|
|
Post by aztecbruce on Sept 25, 2011 11:11:38 GMT -8
www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/25/xxxfourth-and-long/Amazing to me that some including =Boob can't see the validity that the tax payers pay at least a portion of the bill especially when it means jobs, tax revenue, and keeping the Bolts, along w/giving the Aztecs a place to play that would help recruiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Sept 25, 2011 11:43:32 GMT -8
The latest proposal from the Chargers is doomed to fail. I think it's designed that way too.
The convention center and hoteliers have made it known that they don't want anything to do with the Chargers yet the Chargers are pursuing it anyways.
It's all theater.
The Chargers are already gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Sept 25, 2011 12:52:05 GMT -8
After reading this article and looking at it from an outsider's perspective, Fabiani's downtown proposal makes sense. The city could easily lock them in for many years and that would be a win-win. If the Spanos have to pay an inequitable share to get this done then it would be pointless. Why? Because they wouldn't have the money to build a decent team and you'd be stuck with a s#!++y team and lousy attendance for years. Salaries in any organization is a major expense. I laugh when posters say well these "billionaires" could afford it. They're not a charity organization and neither are they fools. However, their success would generate the city untold revenues and that's something the naysayers won't admit to.
The party that runs the convention center would lose their automomy so that's probably why they're fighting it. My guess is they have "money" behind them too. I agree it would be stupid to build two separate entities when they could be combined under one roof, so to speak.
Forget the politics or who's stuffing money in pockets. The city has to play it like what happened in Washington DC when default threatened our country. Decide which side brings in more money and long term employment for the city. The combination stadium/convention center, it's a no brainer.
My $0.02
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 25, 2011 14:33:07 GMT -8
The latest proposal from the Chargers is doomed to fail. I think it's designed that way too. The convention center and hoteliers have made it known that they don't want anything to do with the Chargers yet the Chargers are pursuing it anyways. It's all theater. The Chargers are already gone. Agree 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 25, 2011 16:27:04 GMT -8
We missed the best idea! The present site!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deja Vu U Monty on Sept 25, 2011 16:41:35 GMT -8
We missed the best idea! The present site! I haven't lived in San Diego for a long time now but wouldn't that work if someone cleaned up the pollution, did the infrastructure, and gave the Spanoses the surrounding land to increase their billions? Even if they had to give SDSU a small portion of it for expansion. I mean San Diego is too broke to do anything with that land. And the economy is so bad it would be tough to sell with all the environmental restrictions, costs, and infrastructure needed. Lose the Chargers and make the Aztecs play at Mesa College would be a death Nell for the county. Nothing left but the miserable slobs at Petco. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 25, 2011 17:10:28 GMT -8
www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/25/xxxfourth-and-long/Amazing to me that some including =Boob can't see the validity that the tax payers pay at least a portion of the bill especially when it means jobs, tax revenue, and keeping the Bolts, along w/giving the Aztecs a place to play that would help recruiting. Outside of construction most of the jobs would be minimum wage and seasonal. The Spanosites have always proposed the City own the stadium, meaning no tax revenue outside of sales tax. As for keeping the Chargers I am a fan but I'm also someone who has no desire to make the Spanosites richer at the cost of the taxpayers. The only thing I'd be in favor of would be giving the business the land with them paying the full cost of building the stadium. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Sept 25, 2011 18:55:25 GMT -8
An Aztec Village with 50-60k stadium at The Qualcom site would be ideal. You could put in student housing, retail and build some grass area around the stadium for pre game picnics. All a 5 min trolley ride from the main campus.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 25, 2011 19:37:33 GMT -8
An Aztec Village with 50-60k stadium at The Qualcom site would be ideal. You could put in student housing, retail and build some grass area around the stadium for pre game picnics. All a 5 min trolley ride from the main campus. That is way too sensible. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 25, 2011 21:05:19 GMT -8
I am just appreciative that the Chargers are not playing the Aztecs will fold card anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Sept 26, 2011 9:46:01 GMT -8
