|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 6, 2015 19:35:01 GMT -8
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. I don't know what the plans are for Qualcomm after 2018 ... If SDSU buys the entire property from the City/Water District -- all 166 acres, stadium and all, then it is for SDSU to decide what to do with it. As it stands now, there is something like $80M in deferred maintenance on the stadium that could be addressed with an overall renovation. There is just under $15M per year in annual maintenance -- some of which are the rebates to the Chargers that actually has the City paying the Chargers to play at the Q (the result of the renegotiation of the ticket guarantee and ADA compliance issues).
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Mar 6, 2015 20:10:46 GMT -8
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. I don't know what the plans are for Qualcomm after 2018 ... If SDSU buys the entire property from the City/Water District -- all 166 acres, stadium and all, then it is for SDSU to decide what to do with it. As it stands now, there is something like $80M in deferred maintenance on the stadium that could be addressed with an overall renovation. There is just under $15M per year in annual maintenance -- some of which are the rebates to the Chargers that actually has the City paying the Chargers to play at the Q (the result of the renegotiation of the ticket guarantee and ADA compliance issues). Thanks HNT, I love data, emotions and misinformation due to simple ignorance drive 95% of the rhetoric out there right now, we need to be talking actual measurables and projections based upon data (although I am aware they are also subjective) to make the most informed decision out there in regards to what "number" makes this a WIN-WIN proposition for both parties.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 7, 2015 9:10:15 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 9:21:01 GMT -8
This isn't news. This is and has been the working assumption. The issue at hand is where the public money comes from and what's the ROI.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 7, 2015 13:11:34 GMT -8
This isn't news. This is and has been the working assumption. The issue at hand is where the public money comes from and what's the ROI. Sure it's news since the price of building the stadium in his analysis is way higher than any stadium proposal I've seen. Hence it could change the % substantially.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcat on Mar 7, 2015 13:20:52 GMT -8
Mission Valley is the only location that makes any sense for all the reasons listed, I would like the Task Force to check with the Chargers first though and make sure that isn't a deal killer for them.
Why waste all this time and effort preparing a Mission Valley solution if Chargers won't play there? They need to know if Spanos is on board or not and maybe the combination of the Chargers, NFL, County, Private, SDSU etc. can pull it off.
Chargers better be damn grateful if they get the city, county and SDSU to pony up money for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 16:02:12 GMT -8
This isn't news. This is and has been the working assumption. The issue at hand is where the public money comes from and what's the ROI. Sure it's news since the price of building the stadium in his analysis is way higher than any stadium proposal I've seen. Hence it could change the % substantially. Made up numbers aren't news Bruce. The percentages quoted however align roughly with what has been talked about for years.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 7, 2015 16:05:25 GMT -8
Sure it's news since the price of building the stadium in his analysis is way higher than any stadium proposal I've seen. Hence it could change the % substantially. Made up numbers aren't news Bruce. The percentages quoted however align roughly with what has been talked about for years. My point is that if a stadium is only $800 Million, the % left over after Spanos/NFL is roughly 50% (not 65%). And that's just assuming there isn't any money from naming rights, PSLs etc... My belief is that a stadium in MV should run about $1Bill-$1.2 Bill based on the super structures currently being built in Minnesota and Atlanta as well as the premier stadium in Silicon Valley, where Real Estate and labor rates are pricier to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Mar 7, 2015 23:42:31 GMT -8
That is based on a $1.5B stadium. Only the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey would cost more. You can build one like the University of Phoenix stadium for under half that. The last proposal downtown was for a 62.5K seat stadium expandable to over 70K for special events. Glendale has already hosted two Super Bowls with their stadium and Glendale ain't San Diego in terms of a vacation destination. You can even get the retractable soft roof with the new stadium that would allow San Diego to be a destination for Final Fours and be within a budget of $600M or so.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 9, 2015 11:21:39 GMT -8
Not sure if this is the right place to post this ... I honestly don't understand the Chargers position that PSLs won't work in San Diego.
