Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
How about the San Antonio Chargers?
According to Steve Hartman (1360 AM) a high-ranking Rams official says the talks between Kroenke and Spanos have "stalled". http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/25/r…— January 25, 2016 10:18 p.m.
How about the San Antonio Chargers?
So if the Chargers are sold, is the permission slip to move to LA from the NFL completely transferable to a new ownership group? Does anybody know about the wording of the permission to move to LA? If ownership changes would the timing and other terms of the permission period still be the same?— January 24, 2016 7:15 a.m.
How about the San Antonio Chargers?
I think you are on to something Visduh. I just checked ebay - I didn't see any listings for "NFL team with rights to move to LA" starting bid $1.5B. As you say, the marketing / negotiation process for sale of an NFL team would be a lot more secretive than that.— January 24, 2016 7:11 a.m.
How about the San Antonio Chargers?
Something does seem odd. Keeping the team and moving to LA under the terms that now are in place doesn't seem to be the best option for Spanos - but based on rumors that seems to be the option Spanos is pursuing most vigorously. I haven't heard much about Spanos trying to sell the team or about Spanos re-engaging negotiations with SD (and starting the big P.R. campaign for their taxpayer handout). So looking from outside it seems like moving to L.A. while the Spanos family still owns the team is not a good option but that seems to be the only option they are pursuing. It seems either Spanos is making a mistake or there is critical information we don't have.— January 23, 2016 9:41 a.m.
How about the San Antonio Chargers?
So the stadium may end up costing $3B by the time all is said and done, meaning if the Chargers are equal partners they need to come up with $1.5B to be an equal partner PLUS $0.55B for relocation fee. So $2B total to move to LA. Even if (HUGE IF) they can get $2B financing is that all worth it? Would the value of the Chargers really increase by $2B moving from SD / QCOM stadium into Inglewood / Stan's World stadium?— January 23, 2016 8:04 a.m.
How about the San Antonio Chargers?
There was a discussion thread last story about what constraints there are upon Kroenke in his negotiations with Spanos (or Davis) for setting the terms of partnership / lease to the Chargers (or Raiders) in LA? I thought that Kroenke originally wanted the LA market to himself but the NFL owners forced him to agree to share with the Chargers or Raiders as part of the agreement. But if Kroenke can truly set ANY terms he wants then he could just insist on absurd compensation, e.g. charge $1B rent per year. Nobody would possibly take that deal. I would think there must be some agreement in place between Kroenke and the other owners regarding what terms Kroenke would have to accept. Don Bauder made this same point on an earlier thread but I'm not sure if the question was resolved.— January 23, 2016 7:16 a.m.
How about the San Antonio Chargers?
A number of well-known sports journalists believe the Chargers may be better off staying in SD than moving in with Stan Kroenke in LA. The relocation fee to LA is huge and they will not be getting what they want with the Inglewood site. But perhaps most importantly, nobody in LA cares about the Chargers. "The San Diego Chargers should stay right where they are", Bill Plaschke, LA Times http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-chargers-… "Should the Chargers stay put"? Mike Florio, NBC http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/20/s…— January 23, 2016 4:06 a.m.
Qualcomm...a "patent troll"?
I don't agree with Staff. I think the patent system is largely obsolete and needs major overhaul. The patent system was devised during a time when a single inventor could come up with some clever idea, manufacture it, and sell products based on that clever idea. 200 years ago patents protected inventors. I think that the "small inventor" is largely a thing of the past and nowadays is really just a euphamism for "lawyers" Now I think that technology has evolved I think there is a fundamental problem that it's too easy for patent trolls to look for obvious "inventions" they can patent and then extort money from legitimate businesses that do real work. Some of the reforms I would like to see include: 1. No "court shopping". Put East Texas patent troll scammers out of business. Perhaps restrict patent cases to a handful of courts nationwide - maybe 10 or so. Ideally these should be located near technology centers - Bay Area, Boston, etc. 2. Make losing plaintiffs pay defendant legal fees (unless they have strong arguments that they have a legitimate case) 3. Restrict monetary damages to what the plaintiffs earn (or might potentially earn) from actually selling products THEMSELVES. No damages to "non-practicing entities" period. If you don't make and sell products using your patent (or can show that you are planning to) then you should get ANY damages from someone else using your patent. That's my opinion.— January 22, 2016 6:45 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
"Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti wants Chargers to stay put" "The mayor of Los Angeles won't be advocating for the addition of a second NFL team. Instead, Eric Garcetti says he would like to see the Chargers stay in San Diego. .... Garcetti said his advice to other mayors is, 'Don't be so desperate for a sports franchise and don't put your city in debt for decades.' " http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14612391/los-an…— January 20, 2016 10:10 p.m.
Qualcomm...a "patent troll"?
Scott Graham II: I'm not quite sure I understand your point. I'm basically saying that the public (taxpayers) put a lot of money into universities (esp. public universities) and it seems to me that if that money creates intellectual property with some monetary value than the money should somehow be returned to the public - as a refund to taxpayers, lower tuition, etc.— January 20, 2016 10:03 p.m.