www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/25/xxxfourth-and-long/Amazing to me that some including =Boob can't see the validity that the tax payers pay at least a portion of the bill especially when it means jobs, tax revenue, and keeping the Bolts, along w/giving the Aztecs a place to play that would help recruiting. Outside of construction most of the jobs would be minimum wage and seasonal. The Spanosites have always proposed the City own the stadium, meaning no tax revenue outside of sales tax. As for keeping the Chargers I am a fan but I'm also someone who has no desire to make the Spanosites richer at the cost of the taxpayers. The only thing I'd be in favor of would be giving the business the land with them paying the full cost of building the stadium. =Bob First of all, the Spanoses are billionaires BECAUSE they own the Chargers, not the other way around. Last I checked, the Spanoses were worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.3 billion. According to Forbes' latest study, the Chargers account for $920 million of that. Alex Spanos bought the Chargers in the mid 80's for somewhere around $85 million, and without the team they'd be just another rich family. Keep in mind that that does NOT mean that they have $920 million in liquid assets that they can do whatever they want with. All of that money is tied up in tangible assets, complete with expenses. The only way to turn that value into liquid cash is to sell the team, and they're not going to do that. The other thing is--and Fabiani mentioned it in his remarks in the piece--that although the NFL is raking in billions of dollars in revenues (mostly through the TV contract) that does not mean that they are raking in billions of dollars in profits. There's a big difference between revenue and profit. Most teams, including and especially the Chargers, are lucky to make a few million in profit. Estimates have the Chargers at around $10 million in profits per year after expenses. That ain't exactly printing money. If we were talking about someone like Anschutz or Roski, who are both worth tens of billions of dollars or more each, then the argument of having them build their own stadium would be valid--which is exactly what Roski is proposing, and sort of what Anschutz is proposing, although he wants a lot of public money thrown into it for the convention center part of his plan. But Dean Spanos is not Ed Roski or Phillip Anschutz. He ain't exactly poor, but he doesn't have the resources to do what those others can by themselves either. And if you buy the assertion that the team is really more of a community asset that is shared in one way or another by EVERYONE in SD County, then it makes sense for the public to pitch in something, particularly if it's structured in a way to make money for the City/County or both. That's my $.02. CORRECTION: Click on the Chargers line (they are ranked the 23rd most valuable NFL franchise) and Forbes has the Spanos family net worth at $1.1 billion, and says that Alex bought the team in 1984 for $70 million. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 26, 2011 10:08:54 GMT -8
hmm, isn't there operating income (defined as ebita) #11 in the NFL with $34.2M.
How is it that they are suffering playing in the Q?
|
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Sept 26, 2011 10:17:44 GMT -8
hmm, isn't there operating income (defined as ebita) #11 in the NFL with $34.2M. How is it that they are suffering playing in the Q? Note #5: Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. |
|
|
|
Post by vision on Sept 26, 2011 10:22:10 GMT -8
telemarketing company
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecfred on Sept 26, 2011 10:28:08 GMT -8
hmm, isn't there operating income (defined as ebita) #11 in the NFL with $34.2M. How is it that they are suffering playing in the Q? It's not what they are making. It's what they could be making and what others are making. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 26, 2011 10:36:24 GMT -8
hmm, isn't there operating income (defined as ebita) #11 in the NFL with $34.2M. How is it that they are suffering playing in the Q? Note #5: Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Ya, EBITA. I noted that. Since the Chargers don't own hard property that is 99.9% of the P&L. So they are making huge coin. |
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 26, 2011 10:38:41 GMT -8
hmm, isn't there operating income (defined as ebita) #11 in the NFL with $34.2M. How is it that they are suffering playing in the Q? It's not what they are making. It's what they could be making and what others are making. So Being #11 out of 30+ teams equates to being uncompetitive? They want more coin, God Bless, but how is the Q hurting them? |
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Sept 26, 2011 10:52:39 GMT -8