Assuming the PSLs are for a given term (say 10 years for the sake of argument) then the issue is whether the Chargers will demand full funds up front or will accept payments over time (monthly or annually)
Again, for arguments' sake we take season ticket holders and divide that into increments of 10K based somewhat on seating in an 70K stadium
Upper View: 10K @ $500 PSL = $5M Lower View: 10K @ $1000 PSL = $10M Loge Level: 10K @ $2500 PSL = $25M Plaza Level: 10K @ $5000 PSL = $50M Field Level: 10K @ $7500 PSL = $75M Club Level: 10K @ $10,000 PSL = $100M
Total of $265M in PSLs without specifying End Zone, Red Zone or Sideline for the Plaza or Field Sections so it is just an approximation. If the Chargers Accepted annual or monthly payments for the PSLs then the proposition becomes even easier to "afford" for example, a $10K PSL paid over 10 years would mean $1000/yr or $84/month
If added to the $400M of their initial funding ($200M team / $200M NFL) and Naming Rights of at least $135M ($6.75M x 20 years -- anything over this amount is the teams to keep) This would account for $800M in construction costs and could be financed through Goldman Sachs
The City and/or County would be responsible for providing the property depending on location and associated costs of the location like: Moving a bus yard from downtown for $150M -or- Buying 80 Acres of Mission Valley from the water dept for $150M -or- Addressing FAA issues regarding height limits at El Cajon Speedway
My point is that the Chargers are not being honest about what is possible and about what they can afford to help pay for in terms of a new stadium ...
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Mar 9, 2015 12:06:41 GMT -8
Not sure if this is the right place to post this ... I honestly don't understand the Chargers position that PSLs won't work in San Diego. Assuming the PSLs are for a given term (say 10 years for the sake of argument) then the issue is whether the Chargers will demand full funds up front or will accept payments over time (monthly or annually) Again, for arguments' sake we take season ticket holders and divide that into increments of 10K based somewhat on seating in an 70K stadium Upper View: 10K @ $500 PSL = $5M Lower View: 10K @ $1000 PSL = $10M Loge Level: 10K @ $2500 PSL = $25M Plaza Level: 10K @ $5000 PSL = $50M Field Level: 10K @ $7500 PSL = $75M Club Level: 10K @ $10,000 PSL = $100M Total of $265M in PSLs without specifying End Zone, Red Zone or Sideline for the Plaza or Field Sections so it is just an approximation. If the Chargers Accepted annual or monthly payments for the PSLs then the proposition becomes even easier to "afford" for example, a $10K PSL paid over 10 years would mean $1000/yr or $84/month If added to their $400M in their initial funding ($200M team / $200M NFL) and Naming Rights of at least $135M ($6.75M x 20 years, anything over this amount is the teams to keep) This would account for $800M in construction costs and could be financed through Goldman Sachs The City and/or County would be responsible for providing the property depending on location and associated costs of the location like: Moving a bus yard from downtown for $150M -or- Buying 80 Acres of Mission Valley from the water dept for $150M -or- Addressing FAA issues regarding height limits at El Cajon Speedway My point is that the Chargers are not being honest about what is possible about what they can afford to help pay for in terms of a new stadium ... For as populous as San Diego County is, do they have enough dedicated fans to buyout the PSLs? Plus those who do have the money, how many are sports fans in this leisure city? The Raiders couldn't sell theirs out so Oakland had to eat them. Part of the sweetheart deal they gave the Raiders to lure them back. The 49ers sold out theirs mainly to the silicon valley investors in Santa Clara. Perks for their clients and execs. The Chargers do have a valid point, provided they'll offer a reasonable selling price. If you're confident the Chargers could sell them out then San Diego should guarantee a clause like Oakland did to cover any unsold PSLs. Fair enough?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 12:28:59 GMT -8
