|
Post by AzTex on Mar 5, 2015 13:57:35 GMT -8
I read the UT article this morning. It felt more like they were pushing for a self fulfilling prophecy. If enough people say the stadium is gaining momentum then maybe it will.
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 5, 2015 17:17:57 GMT -8
I read the UT article this morning. It felt more like they were pushing for a self fulfilling prophecy. If enough people say the stadium is gaining momentum then maybe it will. This. Every San Diego sports reporter -- print or media -- or talk show host is basically reporting to save their job at this point. When you have an NFL team you can have local hacks providing content for it. Without it, there's no reason not to go with "the national affiliate" to fill in the hours or pages with whatever generic football, hoops, baseball or hockey content. Consequently, you'll be seeing a lot of "momentum" segments and articles. Whether they are real or fiction is another matter entirely. The polling and ballot box will tell the tale on the public side of things.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Mar 5, 2015 20:23:17 GMT -8
I read the UT article this morning. It felt more like they were pushing for a self fulfilling prophecy. If enough people say the stadium is gaining momentum then maybe it will. I particularly enjoy all this "We need a new stadium" rhetoric coming from people who never do and never will have to buy a ticket to get in to the stadium. All these sports journos with their free press passes and free food in the press box telling everyone else we need to buy them a new office drives me crazy. How much is it going to cost me to take my kid to a chargers game at this new stadium? Arm. Leg. First born. Ever see Scott Kaplan walk in to viejas arena like he owns the place? Think he has ever bought a ticket to an Aztec game? These guys complain about Qualcomm stadium because they want cushier digs for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Mar 5, 2015 21:20:18 GMT -8
I believe that if the city donated the land to the chargers and donated the billion plus needed, and all concessions, the chargers would still find fault with the offering.
|
|
|
Post by OldSlowWhiteBaller on Mar 6, 2015 1:29:08 GMT -8
Don't think a new stadium will get done with city/county land donation/room tax/rental car tax increases. I have lived here since 1966 and love San Diego. It's just a awesome city to live in. I have been to 3 Chargers games in that time. Too many transplants from military and lot of population without roots to San Diego and throw in the folks who think the word TAX is a sin against humanity and it makes near damn impossible. I would support it for sure and I don't even go to games. Good luck to the Chargers in their new locale......wherever that may be.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 6, 2015 5:36:18 GMT -8
I read the UT article this morning. It felt more like they were pushing for a self fulfilling prophecy. If enough people say the stadium is gaining momentum then maybe it will. This. Every San Diego sports reporter -- print or media -- or talk show host is basically reporting to save their job at this point. When you have an NFL team you can have local hacks providing content for it. Without it, there's no reason not to go with "the national affiliate" to fill in the hours or pages with whatever generic football, hoops, baseball or hockey content. Consequently, you'll be seeing a lot of "momentum" segments and articles. Whether they are real or fiction is another matter entirely. The polling and ballot box will tell the tale on the public side of things. Looks like the UT is about to be sold to the LA Times. Doug Manchester's mandate on pro stadium coverage may be coming to an end. www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/mar/05/ticker-could-u-ts-new-owner-steal-chargers-l/#
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 6, 2015 6:07:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 6, 2015 8:19:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 6, 2015 9:52:32 GMT -8
Sounds like its all about the Benjamins and there are a whole lot more of them in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Mar 6, 2015 11:39:13 GMT -8
Sounds like its all about the Benjamins and there are a whole lot more of them in Los Angeles. This is shaping up to be rather interesting for the Chargers. They claim that 25% of their income is from LA/Orange. If it comes out that they had no interest in staying in SD and used Goldman Sachs to play STL against LA/SD, then the Chargers will lose any support left in SD should they leave. Since every poll I see shows they are the low man in the LA totem pole with the Rams and Raiders I would laugh my ass off for every empty game they hold. Seems to me that the money in LA is alluring, but I dont buy that success in LA for the Chargers is a sure thing.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 6, 2015 12:19:06 GMT -8
ENHANCED Q IS RIGHT RETRO FIT IF CHARGERS BOLT HOMEWARD "If the Chargers don’t hit pay dirt up north, if the City of Angels doesn’t open its pearly gates, then a surgically enhanced Qualcomm, San Diego’s political limit, could start looking to the Chargers like the partner they’d be demented to leave." www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/04/tp-enhanced-q-is-right-retro-fit-if-chargers-bolt/What is the U-T's position on the Chargers/Q again? Are we now conceding that the Chargers are indeed off to LA based on the Goldman Sachs financing, the pending purchase of the Carson site and the defense of the 25% fan base that comes from LA? Is our new position basically to renovate the Q and wait for the Bolts to come back from LA with their tail between their legs?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Mar 6, 2015 12:32:35 GMT -8
I read the UT article this morning. It felt more like they were pushing for a self fulfilling prophecy. If enough people say the stadium is gaining momentum then maybe it will. I particularly enjoy all this "We need a new stadium" rhetoric coming from people who never do and never will have to buy a ticket to get in to the stadium. All these sports journos with their free press passes and free food in the press box telling everyone else we need to buy them a new office drives me crazy. How much is it going to cost me to take my kid to a chargers game at this new stadium? Arm. Leg. First born. Ever see Scott Kaplan walk in to viejas arena like he owns the place? Think he has ever bought a ticket to an Aztec game? These guys complain about Qualcomm stadium because they want cushier digs for themselves. Need some pepper to go with that salt?