It's not what they are making. It's what they could be making and what others are making. So Being #11 out of 30+ teams equates to being uncompetitive? They want more coin, God Bless, but how is the Q hurting them? Operating income fluctuates a lot from year to year. And they've said all along that it's not about their ability to be competitive NOW, but rather their ability to be competitive in the long term. Their franchise is valued at #23 out of 32 and falling. And the income gap between those at the top and those from the middle down is growing.......it has the potential to become a MLB type of situation where the Red Sox and Yankees have all the money, and the rest have to fight for table scraps. They're trying to AVOID that scenario. They want to maintain their franchise value at somewhere in the middle. That will allow them to remain competitive over the long haul. They know that as long as they're in San Diego they'll never get anywhere close to the top of the list, and that's perfectly fine. Doesn't mean they can't be a successful franchise. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 26, 2011 11:05:19 GMT -8
Outside of construction most of the jobs would be minimum wage and seasonal. The Spanosites have always proposed the City own the stadium, meaning no tax revenue outside of sales tax. As for keeping the Chargers I am a fan but I'm also someone who has no desire to make the Spanosites richer at the cost of the taxpayers. The only thing I'd be in favor of would be giving the business the land with them paying the full cost of building the stadium. =Bob First of all, the Spanoses are billionaires BECAUSE they own the Chargers, not the other way around. Last I checked, the Spanoses were worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.3 billion. According to Forbes' latest study, the Chargers account for $920 million of that. Alex Spanos bought the Chargers in the mid 80's for somewhere around $85 million, and without the team they'd be just another rich family. Keep in mind that that does NOT mean that they have $920 million in liquid assets that they can do whatever they want with. All of that money is tied up in tangible assets, complete with expenses. The only way to turn that value into liquid cash is to sell the team, and they're not going to do that. The other thing is--and Fabiani mentioned it in his remarks in the piece--that although the NFL is raking in billions of dollars in revenues (mostly through the TV contract) that does not mean that they are raking in billions of dollars in profits. There's a big difference between revenue and profit. Most teams, including and especially the Chargers, are lucky to make a few million in profit. Estimates have the Chargers at around $10 million in profits per year after expenses. That ain't exactly printing money. If we were talking about someone like Anschutz or Roski, who are both worth tens of billions of dollars or more each, then the argument of having them build their own stadium would be valid--which is exactly what Roski is proposing, and sort of what Anschutz is proposing, although he wants a lot of public money thrown into it for the convention center part of his plan. But Dean Spanos is not Ed Roski or Phillip Anschutz. He ain't exactly poor, but he doesn't have the resources to do what those others can by themselves either. And if you buy the assertion that the team is really more of a community asset that is shared in one way or another by EVERYONE in SD County, then it makes sense for the public to pitch in something, particularly if it's structured in a way to make money for the City/County or both. That's my $.02. CORRECTION: Click on the Chargers line (they are ranked the 23rd most valuable NFL franchise) and Forbes has the Spanos family net worth at $1.1 billion, and says that Alex bought the team in 1984 for $70 million. Let me see if I understand you. Since the Spanos family does not have enough money to build a stadium, but others do, it is right that the taxpayers should subsidize the Spano family. Is that what you are really saying? Here is a thought. If only the citizens of the City of San Diego are on the hook for tax dollars, Chargers should give them a price break on tickets. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Sept 26, 2011 11:16:58 GMT -8
Let me see if I understand you. Since the Spanos family does not have enough money to build a stadium, but others do, it is right that the taxpayers should subsidize the Spano family. Is that what you are really saying? Here is a thought. If only the citizens of the City of San Diego are on the hook for tax dollars, Chargers should give them a price break on tickets. What do you think? If this city's not willing to do what other cities have, then we should tell them so right now so that they can pack up and move to LA for the 2012 season. It's that simple. San Diego is not Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., or even Dallas. EVERY other city has had to chip in SOMETHING. That includes Philadelphia and Chicago. Even Green Bay. So if San Diego does not believe that having the Chargers here in SD County holds any kind of real value to the City/County, then say so and be done with it. We can then put an end to this charade and part ways amicably. At some point it has to come down to what kind of value having an NFL or MLB franchise has to the SD community as a whole, and whether or not having such a franchise makes sense intrinsically and financially for the community as a whole. If it does, great. Help out, and find a way to do it so that the City/County profits from it. If not, sayonara. |
|
