Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Ownership I believe has closed the door on a return home

But I mean how pathetic, what bad optics. You have a team muscling in on a market who wants nothing to do with it. They play in a soccer stadium right off the bat that they have trouble filling except for when a high profile opponent comes in and takes over

Finally you get a beautiful new home in LA which you are 2nd class citizens in. The team is young, promising...an exciting and talented star QB. Still nothing, no foothold on the area, no fan base. The Raiders come in and take over the building. Chargers getting booed mercilessly as they take the field. And this is already several year in Los Angeles

They really deserve better. Of course the Raiders would take over Jack Murphy Stadium when they played there, but at least the Chargers had a home city at the time, and most other game their own fans were in the large majority. Now even that is gone. They shut the door in SD and LA doesn't want anything to do with them

Yeah, that often seems to be the case in cities where there's more than one team, doesn't it? The Clippers will never be more popular than the Lakers are (at least not in L.A.) and I still remember an S.I. cover from - oh, I dunno. . .1983? 1984? - that had L.T. (the original) and Mark Gastineau on it and I think the cover article was about how the Giants were and always would be the "top dog" in New York as far as N.F.L. teams went. But, yeah - it's pretty disappointing to play in your "home" stadium only to see most fans in the stadium be in favor of your opponents.

Remember when announcing the relocation the Chargers promoted it as the "return home" because they played in Los Angeles before San Diego... for one season... in 1960? I thought that was hilarious.

racepug wrote:Yeah, that often seems to be the case in cities where there's more than one team, doesn't it? The Clippers will never be more popular than the Lakers are (at least not in L.A.) and I still remember an S.I. cover from - oh, I dunno. . .1983? 1984? - that had L.T. (the original) and Mark Gastineau on it and I think the cover article was about how the Giants were and always would be the "top dog" in New York as far as N.F.L. teams went. But, yeah - it's pretty disappointing to play in your "home" stadium only to see most fans in the stadium be in favor of your opponents.

eh, it's different with every sport and every situation. I can remember stretches where the Mets were pretty much the more popular team in New York, and the attendance and tv ratings reflected that. But once the Yankees won in 96 and went on their run the tide was turned seemingly forever. Still whenever the Mets have blips of success you see how small the gap can be. The Giants have always been more popular than the Jets but if NYJ ever (seems unfathomable) won a few Super Bowls during a decade and the Giants didn't do much...would it change? The Lakers/Clippers gap though is probably the largest. Despite the Islanders having a dynasty I don't think they ever had more fans than the Rangers. Knicks will always dwarf the Nets in attention and support. Cubs will always be ahead of the White Sox. Even when the Sox won their first World Series in forever it remained a Cubs city. Dodgers will always be far ahead of the Angels, though the Angels do have a respectable fan base

The 2nd team coming into the market having to fend with an established for 50+ years franchise is incredibly difficult.

A post here suggests the Chargers deserve better than their current status in Los Angeles. I disagree.

The Chargers had a fine fan base in San Diego but deserted the city because their request for a taxpayer funded stadium was rejected. With sports teams loyalty is always a one way street. If a team moves to the wrong market too freakin' bad.

I can't think of a bigger waste of precious public dollars than a football stadium that isn't used the equivalent of one month out of the year.

Well, it could be worse---they could try coaxing Paul Lowe out of retirement. At 86, the old guy's probably still got a couple yards left in him.

I have nothing negative to say about the Chargers but I was stunned by a blunder by the play-by-play announcer during the Chargers-Raiders game. I forget now who the announcer was.

The play-by-play guy said, in effect, that the Raiders felt Los Angeles was "their town because they were here (LA) first." Within context, he meant the Raiders called LA home before the Chargers did. Either the announcer forgot or does not know about the Chargers playing in LA in 1960.

I wrote to 1960s Charger Dick Harris and asked him what he thought about the Chargers when they relocated back to LA. He told me he has fond memories of the one season in 1960. He grew up in the San Pedro-area and his dream was to play at the LA Coliseum. Glad his dream came true.

Eagles One wrote:I wrote to 1960s Charger Dick Harris and asked him what he thought about the Chargers when they relocated back to LA. He told me he has fond memories of the one season in 1960. He grew up in the San Pedro-area and his dream was to play at the LA Coliseum. Glad his dream came true.

That's interesting. Many thanks for posting that note.

Lee Elder wrote:I have nothing negative to say about the Chargers but I was stunned by a blunder by the play-by-play announcer during the Chargers-Raiders game. I forget now who the announcer was.

The play-by-play guy said, in effect, that the Raiders felt Los Angeles was "their town because they were here (LA) first." Within context, he meant the Raiders called LA home before the Chargers did. Either the announcer forgot or does not know about the Chargers playing in LA in 1960.

It was Brian Griese and it was even worse than you recall since he included the Rams, as well.