Chargers Chair Dean Spanos this morning officially announced the team is moving to L.A. beginning with the '17 season. Spanos posted a letter on the team's website that read in part, "San Diego has been our home for 56 years. It will always be part of our identity, and my family and I have nothing but gratitude and appreciation for the support and passion our fans have shared with us over the years. But today, we turn the page and begin an exciting new era as the Los Angeles Chargers. ... The Chargers are determined to fight for LA and we are excited to get started." Read the full letter. The team this morning also launched FightForLA.com, which allows fans to put a refundable $100 deposit down for season tickets in '17. Current season-ticket holders will keep their current status. The team will play the next two seasons at Carson's StubHub Center (THE DAILY). In San Diego, David Garrick reports team employees were informed of the move during a meeting this morning. The team "will change its logo to feature the letters L and A, arranged similarly" to the Dodgers' logo. It also will "have a lightning bolt." The club's Twitter handle "was changed to Los Angeles Chargers" at 8:00am PT (SANDIEGOUNIONTRIBUNE.com, 1/12). ESPN's Adam Schefter, who broke the news last night, cited sources as saying that leaving San Diego was an "extremely difficult decision for Spanos to reach." The Chargers played their inaugural season in L.A. in '60 before moving to San Diego in '61 (ESPN.com, 1/11). NFL.com's Judy Battista reports Spanos' decision to move "is something of a surprise, even to people in the league, because Spanos has labored for so long at the idea of leaving his home." The Rams will ultimately share their new $2.6B Inglewood stadium with the Chargers (NFL.com, 1/12).
WAITING UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE: In L.A., Farmer & Fenno cite a source as saying that out of "deference to the league, Spanos waited until the NFL’s finance and stadium committees finished their meeting" yesterday in N.Y. to "make a final assessment of his options." When no "last-ditch effort by the NFL to convince Spanos to remain in San Diego materialized at the meeting, the owner moved forward with his decision" (L.A. TIMES, 1/12). Also in L.A., Vincent Bonsignore cites a source as saying that Spanos "waited out" yesterday's meetings to "see if anything new emerged to help their San Diego efforts." An "ominous tone was set" when Steelers President Art Rooney II "seemed dismissive of any more money coming from the league." Rooney said, "We (already) have stadium funding programs that are applicable to any franchise at this point. That’s available to any team that wants to try to get a deal done, whether it’s in California or anywhere else." Bonsignore reports upon hearing those comments, Spanos "realized nothing had changed and that it was time to officially pull the trigger on L.A." (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/12). NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reports during the committee meetings, the Chargers were "barely a topic and the league did not offer any additional money to contribute to their stadium efforts." Sources said that the committee meetings were "seen as the last opportunity for a solution" by Spanos, but "none came" (NFL.com, 1/12).
NO OTHER OPTION: USA TODAY's Schrotenboer & Pelissero report Spanos "came to believe he had no other viable business choice" but to leave San Diego. If the Chargers "didn’t take this opportunity in L.A., their only other certain option in San Diego was to keep playing indefinitely at Qualcomm Stadium," which marks its 50th year of existence this year. The Chargers would owe the city of San Diego $12.575M for "early termination of their lease, which was set to expire" after the '20 season. The team also would have to pay a relocation fee of $650M, which could be "paid back over 10 years or more" (USATODAY.com, 1/12). San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts last night called the Chargers' decision "disappointing" before adding, "But you can only do so much." In San Diego, Posner & Garrick in a front-page piece report Chargers HQ in Murphy Canyon was "egged" at some point last night. Meanwhile, most Chargers players "learned of the news" on social media. There "clearly was relief among players toward the prospect of having clarity about the franchise's location." The Chargers' departure could "start a whole new process in San Diego of trying to get another NFL franchise" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/12).
LOCAL BENT: In San Diego, Tom Krasovic writes Spanos "comes off here as a full-fledged weasel" with the decision, and he "shouldn't have done San Diego" like this. It also is "convenient" that the announcement came less than 24 hours before San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s state of the city address (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/12). Also in San Diego, Kevin Acee writes the Chargers "can't come back from this." The decision was a "twist that was shocking in its timing." News of the team's decision to move, which came "via a nighttime leak and despite so many recent indications that it wouldn’t was also entirely fitting when considering the subterfuge and griminess that has pockmarked this saga." Meanwhile, it "remains to be discerned what made Spanos decide he had to make the move now." Acee: "It better be worth it. There is nothing more for him in San Diego" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/12). PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio writes the Chargers by "providing information that the organization had to know would be leaked represented a deliberate trial balloon or a P.R. debacle." If there is "ever going to be a local solution" in San Diego, "getting out the word of a relocation while the relocation can still be reversed would be the best way to give the tree one final, violent shake" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 1/12). The UNION-TRIBUNE's Nick Canepa in a front-page piece writes the city is "going to find" that a town "losing an NFL team is a horrible thing." Canepa: "We should be angry as hell, and we should continue to fight to get a team here, because while past politicians and the visionless didn’t deserve the Chargers, we did" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/12).
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING: THE MMQB's Albert Breer reports the Chargers' move "isn’t about Spanos having an appetite to join the Rams in the nation’s second-largest market." It is "simply what, in his mind, he has to do, which is why some feel that until the moving trucks pull up to Chargers Park, the owner could be susceptible to a sudden change of heart" (MMQB.SI.com, 1/12). SI.com's Jack Dickey writes despite the move, Spanos "looks like a hometown loyalist compared" to Rams Owner Stan Kroenke and Raiders Owner Mark Davis. Spanos "wasn’t aching to move," but instead was "holding out for a deal that became less and less likely the more time passed." He had to "fold sometime, and the league had imposed" a Tuesday deadline. Spanos was "holding out for such a deal because he had looked around the league and saw that nearly every other owner had landed one" (SI.com, 1/12). The L.A. DAILY NEWS' Bonsignore writes the news was a "bombshell felt all the way" from the committee meetings in N.Y. to San Diego to L.A. and "all the way up to Oakland" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/12). In N.Y., Ken Belson writes the Chargers' move will give L.A. two NFL teams for the first time since '94, when the Rams and the Raiders played there, and will "leave the league without a team in San Diego, a stalwart market that has hosted three Super Bowls" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/12). SI's Lee Jenkins tweeted, "The Chargers are a bad franchise. Dean Spanos is a bad owner. And still it hurts like hell that they're leaving." CBS Sports' Tracy Wolfson: "Guess this means I'll be headed to LA more next year. Will certainly miss San Diego. Loved doing games there." Wall Street Journal's Jason Gay: "Rams and Chargers are 2 greenlit projects in competition, like when they made 2 Capote movies. First one to become a football team succeeds."