Made up numbers aren't news Bruce. The percentages quoted however align roughly with what has been talked about for years. My point is that if a stadium is only $800 Million, the % left over after Spanos/NFL is roughly 50% (not 65%). And that's just assuming there isn't any money from naming rights, PSLs etc... My belief is that a stadium in MV should run about $1Bill-$1.2 Bill based on the super structures currently being built in Minnesota and Atlanta as well as the premier stadium in Silicon Valley, where Real Estate and labor rates are pricier to say the least. You're making up numbers too. I know this because everybody is making up numbers until someone in authority comes out with the actual numbers. That has yet to happen.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 9, 2015 12:39:28 GMT -8
Not sure if this is the right place to post this ... I honestly don't understand the Chargers position that PSLs won't work in San Diego. Assuming the PSLs are for a given term (say 10 years for the sake of argument) then the issue is whether the Chargers will demand full funds up front or will accept payments over time (monthly or annually) Again, for arguments' sake we take season ticket holders and divide that into increments of 10K based somewhat on seating in an 70K stadium Upper View: 10K @ $500 PSL = $5M Lower View: 10K @ $1000 PSL = $10M Loge Level: 10K @ $2500 PSL = $25M Plaza Level: 10K @ $5000 PSL = $50M Field Level: 10K @ $7500 PSL = $75M Club Level: 10K @ $10,000 PSL = $100M Total of $265M in PSLs without specifying End Zone, Red Zone or Sideline for the Plaza or Field Sections so it is just an approximation. If the Chargers Accepted annual or monthly payments for the PSLs then the proposition becomes even easier to "afford" for example, a $10K PSL paid over 10 years would mean $1000/yr or $84/month If added to their $400M in their initial funding ($200M team / $200M NFL) and Naming Rights of at least $135M ($6.75M x 20 years, anything over this amount is the teams to keep) This would account for $800M in construction costs and could be financed through Goldman Sachs The City and/or County would be responsible for providing the property depending on location and associated costs of the location like: Moving a bus yard from downtown for $150M -or- Buying 80 Acres of Mission Valley from the water dept for $150M -or- Addressing FAA issues regarding height limits at El Cajon Speedway My point is that the Chargers are not being honest about what is possible about what they can afford to help pay for in terms of a new stadium ... For as populous as San Diego County is, do they have enough dedicated fans to buyout the PSLs? Plus those who do have the money, how many are sports fans in this leisure city? The Raiders couldn't sell theirs out so Oakland had to eat them. Part of the sweetheart deal they gave the Raiders to lure them back. The 49ers sold out theirs mainly to the silicon valley investors in Santa Clara. Perks for their clients and execs. The Chargers do have a valid point, provided they'll offer a reasonable selling price. If you're confident the Chargers could sell them out then San Diego should guarantee a clause like Oakland did to cover any unsold PSLs. Fair enough? No ... that is too much like a ticket guarantee that depends on the Chargers to put a product on the field that keeps their fans by their conduct (and not getting paid regardless of play) The point of the post is to demonstrate that those season ticket holders that are advocating for keeping the team in SD have the ability to help fund the stadium directly. Even the $10K PSLs (the highest in my scenario) would add $1000 to the cost of Club Level season ($1400-$2950) every year for 10 years or as little as $84/mo for 10 years. I should add that the Chargers have 15-16 different categories for ticket pricing the lowest being $390/Season ... I could revise my estimate in half and put forth $125M in PSLs, but if the Chargers can't convince 30K fans to invest in the team beyond the price of season ticket, maybe the Chargers' problems go beyond the desire for a $1B stadium and they are not as a part of their community as they would like to believe (then again, I guess it makes it easier for them to relocate). My point was and remains that the Chargers are capable of bringing more to the table than $400M for a new stadium ... and if they really can't raise money from PSLs or won't share naming and pouring rights fees, then maybe they don't deserve a $1B stadium, and should instead start looking at $400M worth of upgrades to the Q (for which the City should only pay $80M or whatever the deferred maintenance is now). Almost all other public/private development partnerships with the city involve the city providing the property and related infrastructure on behalf of the public, and the private company builds and maintains the building ... there is still a property lease and negotiated payments based on the function of the structure, this should not be any different.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Mar 9, 2015 12:48:14 GMT -8
