|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 26, 2015 7:29:06 GMT -8
I think the Chargers have already made up their mind and are moving to L.A. It is the best move for them and will share a stadium with the Rams. Raiders will move to Indianapolis into a brand new stadium. The Charger move is the best for them in a business sense. All of this city county stuff is just for show. I believe that the Chargers were promised the L.A.spot long ago by the league when they saw how difficult it would be to pass any tax to build a new stadium. Hell, even the local sport talk show talking heads are saying the Chargers are going to move. Let the stones and arrows fly, I'll get my extra thick shield ready. No way. They weren't willing to share the LA Live project, why would they change course and share one in Inglewood (which is always up to no good)? There hasn't been a football stadium built in LA for 96 years. LA has been without pro football for greater than 20 years yet everyone thinks that LA can get it done. If LA was such a financial windfall, don't you think someone would have solved equation by now? I hope you folks don't spend much time in casinos. The NFL has not wanted to get back to Los Angeles. It has been a brilliant business move on their behalf to use LA as leverage to get stadiums built/renovated with public money all over the country. "Over the past 20 years, teams have regularly threatened to relocate to Los Angeles, including the Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints and St. Louis Rams. The possibility of a move can often be followed by local governments ponying up to pay for new stadiums. “For 20 years, you’ve had teams be able to use Los Angeles as a credible threat,” Victor Matheson, a professor of economics and accounting at the College of the Holy Cross, told The Washington Post in an interview. Having every major market filled except one is great for NFL teams, Matheson said, because it keeps cities and states eager to please their team lest they bolt. “That’s the role L.A. has served,” he said. Los Angeles’s lack of NFL teams has coincided with a boom in stadium building: 22 of the 31 stadiums NFL teams play in (about 71 percent) were built since 1994, and 14 since 2000 (45 percent). Taxpayer dollars has helped fund much of that." www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/the-politics-behind-why-los-angeles-doesnt-have-an-nfl-team/Fortunately, it looks like the citizens of San Diego won't be duped into providing hundreds of millions of public dollars in corporate welfare for the NFL/Chargers. The NFL's gig is up and a team will soon return to Los Angeles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 7:29:21 GMT -8
I really can't believe this comes as a surprise to anyone. My neighbor is an AZTEC and a HUGE Chargers fan, and we've been talking about this possibility for a decade now. This has been an unbelievable all around FAIL.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 26, 2015 7:33:45 GMT -8
There is the hard line, Occam's razor counter to all of the wishful thinking going on around here. They aren't speaking publicly because they have to give the "appearance" of doing "everything they can" to keep teams in their current cities. In the real world, the Chargers get a signature drive done in Carson. Have they ever attempted one in San Diego? The Chargers get City Council votes in Carson. Have they ever got one in San Diego? ps - no question though, LA has its issues, and Carson is in a practice a bad joke/leverage play. Second tenant in Kroenke's stadium makes much more sense - fewer lawsuits; less environmental mitigation needed;, less harmful short term deleterious impact of having no real fan base in LA. pps - the NFL itself is loaded; they don't need any corporate welfare and can subsidize any stadium they want, on behalf of any owner. Their "loan" limit is arbitrary and designed to force cities/municipalities to foot the rest of the bill.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 26, 2015 7:51:12 GMT -8
Florio is dialed in. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 26, 2015 8:05:07 GMT -8
I love the token aztec reference in the last sentence of the article. That's how it will forever be if we remain joined at the hip with the Chargers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:09:08 GMT -8
There hasn't been a football stadium built in LA for 96 years. LA has been without pro football for greater than 20 years yet everyone thinks that LA can get it done. If LA was such a financial windfall, don't you think someone would have solved equation by now? I hope you folks don't spend much time in casinos. Can you see China with your head buried so deep? The NFL IS COMING to L.A.- in SPADES! And you call yourself an astute observer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:27:49 GMT -8
There is the hard line, Occam's razor counter to all of the wishful thinking going on around here. They aren't speaking publicly because they have to give the "appearance" of doing "everything they can" to keep teams in their current cities. In the real world, the Chargers get a signature drive done in Carson. Have they ever attempted one in San Diego? The Chargers get City Council votes in Carson. Have they ever got one in San Diego? ps - no question though, LA has its issues, and Carson is in a practice a bad joke/leverage play. Second tenant in Kroenke's stadium makes much more sense - fewer lawsuits; less environmental mitigation needed;, less harmful short term deleterious impact of having no real fan base in LA. pps - the NFL itself is loaded; they don't need any corporate welfare and can subsidize any stadium they want, on behalf of any owner. Their "loan" limit is arbitrary and designed to force cities/municipalities to foot the rest of the bill. Wishful thinking on whose part; those that think a deal can get done in SD or those that want the Chargers to leave so that a West SDSU Taj Mahal can be built from the ashes? A petition drive has never been done in SD because it's never been defined as part of a process to get a new stadium built. A city council vote has never happened because there's never been a call for one. Bottom line is that this has yet to play out in one direction or the other and ANYONE that claims any particular insight not part of the Advisory group is speculating. As of now, CSAG is saying that: They are working towards a finance plan. An initial look gives them reason to be optimistic than a plan requiring an acceptable density can be worked out. There's a $150mil in potential funds available from Sacramento to be used for road access and wetlands enhancement and that they have a sponsor to go after those funds They are meeting with the NFL next week They are bringing in the county as a partner in the process That's all anybody knows, including gadfly's like Florio who report conventional wisdom. IMO, the Chargers will take the path of least resistance and if anyone thinks that LA/Carson/Inglewood (always up to no good) is the path of least resistance they are mistaken, at least at this point in the process.
