regardless of what Jones wants or doesn't want. The Spanos family doesn't have a ****ing dime to their names, outside of the value of their franchise, so they can't afford build a stadium, period. And the people of Texas aren't going to suddenly decide to tax themselves for yet another NFL team.

The Chargers are just ****ed. No one in LA gives a shit about them and really, very few gave a shit in San Diego. I've been to at least a dozen games in the past 20 years in SD and if Chiefs fans didn't outright outnumber Chargers fans, it was close. Same with the Raiders and practically any other team that visited.

The franchise is a joke and only new ownership can possibly change that.

Since this thread has become all about proposing places that do not have SoFi Stadium, nobody has proposed anywhere in Africa, I always liked the name Timbuktu.

all true.

Oddly, the Chargers as a team don't suck.
The ownership sucks.

The thread is pretty much about the theory that Spanos is out, someone else in. With that in mind, I don't know that the thought that a city can't afford a stadium really necessarily holds as much weight. At least not full funding. I think the NFL may need to also consider ownership that must partially fund the stadium build. That is, if they aren't insistent the Chargers remain in LA.

It's an unfortunate cluster****. Hell, using a 40,000 seat college stadium in San Diego wouldn't be the worst idea. It's probably their normal attendance.