Fight for L.A.

[Riverumbbq]

They can chalk up another milestone for the history of pro football in Los Angeles this weekend, when the Rams and Chargers clash at the L.A. Coliseum on Saturday night. It will be the first game in 23 years, preseason or otherwise, pitting two NFL franchises representing L.A.

To the winner goes temporary bragging rights.

Sure, it’s just an exhibition. But in the race to capture the hearts of L.A. fans, optics are to be claimed.

Fight for L.A.?

That’s the marketing slogan the newest entrant to the nation’s second-largest market, the Chargers, have adopted upon their transplant from San Diego. And it could be interpreted as an in-your-face affront to the Rams, who staked a claim upon returning to L.A. last year.
Naturally, Chargers coach Anthony Lynn, like his Rams counterpart, Sean McVay, downplays any competition against the Rams. When the Chargers opened training camp a few weeks ago in Costa Mesa, five miles from the Rams’ training site, Lynn even insisted that he didn’t notice the "Fight For L.A." signage around the camp, which means he might not catch the digital billboards that have gone up blaring that message.

No matter. There’s competition, whether they want to admit it or not. Competition that extends beyond the actual fights that occurred earlier this month when the teams practiced together.

“We need to put a good product on the field,” Chargers chairman Dean Spanos told USA TODAY Sports. “That’s a major portion of what we need to do.”

Of course it is. The Chargers, rebuilding with a new coach, were 5-11 last season. Same for the Rams, rebuilding with a new coach after a 4-12 finish in 2016.

As if trying to win over fans with one floundering franchise wasn’t enough. The NFL has doubled down and given the L.A. market two rebuilding projects.

Ok, it’s a long-term proposition, which will get a boost from the immaculate stadium that Rams owner Stan Kroenke is constructing in Inglewood, set to open in 2020. The Chargers (0-2 in preseason) may be better equipped at the moment, bolstered a proven quarterback, Philip Rivers. The Rams (2-0 in preseason) are building with Jared Goff, the quarterback drafted No. 1 overall last year.

“To succeed here, you’ve got to win,” Jim Hill, the legendary sports anchor for KCBS-TV, told USA TODAY Sports. “Al Davis said it best. Just win, baby.”

Hill knows. It’s a crowded market. In addition to the many non-sports attractions competing for attention and entertainment dollars, there are two major league baseball, two NBA and two NHL franchises in tow. And two colleges, UCLA and Southern Cal, generating pro-level buzz and revenues.

It’s striking that Hill mentioned Davis, the late Raiders icon, whose franchise spent 13 years in Los Angeles until moving back to Oakland in 1995. The Raiders still have such a strong foothold in the market that Davis’ son, Mark, now owning the franchise poised for a move to Las Vegas, wasn’t completely kidding when he trolled the Rams and Chargers this week and contended that they are actually jockeying to become the second-most popular NFL franchise in L.A. Ouch.

No, the Rams and Chargers can hardly view the other as their biggest rival.

“Usually, you’re relocating to a market that’s underrepresented and it welcomes you with open arms,” sports consultant Marc Ganis told USA TODAY Sports. “This is a different situation.”

Ganis contends that the NFL can ultimately be successful in L.A., pointing to the palace that Kroenke is building as a game-changer. “It will have ‘wow factor’ oozing out of every slab of concrete,” he says.

Yet Ganis also grasps the challenges ahead. Kroenke’s stadium project includes an arena that will compete against the Staples Center, a new arena on tap for the NBA Clippers and the Stub Hub Center that is the Chargers’ temporary home, for smaller-venue events.

Then there are the Summer Games, awarded to L.A. for 2028.

While the Olympics add juice and stature, Ganis realizes that in this case that they will also compete against the NFL entities for sponsorships, media coverage and the public’s attention.

“It’s not a zero-sum game,” Ganis said of NFL prospects, “but it’s a limited-sum game.”

In the meantime, the Rams and Chargers are pressed to inspire a new generation of fans that never knew football in Los Angeles – while reclaiming older fans.

“There’s plenty of fans to go around for every team here,” Kevin Demoff, the Rams’ chief operating officer, told USA TODAY Sports.

Demoff maintains that even without teams in the market, L.A. didn’t lose all of its passion for the NFL. Maybe not. But a large portion of those fans follow other teams (like the Raiders) and have become used to getting the best games the NFL offered on TV each weekend. Now they’ll be saturated with the Rams and Chargers.

