The Chargers' decision to move to L.A. "came down to certainty over uncertainty” regarding the team's stadium situation, according to ESPN's Jim Trotter. Chargers Chair Dean Spanos has been “trying to get a stadium built there for 15 years," but he "hasn’t been able to do it.” Trotter: "Do I choose the certainty now of knowing what I have in L.A. over the uncertainty of sitting in San Diego for two more years waiting for a ballot measure in November 2018? If that doesn’t pass, I’m right back in the same situation I am now. He chose certainty” ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 1/12).
TEMPORARY HOUSTING: The Chargers this morning announced they will play the '17 and '18 seasons at StubHub Center in Carson, where the Galaxy play. The stadium will hold 30,000 for Chargers games (Chargers). USA TODAY's Brent Schrotenboer notes StubHub Center would "by far be the smallest venue in the NFL." However, it "offers spectators a unique, up-close experience that would differentiate the Chargers from the Rams." By playing at StubHub Center, the Chargers would "offer a different, more intimate fan experience before settling in the Rams’ Inglewood stadium" (USATODAY.com, 1/12). In San Diego, Posner & Garrick in a front-page piece note the Chargers recently leased a new HQ and training facility in Costa Mesa, roughly 40 miles from Inglewood. The team "could make the site its new permanent headquarters." But a Chargers official confirmed "other sites would also be considered" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/12). ESPN.com's Eric Williams notes the Rams and Chargers with the Inglewood stadium would "jointly share revenue on aspects such as naming rights, suites, sponsors and advertising." The teams would be "on their own to sell season tickets" and PSLs. The Chargers and Rams would also separately sell PSLs, projected to raise $700-800M, which would "go toward construction costs for the new facility" (ESPN.com, 1/12).
RIGHT MARKET FOR TWO TEAMS? NFL.com's Judy Battista reports there are "serious questions about the ability of Los Angeles to support two teams after 22 years of having none." Those questions are heightened when taking into consideration the Chargers do "not have a historical fan base there, as the Raiders and Rams do." Most people within the NFL believed L.A. was a "two-team market" ahead of the Rams' relocation from St. Louis last January, but it was "clear as recently as this week that there exist real concerns now." The Rams struggled to "maintain public support and television ratings during the team's first season" in L.A. Battista wonders what the Rams and Chargers can expect "if both teams continue to lose" (NFL.com, 1/12). The MMQB's Albert Breer cites a source as saying, "The number of people who think it’s a two-team market has dropped to very few. There were a lot of them when the Rams went. That’s not the case anymore" (MMQB.SI.com, 1/12). ESPN's Adam Caplan said there is an issue as to whether L.A. is "going to support (two teams) long-term” ("SportsCenter," ESPN2, 1/12). ESPN’s Mike Golic: “I said from the beginning I don’t think football is going to work in Los Angeles with one team, let alone two”("Mike & Mike," ESPN Radio, 1/12). However, FOXSPORTS.com's Dieter Kurtenbach writes it "doesn't matter if anyone goes" to the Chargers' games in L.A. Both the Rams and Chargers are "going to make more money with no one in the stands" in L.A. than they "ever could with full houses in the old stadiums of St. Louis and San Diego" (FOXSPORTS.com, 1/12).
VENTURA HIGHWAY: In L.A., Bill Plaschke writes the Chargers "should hear this as their moving vans are chugging up the 5 Freeway on their noble mission of greed." Plaschke: "We. Don’t. Want. You." The Chargers moving to L.A. is the "return of a professional sports team with no buzz, no tradition, few local fans north of south Orange County, limited success, and an owner who just stole them away from a place where they were loved unconditionally for 56 years." Plaschke: "What was the NFL thinking?" L.A. now must now be "asked to support two NFL teams after 22 years of somehow surviving with none." Plaschke: "I have still never met a single Chargers fan" (L.A. TIMES, 1/12). Also in L.A., Vincent Bonsignore writes the Chargers' move will "likely be awkward at first." It will be a "process to cultivate new fans and build a strong base and get into the L.A. bloodstream." Winning would "take care of most of those challenges. L.A. has "proven it will support" a winning team and a "product to be proud of." Spanos also "appeared totally at ease with the possibility of moving to L.A., and was excited about the potential new adventure he and his family were about to embark on" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/12). Spanos has indicated that a quarter of Chargers fans are currently in Orange County and L.A. However, in N.Y., Ken Belson notes it is "unclear how many fans in San Diego will be willing to make the 120-mile drive to see the team play" in L.A., where tickets will "undoubtedly be more expensive." The Chargers will also have to "compete for fans and sponsors with the Rams" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/12).
MISSED OPPORTUNITY: CSNBAYAREA.com's Ray Ratto wrote the NFL has "bollixed the California situations from the start and is paying" for it. By not approving the Carson deal that would have partnered the Chargers and Raiders, the league "punted one can in support of another (the Rams), only to find out that the Rams do not hold near the local sway that officials or media thought they did." The league's belief that L.A. can "handle two teams has transmogrified into a fear that it may not even bother with one." Ratto: "Worse, they fear that the team best positioned to be that team is the Raiders -- the team they least wanted there" (CSNBAYAREA.com, 1/12).
SHOULD REBRAND BE CONSIDERED? ESPN L.A.'s Arash Markazi said Chargers ownership likely will "rebrand the team ... in time." He said, "The one thing Los Angeles wanted when they lost two teams (after the '94 season) was a fresh start, they wanted a new team. So we’re not going to embrace the Los Angeles Chargers quickly" ("SportsCenter," ESPN2, 1/12). FANSIDED.com's John Buhler writes it would be in the "best interest of the Chargers organization to go with a complete rebrand." Buhler: "Leave the powder blue jerseys, the lightning bolts, and maybe even the Chargers moniker behind" (FANSIDED.com, 1/12).
