Professional sports team chooses to still have stadium to play in for upcoming season

The San Diego Chargers did not opt out of their lease this week and leave themselves homeless for the 2014 season, which surprised absolutely no one. In fact, I’m only mentioning it here so that in the future, whenever anyone in the media starts screaming that “The team’s lease is expiring! They’ll have nowhere to play!”, I can then link to this item and remind everyone that leases expire all the time and no one has to go play football in the parking lot. Now move along, nothing to see here.


5 comments on “Professional sports team chooses to still have stadium to play in for upcoming season

  1. But the Chargers’ lease didn’t expire. You said it right there. They had the option to terminate but didn’t take it.

  2. Same difference, really. The point being that there’s nothing stopping teams from signing one-year renewals/extensions if they don’t have a new stadium to play in.

  3. Yeah, it’s not like the city is going to say “nope, we only do 5 year leases and rent payments of $3 million a year. Don’t like it, we’ll find someone else.”

  4. They don’t, ChefJoe, but they should… If the city is committing money to the facility for renovations (or just a significant amount for maintenance that wouldn’t be required if the tenant made good on it’s threat to leave), they should require the tenant to sign a long enough term lease to at least repay the general fund for the work/investment involved.

    As I think has been discussed here before, if the Oakland officials were at all competent they would offer Lew Wolff (and/or Mark Davis) only a 5-6 year extension at the coliseum.

    Then they have some room to negotiate any potential future deals. Right now, it looks to me like they’ve just extended the amount of time they are backed into the corner.

    In St. Louis’ case, why would they extend Kroenke’s lease (I’m assuming here that it wasn’t a one way option that Kroenke alone could take up)? The club has already said it wants truly staggering improvements… and St. Louis doesn’t seem to want (or perhaps have the ability) to pay.

    So why extend the agony? If he’s going to leave after trying to extract the maximum number of dollars from the city anyway (which I think most people believe he is going to do), why not push him out the door now? You save yourself (and possibly LA or some other city) a great deal of money in bribes.

    It’s not like Stl is likely to be high on the list of any future NFL team’s homes is it? What do they have to lose, really?

  5. Baahhh-baahhh, no-life sports sheep can’t understand such deep thinkin’, baahhh-baahhh I need my sports fix- give ‘em anything they demand!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

(Please note that personal attacks on other commenters are not permitted, and will be deleted.)

26,766 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>