For as populous as San Diego County is, do they have enough dedicated fans to buyout the PSLs? Plus those who do have the money, how many are sports fans in this leisure city? The Raiders couldn't sell theirs out so Oakland had to eat them. Part of the sweetheart deal they gave the Raiders to lure them back. The 49ers sold out theirs mainly to the silicon valley investors in Santa Clara. Perks for their clients and execs. The Chargers do have a valid point, provided they'll offer a reasonable selling price. If you're confident the Chargers could sell them out then San Diego should guarantee a clause like Oakland did to cover any unsold PSLs. Fair enough? No ... that is too much like a ticket guarantee that depends on the Chargers to put a product on the field that keeps their fans by their conduct (and not getting paid regardless of play) The point of the post is to demonstrate that those season ticket holders that are advocating for keeping the team in SD have the ability to help fund the stadium directly. Even the $10K PSLs (the highest in my scenario) would add $1000 to the cost of Club Level season ($1400-$2950) every year for 10 years or as little as $84/mo for 10 years. I should add that the Chargers have 15-16 different categories for ticket pricing the lowest being $390/Season ... I could revise my estimate in half and put forth $125M in PSLs, but if the Chargers can't convince 30K fans to invest in the team beyond the price of season ticket, maybe the Chargers' problems go beyond the desire for a $1B stadium and they are not as a part of their community as they would like to believe (then again, I guess it makes it easier for them to relocate). My point was and remains that the Chargers are capable of bringing more to the table than $400M for a new stadium ... and if they really can't raise money from PSLs or won't share naming and pouring rights fees, then maybe they don't deserve a $1B stadium, and should instead start looking at $400M worth of upgrades to the Q (for which the City should only pay $80M or whatever the deferred maintenance is now). Almost all other public/private development partnerships with the city involve the city providing the property and related infrastructure on behalf of the public, and the private company builds and maintains the building ... there is still a property lease and negotiated payments based on the function of the structure, this should not be any different. Correct, so adios. Viva LA.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 9, 2015 12:57:42 GMT -8
No ... that is too much like a ticket guarantee that depends on the Chargers to put a product on the field that keeps their fans by their conduct (and not getting paid regardless of play) The point of the post is to demonstrate that those season ticket holders that are advocating for keeping the team in SD have the ability to help fund the stadium directly. Even the $10K PSLs (the highest in my scenario) would add $1000 to the cost of Club Level season ($1400-$2950) every year for 10 years or as little as $84/mo for 10 years. I should add that the Chargers have 15-16 different categories for ticket pricing the lowest being $390/Season ... I could revise my estimate in half and put forth $125M in PSLs, but if the Chargers can't convince 30K fans to invest in the team beyond the price of season ticket, maybe the Chargers' problems go beyond the desire for a $1B stadium and they are not as a part of their community as they would like to believe (then again, I guess it makes it easier for them to relocate). My point was and remains that the Chargers are capable of bringing more to the table than $400M for a new stadium ... and if they really can't raise money from PSLs or won't share naming and pouring rights fees, then maybe they don't deserve a $1B stadium, and should instead start looking at $400M worth of upgrades to the Q (for which the City should only pay $80M or whatever the deferred maintenance is now). Almost all other public/private development partnerships with the city involve the city providing the property and related infrastructure on behalf of the public, and the private company builds and maintains the building ... there is still a property lease and negotiated payments based on the function of the structure, this should not be any different. Correct, so adios. Viva LA. Its sad that a team like the Chargers with an estimated worth of $995M under present conditions, would take on $1.7B in privately held debt to try and move to LA -- where they'd possibly be the the 5th most popular football team in the city behind the Rams, Raiders, Bruins and Trojans. For less than half that debt amount ($800M), they could have a new stadium in San Diego, where they claim that 75% of their fanbase exists.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Mar 9, 2015 13:11:44 GMT -8