Still, he was inspired recently by the sight of three generations of Rams fans together – wearing jerseys bearing the names of Deacon Jones, Eric Dickerson and Todd Gurley, representing three eras of the franchise’s history. Now go win over new fans with no attachment to the team. That’s the essence of the competition.

“The bottom line,” Demoff said, “is that we have to establish an emotional connection.”

Which is precisely why winning consistently is so crucial in settling the battle for L.A.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...rams-not-each-others-biggest-rival/601534001/

 

[fearsomefour]

Yes, I can hear the thoughts of the guy battling for a roster spot mid fourth quarter...."Man, we just have to win this fake, marketing department created pre season rivalry."
Please.

 

[…..]

This topic is going to go over about as well as the St Louis vs LA debate that lead up to the Rams return to Los Angeles.

The Rams have fans. The Chargers...they have thiers too. I dont believe in any fight for LA, thats nonsense in my opinion. I doubt any fans can be "claimed" by winning an inner city game. True fans, like the ones that frequent this site and others like it, they dont just change teams because one or the other is doing better. The Chargers cant magically get my attention. I'm going to be able to ignore them as I always have, though I will admit they were mildly interesting when they had Dan Fouts and Don Coryell. Thier post season record however, has kept Coryell out of the Hall of Fame and out of the hearts of many who would have otherwise become lifelong fans.

Theres one way the Chargers can win LA. They need to become the Patriots. I dont see that happening and even if it did, it would take a generation to achieve it.

Spanos certainly cemented the Charges as the kid brother to the Rams by agreeing to pay rent to Stan. In a strange way, Stan and the Rams are assured to always be the more sophisticated leader of LA merely by arranging for the Chargers to pay for the stadium through rental proceeds. Fucking genious, though serendipitous genious in this case.

 

[bubbaramfan]

:coach:BEAT LA! :coach:BEAT LA!

 

[LACHAMP46]

Bodes good for the over bet.....and for coaches to ensure we cover the spread. Feels like a trap game....and I need to hit on a few bets this weekend to stay close to the leader board.....

I bet Todd Gurley pops one tonight.

 

[DaveFan'51]

The Raiders still have such a strong foothold in the market that Davis’ son, Mark, now owning the franchise poised for a move to Las Vegas, wasn’t completely kidding when he trolled the Rams and Chargers this week and contended that they are actually jockeying to become the second-most popular NFL franchise in L.A.

F--K SON-OF-AL!!:shocking::headexplosion::boxing::jerkoff:

 

[LesBaker]

“We need to put a good product on the field,” Chargers chairman Dean Spanos told USA TODAY Sports. “That’s a major portion of what we need to do.”

Duh.

“Usually, you’re relocating to a market that’s underrepresented and it welcomes you with open arms,” sports consultant Marc Ganis told USA TODAY Sports. “This is a different situation.”

Yes it's a very different story indeed. And I hate the slogan "Fight for LA" and I wish that the league office told them to knock it off. Why create bad blood when you just pissed off two fan bases for money and the leagues image is not healthy? It's not intelligent marketing and would make me, if I were a neutral fan, dislike the Chargers.

Now they’ll be saturated with the Rams and Chargers.

I wonder how active in the community each team has been.

Now go win over new fans with no attachment to the team. That’s the essence of the competition.

“The bottom line,” Demoff said, “is that we have to establish an emotional connection.”

Demoff is right, the people under 30 that may not have any real attachment to a team or will want to pick up one of the two new hometown teamsis where the fight is. And the NFL covets that age range.

The issue is winning though, and I think while both teams will have their diehard fans I think the casual fans may take awhile to win over. Some will pick a team right away but I suspect a lot will wait to see who is "good" before picking.

This "fight for LA' won't be won this year.

Stan and the Rams are assured to always be the more sophisticated leader of LA merely by arranging for the Chargers to pay for the stadium through rental proceeds.

The rent the Chargers pay is not even going to come close to paying for one beer in that stadium. Part of the relocation deal was that the new stadium had to be built with 2 sets of offices and locker rooms to house two home teams. And the rent is ONE DOLLAR a year.

They are combining revenues from sponsorship sales and suite sales. Each team keeps it's own game day revenues from parking, single game sponsorship packages and concessions. Spanos is getting a huge raise, greedy fuck that he is and he's the same as the rest of them.

And truthfully football isn't what is going to make that stadium a super revenue stream. There are 20-24 NFL games each year in that venue from those two teams. Think about how much that leaves available for concerts and other events. Lots of days to fill up, lots of parking and lots of concession sales and the stadium will have more people at a concert than at a game which means more money flowing. Think about the piles of money from just 1 event a week from Monday through Saturday......52 total events, plus 20 games. 70-something events is a low number too. It'll be more. It's possible for that stadium to generate over 300MIL in concessions, merchandise and parking, at high margins, each year. Maybe even more.

