1 / 2

Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by Elvis
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... s-stadium/

Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

By Nick Canepa

If Rams move to L.A., the NFL may force them to pay off Bolts

Image

Sez Me …

Politics and new stadiums may make for strange bedfellows, but the Chargers aren’t climbing onto the Hollywood casting couch with Stan Kroenke and the Rams.

Not.

And I’m not guessing.

People are starting to strongly speculate there will be, for now, just one NFL team moving into the spacious Los Angeles market, and if that is so, it will be the Rams. Playing “what’s in it for me,” the Chargers won’t join them.

They may sue owner Kroenke, or the League might, if he moves without approval from 24 of the bosses, but I do believe he’s going, because he wants to, and if he does, the Chargers aren’t moving to the multi-billionaire’s Inglewood digs as boarders. In the end, Kroenke may have to pay off the other L.A. suitors, because there simply are not going to be two stadiums and three teams in L.A., which would leave the Chargers and Raiders out of the photograph.

At the last owners meetings, Kroenke said he wanted a “tenant” with him in Inglewood, and that did not sit well with the Chargers. There isn’t enough to be gained by playing second trumpet in Stan’s orchestra. And Spanos & Co. know, if the Rams go to Inglewood, their dream of putting a new stadium on a Carson dump will be done.

Plus, the Chargers hate the Inglewood site. For good reason. It’s a mile and a half from any freeway, and that freeway, the 405, runs past LAX, which is close to the proposed site and nearly always deeply congested. Imagine 80,000 people trying to get off the 405 and through city streets to get there.

Much still needs to happen for anything to occur in 2016. The special committee of six owners working on the L.A. thing now is in control. One of those owners, powerful Dan Rooney, is dead set against any franchise moving anywhere. Maybe they will try to force Kroenke to pay off the Chargers, who get much of their revenue from the L.A. area, the major reason why they don’t want another team there.

Something is going to happen, probably by December.

If Kroenke goes without permission, the owners may well deny him Super Bowls or any League presence, as it might have in Carson. I really don’t know if Kroenke gives a damn. Right now, he may not have the votes. In the end he may have. The Chargers will get the votes, but if Kroenke moves, it won’t matter. They’re stuck.

I see two scenarios. If the Rams remain in St. Louis, the Chargers are going — or will try to (obstacles still remain with Carson). If the Rams move, and I believe they will, the Chargers play in San Diego next year. At least.

But, no matter what, they will not play lodger to Kroenke’s landlord. …

Tampa, already with a new NFL stadium, is planning a $662 million sports complex. Tampa. Think about it. …

Manti Te’o forced an Andy Dalton fumble in Cincinnati and the Chargers were robbed of a touchdown thanks to an incredibly stupid rule. If you have control of the football and drop it, it’s a fumble. …

Still, with Antonio Gates, I believe they win in Cincy. Because he could have gotten open when receivers couldn’t separate. …

Growing older is natural, inevitable. The Colts did it on purpose. Not football smart. …

The Penalty Thing in the NFL last weekend grew totally out of control. Had to be a record (close to 300, accepted). Haven’t seen more hankies since the premier of “Love Story.” …

Ray Lewis was caught looking at his cell while on the air. That Donald Trump. What a bother. …

Sam Bradford looks frightened, which was OK for Don Knotts, not for NFL QBs. …

Ohio State’s schedule, which is cake, may be more difficult than New England’s. The Pats could wrap up the AFC East sometime in October. …

Have to give my NL Cy Young to Chicago’s Jake Arrieta. His ERA since the All-Star break, in 13 starts, is 0.86, lowest in history. …

Bryce Harper and Mike Trout already have more career strikeouts than Yogi Berra and Tony Gwynn. …

Ousted Don Orsillo, revered in Boston as Red Sox voice, appears to be a snap to replace Dick Enberg. …

The “Pylon Cam” may prove a revelation — for colonoscopies.

sezme.godfather@gmail.com Twitter: @sdutCanepa

Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by SoCalRam78
Elvis wrote:http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/27/nick-canepa-sez-me-kroenke-chargers-stadium/

Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

If Kroenke goes without permission, the owners may well deny him Super Bowls or any League presence, as it might have in Carson. I really don’t know if Kroenke gives a damn. Right now, he may not have the votes. In the end he may have. The Chargers will get the votes, but if Kroenke moves, it won’t matter. They’re stuck.

sezme.godfather@gmail.com Twitter: @sdutCanepa



A loss in the federal antitrust courts will cost them much more than denying Kroenke and LA (seriously, the NFL doesn't want a Super Bowl there) a Super Bowl.

Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by Elvis
That's the thing. If Kroenke is really dead set on moving, no one is going to tell him he can't. And in the end, the NFL won't start a war they'll almost certainly lose...

Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by Hacksaw
Well well well quite a bit of San Diego's stuff in the papers today and Friday. Glad the Rams go on the road mid December because they may need to start packing up those United moving vans if any truth in the barrage of rhetoric by Florio and Canfora. BTW there are still more questions than answers in those articles

Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by Hacksaw
And who the hell is this Nick Canepa dude who puts up an article that starts with 'sez me'?
Is this all in response to Terry Bradshaw?

Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by SoCalRam78
A lot of these articles are planted by the league. Believe me, they don't like what Bradshaw said. When billions of dollars are in play, they have to make things look impossible for San Diego and Oakland and tremendous for St. Louis. That way, they can squeeze Kroenke, San Diego and Oakland more.

Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by TSFH Fan
I got it!!

Hi, Mr. Spanos, may I interest you in an exciting Time Share opportunity in beautiful Inglewood, California. You can be an owner of a brand new, state of the art stadium, for 10 days a year. The Time Share is yours, you're the owner, nothing like a "tenant" at all, no, no, no. . . .

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, but I did stay at a Marriott and, ugh . . . they really push time shares.

Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by Hacksaw
TSFH Fan wrote:I got it!!

Hi, Mr. Spanos, may I interest you in an exciting Time Share opportunity in beautiful Inglewood, California. You can be an owner of a brand new, state of the art stadium, for 10 days a year. The Time Share is yours, you're the owner, nothing like a "tenant" at all, no, no, no. . . .

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, but I did stay at a Marriott and, ugh . . . they really push time shares.


You're on the right track

Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by BuiltRamTough
What he said..


Re: Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

PostPosted:9 years 4 months ago
by Stranger
SoCalRam78 wrote:
Elvis wrote:http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/27/nick-canepa-sez-me-kroenke-chargers-stadium/

Chargers won't be Kroenke 'tenant'

If Kroenke goes without permission, the owners may well deny him Super Bowls or any League presence, as it might have in Carson. I really don’t know if Kroenke gives a damn. Right now, he may not have the votes. In the end he may have. The Chargers will get the votes, but if Kroenke moves, it won’t matter. They’re stuck.

sezme.godfather@gmail.com Twitter: @sdutCanepa



A loss in the federal antitrust courts will cost them much more than denying Kroenke and LA (seriously, the NFL doesn't want a Super Bowl there) a Super Bowl.

These news stories are beyond laughable. Right, the NFL isn't going to hold a SB in the LA market at the league's most impressive stadium. Give me a freaking break.