Correct, so adios. Viva LA. Its sad that a team like the Chargers with an estimated worth of $995M under present conditions, would take on $1.7B in privately held debt to try and move to LA -- where they'd possibly be the the 5th most popular football team in the city behind the Rams, Raiders, Bruins and Trojans. For less than half that debt amount ($800M), they could have a new stadium in San Diego, where they claim that 75% of their fanbase exists.I still think that's the ultimate goal for the Spanos family, but if you notice that the past 14 years of asking 7 mayors nicely has gotten literally zero done, at some point you need to turn up the heat. Honestly, I wouldn’t have been so patient.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 9, 2015 13:40:15 GMT -8
Its sad that a team like the Chargers with an estimated worth of $995M under present conditions, would take on $1.7B in privately held debt to try and move to LA -- where they'd possibly be the the 5th most popular football team in the city behind the Rams, Raiders, Bruins and Trojans. For less than half that debt amount ($800M), they could have a new stadium in San Diego, where they claim that 75% of their fanbase exists.I still think that's the ultimate goal for the Spanos family, but if you notice that the past 14 years of asking 7 mayors nicely has gotten literally zero done, at some point you need to turn up the heat. Honestly, I wouldn’t have been so patient. It has not been 14 years and 7 mayors of asking nicely ... it's been decades of demands, extortion and deceit. From ticket guarantees, to failing to provide net income verification when demanding a new stadium just a few years after the city funded an expansion (for which we are still to this day paying for), to failing to perform due diligence in past stadium proposals (Chula Vista, Oceanside, Downtown and Mission Valley) where the team shows off pretty water colors of a new stadium concept and pays for PR, but never completes the EIR (environmental impact report) or EVS (economic viability study) when floating an estimated cost (in this case original $800M) for a stadium. It would have been a simple matter for the Chargers to follow up with the MTS as to the cost in both money and time to relocate the bus yard to make way for a downtown stadium ($150M & 7 years), something they have been touting as their preference since 2009. In that time (since 2009) they have tried to use the sale of the Q (which the city only owns half of) and Sports Arena to fund a downtown stadium, yet never addressed the costs of the infrastructure needs that stadium would create and that cost to the city. They have never disclosed any agreement between the Padres and themselves regarding use of tailgate park on days when both Petco Park and a Downtown stadium are in use at the same time. The problem is that the Chargers have gone about this in a way that is not nice or honest and this is where we find ourselves again, 14 years and 7 mayors later ... the main difference being the value of the team has risen consistently in that time while the city paid for ticket guarantees and now pays them to play at the Q.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Mar 9, 2015 13:43:51 GMT -8
Correct, so adios. Viva LA. Its sad that a team like the Chargers with an estimated worth of $995M under present conditions, would take on $1.7B in privately held debt to try and move to LA -- where they'd possibly be the the 5th most popular football team in the city behind the Rams, Raiders, Bruins and Trojans. For less than half that debt amount ($800M), they could have a new stadium in San Diego, where they claim that 75% of their fanbase exists. Let me ask you this. Had the Clippers stayed in San Diego do you think they'd be worth $2 billion? The inflationary value in LA would be much greater than SD in the long run. Whatever private debt that they incur today is cheap money and it becomes even less significant 10 years from now as their value increases. It's equity.