 

[LesBaker]

F--K SON-OF-AL!!:shocking::headexplosion::boxing::jerkoff:

He could actually be though!

Raiders fans in LA don't have to drive too far to go see them, plus it's Vegas so a weekend road trip. Plus they do have a big following in the market.

They have a good team right now, which also helps.

 

[…..]

The rent the Chargers pay is not even going to come close to paying for one beer in that stadium. Part of the relocation deal was that the new stadium had to be built with 2 sets of offices and locker rooms to house two home teams. And the rent is ONE DOLLAR a year.

Its quite a bit more complicated than that. However, the symbolism still applies.

For example, theres a big chunk of revenue that will go towards paying off the stadium, beginning with the Chargers 200M loan from the NFL. Stan doesnt pay that back, Spanos is on the hook for it. Thers also suites that will be sold "for all events". That revenue will be calssified as "dual use" revenue of which 62.5% goes to paying for the stadium. Corporate sponership and naming rights, etc, its also "split" between the teams. But that split only happens after the first 62.5% goes toward paying for the stadium.

I'm pretty sure you dont really believe Kroenke is "loaning" his stadium to the Chargers.

 

[LesBaker]

Its quite a bit more complicated than that. However, the symbolism still applies.

For example, theres a big chunk of revenue that will go towards paying off the stadium, beginning with the Chargers 200M loan from the NFL. Stan doesnt pay that back, Spanos is on the hook for it. Thers also suites that will be sold "for all events". That revenue will be calssified as "dual use" revenue of which 62.5% goes to paying for the stadium. Corporate sponership and naming rights, etc, its also "split" between the teams. But that split only happens after the first 62.5% goes toward paying for the stadium.

I'm pretty sure you dont really believe Kroenke is "loaning" his stadium to the Chargers.

I have a decent idea of how they are splitting revenue that is "shared" to pay back stadium costs, but it's found money so to speak. The loan is a 10 year payback and the NFL just takes it out of the revenue sharing check that Spanos gets, so it's not like he's coming directly out of pocket. The same applies to Kroenke who is also throwing his 200MIL loan from the NFL.

So he is in a sense getting the place for no money out of his pocket and one dollar a year.

Here is a breakdown point by point of most of the lease I found online. Spanos isn't getting the stadium "loaned" to him but this is a really sweet deal for at least 20 years. He's a turd for what he did, but this move was a no brainer for him financially. Other than the cost of physically moving the team he's got no real out of pocket expenses that I can see and he will be making tens of millions more than he was before and would even with a new stadium in San Diego.


I copied and pasted this, the bold etc is not my doing it's from the person that reported on the lease after the owners approved it.

1) The Chargers pay $1 a year as a tenant at the Inglewood stadium. The Chargers have a 20-year lease for Inglewood THEN have four five-year options to extend it.

2) The Chargers and Rams each keep their local revenue -- tickets, parking, gameday sponsorships, concessions, advertising, etc.

3) Each team kicks in their $200-million NFL G4 loan toward the $2.6-billion stadium's construction.

4) For big-ticket items like naming rights, PSLs, jointly sold suites, each team gets an 18.75% cut. Remainder goes toward construction.

5) Neither team is required to sell PSLs and there's no price guideline if they do. The 18.75% cut incentivizes the Chargers to do so.

6) Side note: one economist (LA Times) who studies the NFL estimated the Chargers could pull in about $300M selling PSLs in L.A.

7) Rams owner Stan Kroenke, backing the Inglewood project, gets all non-football revenues.

8) The Chargers won't have any role in the mixed-use development surrounding the stadium on the 298 acres in Inglewood.

9) The money from naming rights, PSLs, etc. will flow into Stadco L.A. LLC, a Kroenke-controlled entity that'll finance the stadium.

10) Probably obvious, but the Chargers won't be responsible for any cost overruns or similar issues with the stadium.

11) One estimate I've seen projects the Chargers will make $75M more in annual local revenue in L.A. vs. a new stadium in San Diego. I haven't seen a detailed breakdown, but I imagine you can charge more for everything from beers to sponsorships in L.A. About 2/3 of each team's revenue is fixed from national TV contracts, so, you can still make money w/o selling many tickets.