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Mar 6, 2015 12:36:44 GMT -8
ENHANCED Q IS RIGHT RETRO FIT IF CHARGERS BOLT HOMEWARD "If the Chargers don’t hit pay dirt up north, if the City of Angels doesn’t open its pearly gates, then a surgically enhanced Qualcomm, San Diego’s political limit, could start looking to the Chargers like the partner they’d be demented to leave." www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/04/tp-enhanced-q-is-right-retro-fit-if-chargers-bolt/What is the U-T's position on the Chargers/Q again? Are we now conceding that the Chargers are indeed off to LA based on the Goldman Sachs financing, the pending purchase of the Carson site and the defense of the 25% fan base that comes from LA? Is our new position basically to renovate the Q and wait for the Bolts to come back from LA with their tail between their legs? If the Chargers stay because a new stadium is being built in San Diego, then all will be forgiven. The public has a short memory.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 6, 2015 12:40:35 GMT -8
ENHANCED Q IS RIGHT RETRO FIT IF CHARGERS BOLT HOMEWARD "If the Chargers don’t hit pay dirt up north, if the City of Angels doesn’t open its pearly gates, then a surgically enhanced Qualcomm, San Diego’s political limit, could start looking to the Chargers like the partner they’d be demented to leave." www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/04/tp-enhanced-q-is-right-retro-fit-if-chargers-bolt/What is the U-T's position on the Chargers/Q again? Are we now conceding that the Chargers are indeed off to LA based on the Goldman Sachs financing, the pending purchase of the Carson site and the defense of the 25% fan base that comes from LA? Is our new position basically to renovate the Q and wait for the Bolts to come back from LA with their tail between their legs? If the Chargers stay because a new stadium is being built in San Diego, then all will be forgiven. The public has a short memory. "For now, San Diego must wait and see if the Chargers, intrigued by a new stadium in a glittering metro market, return from Carson (or Inglewood) as a team that’s spent its wanderlust, ready to renew marriage vows." www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/04/tp-enhanced-q-is-right-retro-fit-if-chargers-bolt/
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 6, 2015 16:30:36 GMT -8
The stadium situation is very fluid. Honestly, before this week I thought the Chargers would end up getting a stadium built somewhere in San Diego. Today, I believe it is highly unlikely a new stadium gets built downtown or at the Q site unless the Mayor has some magical political power I am not aware of. Actually, Mark Fabiani put it best in regards to the probability of getting a stadium built in San Diego; "It is a Hail Mary attempt." This week... A paltry showing of 3,000 fans showed on Monday for the open forum primarily to tail gate with very minimal constructive input/ideas about how to build a new stadium. It actually made the Carson press conference look good. Regardless of whether the Chargers and Raiders move to a new stadium to be built in Carson, California, the Chargers will own a large piece of land there. “There are no contingencies, there is no option,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani told the Times. “We have to buy it. Starwood has to sell it.” profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/05/land-for-carson-stadium-will-be-purchased-this-month/Mark Davis came out and publicly discussed the 50/50 partnership with the Chargers. blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2015/03/06/raiders-owner-mark-davis-tk-show-ready-free-agency-carson-plan-came-together-chargers-oakland-discussions/Goldman Sachs backs the Chargers financially for the move to Los Angeles and financially want them in LA! espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12410526/goldman-sachs-prepared-finance-chargers-possible-relocation-los-angelesvoiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/goldman-sachs-wants-chargers-los-angeles/Steve Cushman (heading convention center financing), Steve Johnson (VP of PR SD Convention Center) and the