The Chargers' first public presentation in L.A. "didn't go over so well" on Saturday, as the crowd at Staples Center for Lakers-Clippers "promptly booed" the logo when it was
presented on the video screen during the game, according to Jovan Buha of ESPN L.A. After a few seconds, the screen then cut to Chargers TE Jeff Cumberland, who "briefly waved but then was booed." Chargers Chair Dean Spanos, his wife, Susie, and two sons, President of Football Operations John Spanos and President of Business Operations A.G. Spanos, were also in attendance. Despite the reception, Dean Spanos said, "It really is great to be here" (
ESPNLA.com, 1/14). PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio noted the Chargers will not use the "much-criticized" logo that resembled the Dodgers' official mark. A.G. Spanos said, “Clearly, we miscalculated how the logo would be received, and we’ve taken it out of the rotation. ... If we make a mistake, we own it, learn from it, and move on." Spanos said the team may "take another shot" at an L.A. logo “down the road” (
PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 1/14). THE MMQB's Gary Gramling wrote there is "no way" the Chargers "won’t have the worst offseason of any NFL team." They will be the L.A. market's "17th most popular sports team" and "serve as a tenant for a different franchise that doesn’t want them as a tenant." And until the Rams’ new Inglewood venue is ready, the Chargers will play at StubHub Center, which is "more appropriately suited for hosting a child’s birthday party than hosting an NFL game." Gramling: "This is nothing short of utter humiliation for the Spanos family, the Chargers organization, and the NFL" (
MMQB.SI.com, 1/15).
SECOND THOUGHTS: In L.A., Sam Farmer noted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "didn’t want the Chargers to leave San Diego, and nor did several owners" (L.A. TIMES, 1/14).THE MMQB's Peter King writes NFL owners have to be "saying, 'What have we done?'" L.A. "doesn’t want a second NFL team," and the city "doesn’t need a second NFL team." There will be "embarrassing days ahead" for the Chargers and L.A.. King: "I honestly do not recall a situation when an NFL team moved, and the market they moved to responded in such a bored, almost antagonistic way. I’m just still trying to figure out who thought this was a good idea" (MMQB.SI.com, 1/16). In L.A., Nathan Fenno noted though the NFL has "long been steadfast in its public belief that L.A. can support two teams, there is unease in private," as some in league circles "believe the Chargers made a hasty decision to move" (L.A. TIMES, 1/15).
GOING TO DISNEYLAND? In San Diego, Tom Krasovic wrote the Chargers' move to L.A. last week had the "sterile feel of corporate stagecraft, like someone’s insisting that two plus two equal five." Sources also said that the Spanos family has "viewed Inglewood as anything but a garden spot." Orange County could emerge as the team's "more-attractive end game," and a venue in Anaheim is "said to intrigue Chargers thinkers." The Spanos family also has a potential Orange County "ace up its sleeve" in Disney Chair & CEO Bob Iger, with whom Spanos partnered on the Carson NFL plan that lost out to Inglewood. A Chargers-Disney collaboration on a stadium in Orange County "could make sense, though the NFL would have to facilitate it" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/13).
THE WRONG WAY: In San Diego, Kevin Acee wrote, "Those of us who thought Spanos would keep the Chargers where they belong were wrong." Spanos did what "every coward eventually does." He "took the easy way out" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/14). Also in San Diego, Bryce Miller wrote the Chargers' move will "go down as arguably the biggest public-relations fumble in NFL history." Miller: "It’s that epic, that tone deaf, that cold, that distant, that delusional, that entitled and that ham-handed" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/14). In Boston, Ben Volin wrote the Chargers would "still likely be in San Diego if their owner had deeper pockets." But Spanos "doesn’t have the individual wealth to simply pay for renovations himself" (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/15). In N.Y., Gary Myers wrote if Spanos "wanted a new stadium in San Diego that would be an ATM like all these other new venues, he should have found a way to pay for it himself" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 1/15).
FINANCIALS MAY ADD UP: YAHOO FINANCE's Daniel Roberts wrote the Chargers will "benefit from their move." Roberts: "Yes, L.A. sports fans may not even want the team; yes, the team isn’t good right now; yes, the team might play second fiddle to the Rams. It doesn’t matter. The L.A. Chargers will be a far more valuable property than the San Diego Chargers were" (FINANCE.YAHOO.com, 1/13). In DC, Will Hobson wrote Spanos "created a public relations hit for the NFL in the middle of its playoffs." But to sports economists, the Chargers’ move is the "rare sports team relocation that should be treated as good news -- because it’s not contingent on hundreds of millions in public spending" (WASHINGTON POST, 1/14). CBS Sports Network's Amy Trask said L.A. is a "crowded market from a sports standpoint," but the value of naming rights for the new Inglewood venue, in-stadium signage, in-stadium advertising and concession rights "just went up because there are two teams." Trask: "There is a value to having a second team in that building for purposes of financing the building” (“That Other Pregame Show,” CBSSN, 1/15).
LINE IN THE SAND: In L.A., Kitroeff & Miller noted the Chargers "dramatic split" may be a sign that California is "officially done spending public money on sports franchises." California voters have "grown more skeptical of pouring billions of dollars into football stadiums." Since '00, most of the major new stadiums in California have been built or are being planned "without any direct subsidy from the public" (L.A. TIMES, 1/14).