12) That increase in local revenue -- which could be even more -- will easily pay off the $650M relo fee over 10 years starting in 2019

13) The basic lease terms have been in place since January 2016; NFL owners formally approved the arrangement last month.

 

[LesBaker]

The Rams have fans. The Chargers...they have thiers too. I dont believe in any fight for LA, thats nonsense in my opinion. I doubt any fans can be "claimed" by winning an inner city game. True fans, like the ones that frequent this site and others like it, they dont just change teams because one or the other is doing better. The Chargers cant magically get my attention.

To me this is interesting and a fun discussion. As I said before there are a lot of people in that market that aren't Rams or Chargers fans. Maybe they are a fan of another team, Denver or whomever. Maybe they have had allegiances shift over the time when there wasn't a team in LA for them to cheer on as the "home team" so they just enjoyed the seasons and had different teams they liked over the years.

Fans like you and I are going to be Rams fans regardless of where they play (or how much they make us suffer LOL) so what about the fans that haven't really had a team in town to root for that are Broncos fans, Falcons fans or any other team? Will having a team that's "home town" make THOSE fans shift to the Rams or Chargers? It's a nuanced discussion. And we have to figure among the bazillions of people that moved there from somewhere else that they already have "their" team.

So I'm with you that the fight for LA is nonsense. I've only seen a few fans switch horses in my life and that's counting all sports. So if there is a fight for LA it's for 6 year olds hearts and minds because the grown ups probably already have their team loyalty ingrained.

I'm sure that both teams will be able to sell out plenty because there are how many fans of all the other teams in the NFL in that market that have moved there and now will be able to watch their team play without flying back home or to a distant city. I'd guess we could find between 15,000 and 25,000 fans of every other NFL team in Southern California.

As I think about this I think the Raiders made the bad move to go to Las Vegas over going back to LA but I can't remember who had "first dibs" Spanos or Davis.

 

[TSFH Fan]

 

[…..]

I have a decent idea of how they are splitting revenue that is "shared" to pay back stadium costs, but it's found money so to speak. The loan is a 10 year payback and the NFL just takes it out of the revenue sharing check that Spanos gets, so it's not like he's coming directly out of pocket. The same applies to Kroenke who is also throwing his 200MIL loan from the NFL.

So he is in a sense getting the place for no money out of his pocket and one dollar a year.

Here is a breakdown point by point of most of the lease I found online. Spanos isn't getting the stadium "loaned" to him but this is a really sweet deal for at least 20 years. He's a turd for what he did, but this move was a no brainer for him financially. Other than the cost of physically moving the team he's got no real out of pocket expenses that I can see and he will be making tens of millions more than he was before and would even with a new stadium in San Diego.


I copied and pasted this, the bold etc is not my doing it's from the person that reported on the lease after the owners approved it.

1) The Chargers pay $1 a year as a tenant at the Inglewood stadium. The Chargers have a 20-year lease for Inglewood THEN have four five-year options to extend it.

2) The Chargers and Rams each keep their local revenue -- tickets, parking, gameday sponsorships, concessions, advertising, etc.

3) Each team kicks in their $200-million NFL G4 loan toward the $2.6-billion stadium's construction.

4) For big-ticket items like naming rights, PSLs, jointly sold suites, each team gets an 18.75% cut. Remainder goes toward construction.

5) Neither team is required to sell PSLs and there's no price guideline if they do. The 18.75% cut incentivizes the Chargers to do so.

6) Side note: one economist (LA Times) who studies the NFL estimated the Chargers could pull in about $300M selling PSLs in L.A.

7) Rams owner Stan Kroenke, backing the Inglewood project, gets all non-football revenues.

8) The Chargers won't have any role in the mixed-use development surrounding the stadium on the 298 acres in Inglewood.

9) The money from naming rights, PSLs, etc. will flow into Stadco L.A. LLC, a Kroenke-controlled entity that'll finance the stadium.

10) Probably obvious, but the Chargers won't be responsible for any cost overruns or similar issues with the stadium.

11) One estimate I've seen projects the Chargers will make $75M more in annual local revenue in L.A. vs. a new stadium in San Diego. I haven't seen a detailed breakdown, but I imagine you can charge more for everything from beers to sponsorships in L.A. About 2/3 of each team's revenue is fixed from national TV contracts, so, you can still make money w/o selling many tickets.

12) That increase in local revenue -- which could be even more -- will easily pay off the $650M relo fee over 10 years starting in 2019

13) The basic lease terms have been in place since January 2016; NFL owners formally approved the arrangement last month.