BTW do you really think the NFL would allow 3 teams to be in practically the same county, let alone two of which would be in the same conference? No way in hell.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 9, 2015 14:03:02 GMT -8
Its sad that a team like the Chargers with an estimated worth of $995M under present conditions, would take on $1.7B in privately held debt to try and move to LA -- where they'd possibly be the the 5th most popular football team in the city behind the Rams, Raiders, Bruins and Trojans. For less than half that debt amount ($800M), they could have a new stadium in San Diego, where they claim that 75% of their fanbase exists. Let me ask you this. Had the Clippers stayed in San Diego do you think they'd be worth $2 billion? The inflationary value in LA would be much greater than SD in the long run. Whatever private debt that they incur today is cheap money and it becomes even less significant 10 years from now as their value increases. It's equity.
BTW do you really think the NFL would allow 3 teams to be in practically the same county, let alone two of which would be in the same conference? No way in hell.
I think the NFL is more apt to allow the Rams move to Inglewood, than to force through the changes that will be needed to move the Chargers and Raiders to Carson and make the adjustments to the AFC and NFC accordingly. I think the NFL will do what makes the NFL the most money with the least amount of stress and bad publicity ... Kronenke building a stadium on his own dime solves a lot of their stress and opens up St. Louis for an expansion team. The Rams don't need to share their stadium, and if only 1 team is allowed to move to LA, would it be the Chargers or Raiders and where would they play if the Rams don't share? Would the NFL want to wait a few years before moving another team besides the Rams to LA (and what happens to the Raiders and Chargers while the NFL thinks about it?). As for the Clippers, they weren't worth anything close to what they are now when they moved from San Diego to LA, that is true ... but taking a team currently valued at $995M, and adding $1.7B of debt would result in an approximate net value of -$705M and an uncertain income based on whether the Rams move to LA, in addition to direct competition with the Raiders with whom they'd share a stadium ... What would the value of the Chargers be if they were moved to the NFC West with San Francisco, Seattle and Arizona? Would a loss of traditional rivalries affect the appeal of the team? How much of the Chargers value is based on them being in San Diego in the first place? How long if ever will it take the Chargers to replace 75% or more of their fanbase?
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Mar 9, 2015 14:59:55 GMT -8
I still think that's the ultimate goal for the Spanos family, but if you notice that the past 14 years of asking 7 mayors nicely has gotten literally zero done, at some point you need to turn up the heat. Honestly, I wouldn’t have been so patient. It has not been 14 years and 7 mayors of asking nicely ... it's been decades of demands, extortion and deceit. From ticket guarantees, to failing to provide net income verification when demanding a new stadium just a few years after the city funded an expansion (for which we are still to this day paying for), to failing to perform due diligence in past stadium proposals (Chula Vista, Oceanside, Downtown and Mission Valley) where the team shows off pretty water colors of a new stadium concept and pays for PR, but never completes the EIR (environmental impact report) or EVS (economic viability study) when floating an estimated cost (in this case original $800M) for a stadium. It would have been a simple matter for the Chargers to follow up with the MTS as to the cost in both money and time to relocate the bus yard to make way for a downtown stadium ($150M & 7 years), something they have been touting as their preference since 2009. In that time (since 2009) they have tried to use the sale of the Q (which the city only owns half of) and Sports Arena to fund a downtown stadium, yet never addressed the costs of the infrastructure needs that stadium would create and that cost to the city. They have never disclosed any agreement between the Padres and themselves regarding use of tailgate park on days when both Petco Park and a Downtown stadium are in use at the same time. The problem is that the Chargers have gone about this in a way that is not nice or honest and this is where we find ourselves again, 14 years and 7 mayors later ... the main difference being the value of the team has risen consistently in that time while the city paid for ticket guarantees and now pays them to play at the Q. Bottom line is that it's put-up or shut-up time for a city that has acted recently like they are surprised to see a tax bill on April 15th. The city needs to either take the lead on a new facility or tell the Chargers to take a hike, there must be someone there who has a backbone. Maybe when the Chargers are gone, former City Councilwoman Donna Frye will finally get her park on the QUALCOMM site.
|
|