hoteliers all oppose the downtown JMI stadium/Convention center expansion. Both Steves have said as much on AM 1090. And don't forget about the 5-7 years the MTS bus yard would take to clean up and relocate. A Mission Valley site won't work even if a developer can even be found to take on the project. It may have worked in 2009 when the Chargers were going to build the stadium and finance it but things have changed. The cost to build a stadium has gone up significantly. Mission Valley since 2009 has been under construction with the addition of housing and retail stores. Therefore the tax revenue that was going to be generated to help pay for the stadium with housing and retail development is not likely. Mission Valley just won't support much more of that type of development. Not to mention what would have to be done to accommodate the traffic that would be generated on Friars, I-8 & I-15. And don't forget all the environmental cleanup, reports and probable lawsuits that would ensue with that type of plan. A retrofit/refurbishment probably wouldn't work either. I don't know of any official report but that stadium would have to be brought up from 1960 standards to 2015 standard. That includes very costly structural improvements that are up to date with current earthquake retrofits. It may be cheaper but it will not be a long term solution; it will merely be another band aid. The only thing the Q needs is high explosives. There are very few places SDSU can expand and the Q site is pretty much the only site that makes sense for the university. We have already outgrown our current footprint. Can you imagine what it will be like in 20-30 years from now? Honestly, the downtown site makes the most sense. But I sm not optimistic that the a Chargers, politicians, convention center and hoteliers will work together to find a common solution. Certainly I am biased because IMO the best use of the Q site is for an SDSU West Campus expansion.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 6, 2015 17:17:01 GMT -8
In regards to the 2009 Stadium Proposals put forth by the Chargers ... keeping in mind this was during the early years of the "Great Recession",
The Qualcomm site proposal called for: $100 million from San Diego State University $200 million from the NFL (at a time when the G-3 program has been exhausted and San Diego would've only been entitled $100 million in League loans) $350 million in taxpayer funding, which would: -require the courts to designate Mission Valley as a “blighted area” under the law - require the State of California and numerous other hard-hit government entities to give up their share of several hundred million dollars in property taxes so that the money could be spent on the stadium and the related infrastructure.
The plan also called for some 6,000 condos and nearly 4 million square feet of office space ... BTW, this plan was not the Chargers', but that of Perry Dealy / River Waterfront Development Team -- but was based on the 2003 Chargers redevelopment plan that called for the City to turn the entire Qualcomm site over to the Chargers for redevelopment (including 6000 condos and 173,000 square feet of retail space) in addition to NFL loans, and tax payer funding. I don't recall if either of these plans called for the Chargers themselves to add their own money to the project.
It was also in 2009, that the Chargers first brought up the Downtown Stadium plan ... so, they were not actually supporters of any plan that called for a stadium in Mission Valley. In fact, it was their position that the Mission Valley and Sports Arena sites should be sold to fund the Downtown Stadium. Of course they left out the details of the cost of relocating the bus yard or the length of time that process would take.
The Downtown plan changed when the Centre City Development Corp. was dissolved (along with all other redevelopment agencies in CA) ... it was then that the Chargers tried to sell the Convention Center /Stadium idea.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Mar 6, 2015 19:02:58 GMT -8
Chargers president Dean Spanos, according to multiple sources, is believed to have accepted that the downtown site is a non-starter.