Great find! Its similar to, though more detailed than the LA Times report that I was quoting from. I think what you and I are talking about is one and the same, but from different points of view. I'm looking at this in ways that the Rams benefit, while you (and the report you quoted) are looking at it from the Chargers perspective and how it benifits them.

I'd like to trump you if I may...in that most of the benefit from Stan "renting out" the place comes in through the back door. For my selfish purposes, I'm considering any monies that go towards construction as money that goes towards the Rams since Stans name is on the deed. Increased revenue for the Rams that I'm referring to is that all the prices go waaaay up due to the fact they are selling two teams instead of one. Advertising revenue and naming rights fees more specifically, because we cant count 225 of the 500 suites (the Chargers get all the money from 225 suites, The Rams get all the money from 225 Suites, and stadium costs get 62.5% from the remaining 50 suites)

It has been estimated that the Rams alone could sell naming rights for 500M over 30 years. However, that increases to a minimum of 925M (35-40 per year) once the Chargers came on board. 62.5% of THAT is 578M on the low end and 600M+ on the high end. So already 78-100M increase by having a tennant. The fact that each team is "splitting" the remainder revenue at 18.75% each isnt actually what gets the cash register overheated because the split occurs after 62.5% goes into the stadium. Simple math tells me that Stan recieves 81.25% of an almost 100% increase in advertising and naming rights revenue. Add to that, Dean Spanos is paying 200M up front by transferring his G4 loan to stadium costs. All in all, It looks to me that Kronke just got the Chargers to pay a significant portion of the cost of his stadium. THATS why rent is 1 dollar a year.

So it sounds to me that both teams get a windfall here and John Q public will team with John Q Corporate to make sure it happens . The difference that will keep the Rams steadfast as big brother, is that Spanos is looking at a yearly 75M surplus by moving, but Stan is playing in an entirely different playground where Billions are involved.

I too find it fascinating, and I'm not sure we know everything. Alot of this lease agreement is not for public knowledge, who knows what else we may find once we peel back the onion.

 

[Ram65]

Demoff is right, the people under 30 that may not have any real attachment to a team or will want to pick up one of the two new hometown teamsis where the fight is. And the NFL covets that age range.

The issue is winning though, and I think while both teams will have their diehard fans I think the casual fans may take awhile to win over. Some will pick a team right away but I suspect a lot will wait to see who is "good" before picking.

This "fight for LA' won't be won this year.

Some could switch to whom ever is winning. It could take a few years to settle down on who everyone picks as their favorite LA NFL team. Winning will make a difference in final fan support.

 

[…..]

As I think about this I think the Raiders made the bad move to go to Las Vegas over going back to LA but I can't remember who had "first dibs" Spanos or Davis.

It still perplexed to this day how my brother ended up a Broncos fan while living in Bakersfield, after we moved from LA. I can only assume it was during the John Elway days that he was most impressionable, which backs up your point about winning younger fans.

As far as the above quote, Im thinking that Vegas and the Raiders are a match made in heaven, as long as heaven has gambling and hookers!

 

[badnews]

Nobody cares about the Los Angeles Chargers of San Diego.

 

[LesBaker]

Stan is playing in an entirely different playground where Billions are involved.

Yes. He's been in that playground for years and Spanos, while he is going to get even filthier rich, is playing in a different sandbox.

I too find it fascinating, and I'm not sure we know everything. Alot of this lease agreement is not for public knowledge, who knows what else we may find once we peel back the onion.

I think we will learn all/most of the details when they are moving in.

Some could switch to whom ever is winning. It could take a few years to settle down on who everyone picks as their favorite LA NFL team. Winning will make a difference in final fan support.

That's what I was trying to say but didn't do it all that well LOL.

It still perplexed to this day how my brother ended up a Broncos fan while living in Bakersfield, after we moved from LA. I can only assume it was during the John Elway days that he was most impressionable, which backs up your point about winning younger fans.

As far as the above quote, Im thinking that Vegas and the Raiders are a match made in heaven, as long as heaven has gambling and hookers!

I grew up in CLE, was born in the Bay Area of CA. I'm a Rams fan so we never know.

Here is an oddity. I had met a couple of Browns fans that became Steelers fans after Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore. Pure spite, triple distilled in fact.

I just looked online, Spanos had first right and a drop dead date, if he declined then Davis had the right and a drop dead date.

 

[LesBaker]

This is something separate.

For my selfish purposes, I'm considering any monies that go towards construction as money that goes towards the Rams since Stans name is on the deed.

Kroenke has partners in the overall development doesn't he? What about the stadium, is it all his?