And it only took that rocket scientist 14 years to figure it out. Get your facts right, if I am not mistaken, the very first proposal by the Chargers was for a build on the current site and that the city would only be on the hook for about 1/5 of what it would be now, BUT due the great work of our city officials an agreement was never made.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Mar 6, 2015 19:07:53 GMT -8
In regards to the 2009 Stadium Proposals put forth by the Chargers ... keeping in mind this was during the early years of the "Great Recession", The Qualcomm site proposal called for: $100 million from San Diego State University $200 million from the NFL (at a time when the G-3 program has been exhausted and San Diego would've only been entitled $100 million in League loans) $350 million in taxpayer funding, which would: -require the courts to designate Mission Valley as a “blighted area” under the law - require the State of California and numerous other hard-hit government entities to give up their share of several hundred million dollars in property taxes so that the money could be spent on the stadium and the related infrastructure. The plan also called for some 6,000 condos and nearly 4 million square feet of office space ... BTW, this plan was not the Chargers', but that of Perry Dealy / River Waterfront Development Team -- but was based on the 2003 Chargers redevelopment plan that called for the City to turn the entire Qualcomm site over to the Chargers for redevelopment (including 6000 condos and 173,000 square feet of retail space) in addition to NFL loans, and tax payer funding. I don't recall if either of these plans called for the Chargers themselves to add their own money to the project. It was also in 2009, that the Chargers first brought up the Downtown Stadium plan ... so, they were not actually supporters of any plan that called for a stadium in Mission Valley. In fact, it was their position that the Mission Valley and Sports Arena sites should be sold to fund the Downtown Stadium. Of course they left out the details of the cost of relocating the bus yard or the length of time that process would take. The Downtown plan changed when the Centre City Development Corp. was dissolved (along with all other redevelopment agencies in CA) ... it was then that the Chargers tried to sell the Convention Center /Stadium idea. Sorry if my memory is bad but the 2003 deal I thought was that the Chargers would get the entire development done and that the only thing from the city they were asking for was infrastructure improvements (roads) and the ability to develop the land at a cheap rate? Again my memory might be bad but I think the number projected at the time for the city was about 150 mil.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 6, 2015 19:22:20 GMT -8
In regards to the 2009 Stadium Proposals put forth by the Chargers ... keeping in mind this was during the early years of the "Great Recession", The Qualcomm site proposal called for: $100 million from San Diego State University $200 million from the NFL (at a time when the G-3 program has been exhausted and San Diego would've only been entitled $100 million in League loans) $350 million in taxpayer funding, which would: -require the courts to designate Mission Valley as a “blighted area” under the law - require the State of California and numerous other hard-hit government entities to give up their share of several hundred million dollars in property taxes so that the money could be spent on the stadium and the related infrastructure. The plan also called for some 6,000 condos and nearly 4 million square feet of office space ... BTW, this plan was not the Chargers', but that of Perry Dealy / River Waterfront Development Team -- but was based on the 2003 Chargers redevelopment plan that called for the City to turn the entire Qualcomm site over to the Chargers for redevelopment (including 6000 condos and 173,000 square feet of retail space) in addition to NFL loans, and tax payer funding. I don't recall if either of these plans called for the Chargers themselves to add their own money to the project. It was also in 2009, that the Chargers first brought up the Downtown Stadium plan ... so, they were not actually supporters of any plan that called for a stadium in Mission Valley. In fact, it was their position that the Mission Valley and Sports Arena sites should be sold to fund the Downtown Stadium. Of course they left out the details of the cost of relocating the bus yard or the length of time that process would take. The Downtown plan changed when the Centre City Development Corp. was dissolved (along with all other redevelopment agencies in CA) ... it was then that the Chargers tried to sell the Convention Center /Stadium idea. Sorry if my memory is bad but the 2003 deal I thought was that the Chargers would get the entire development done and that the only thing from the city they were asking for was infrastructure improvements (roads) and the ability to develop the land at a cheap rate? Again my memory might be bad but I think the number projected at the time for the city was about 150 mil. If I am remembering things correctly, the problem with the 2003 plan was that the City was being asked to GIVE the Qualcomm property to the Chargers to redevelop and then was asked to fund the infrastructure improvements on top ... the selling point was the increased property tax revenue and retail that the development would generate. CITIZENS’ TASK FORCE ON CHARGERS ISSUES (2003)
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Mar 6, 2015 19:27:09 GMT -8
Sorry if my memory is bad but the 2003 deal I thought was that the Chargers would get the entire development done and that the only thing from the city they were asking for was infrastructure improvements (roads) and the ability to develop the land at a cheap rate? Again my memory might be bad but I think the number projected at the time for the city was about 150 mil. If I am remembering things correctly, the problem with the 2003 plan was that the City was being asked to GIVE the Qualcomm property to the Chargers to redevelop and then was asked to fund the infrastructure improvements on top ... the selling point was the increased property tax revenue and retail that the development would generate. CITIZENS’ TASK FORCE ON CHARGERS ISSUES (2003)Thanks, great info. I will read the report. BTW, any info on what it would cost the city to demo the stadium and prep the land once the Chargers vacate and the Aztecs lease is up? They are not going to want to pay to keep it up after the the Chargers leave.
|
|