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Mar 26, 2015 8:30:05 GMT -8
I think the Chargers have already made up their mind and are moving to L.A. It is the best move for them and will share a stadium with the Rams. Raiders will move to Indianapolis into a brand new stadium. The Charger move is the best for them in a business sense. All of this city county stuff is just for show. I believe that the Chargers were promised the L.A.spot long ago by the league when they saw how difficult it would be to pass any tax to build a new stadium. Hell, even the local sport talk show talking heads are saying the Chargers are going to move. Let the stones and arrows fly, I'll get my extra thick shield ready. I've purposely kept my nose out of the details of this mess just to avoid the stench, but Raiders to Indy? Don't they already have a team? Is that really a possibility? Would that be to replace the Colts, or........?
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Mar 26, 2015 8:31:05 GMT -8
Some highlights... “Is the County just going to write a blank check? No,” Roberts said. “It’s about: how do we make this happen, how do we keep the Chargers in San Diego. We have to get our own experts, besides attorneys, to succeed, and we have to see what the advisory committee comes up with." “It’s doubtful we’ll get a funding source that will get a two-thirds vote,” Roberts rightfully concedes. “There are a lot of sources of value out there that we need to look at." Says Faulconer: “I’m committed to a public vote. San Diego will endorse a good deal, and I’m convinced this joint effort with the County will give us the best chance. As for location, I’m less concerned about where it is; I’m more concerned with how we get it done. When we go to the ballot, you will see all sectors of the county come together and realize how important it is to keep the Chargers in San Diego.” "And let's not forget San Diego State." "Let’s not. The doubters may believe otherwise. But they are important." A couple of interesting points were made. First, the Mayor is committed to a public vote. IMO that is the kiss of death right there. I don't belive any public vote regarding the stadium will pass (I will wait for the proposals to prove me wrong). It is interesting that Adam Day said they would not recommend a special tax that would require a 2/3 vote yet the Mayor is committed to a vote. It seems there will be a vote regardless of the CSAG's recommendation. Second, Ron Roberts referred to sources of value that needed to be looked at. I assume this will be concessions from the Chargers. Good luck negotiating with the Chargers. Second was the importance of San Diego State University. For all the silence from SDSU it seems they are indeed an important piece of the puzzle. The stadium soap opera is going to get interesting. A public vote doesn't mean a 2/3rd's vote. Both statements can be and probably are true. CSAG has been very clear that there will not be a proposal that takes a 2/3s vote. Whomever says or writes that there will be, is working for Fabiani and against building a place for our Aztecs to play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:32:04 GMT -8
There is the hard line, Occam's razor counter to all of the wishful thinking going on around here. They aren't speaking publicly because they have to give the "appearance" of doing "everything they can" to keep teams in their current cities. In the real world, the Chargers get a signature drive done in Carson. Have they ever attempted one in San Diego? The Chargers get City Council votes in Carson. Have they ever got one in San Diego? ps - no question though, LA has its issues, and Carson is in a practice a bad joke/leverage play. Second tenant in Kroenke's stadium makes much more sense - fewer lawsuits; less environmental mitigation needed;, less harmful short term deleterious impact of having no real fan base in LA. pps - the NFL itself is loaded; they don't need any corporate welfare and can subsidize any stadium they want, on behalf of any owner. Their "loan" limit is arbitrary and designed to force cities/municipalities to foot the rest of the bill. Wishful thinking on whose part; those that think a deal can get done in SD or those that want the Chargers to leave so that a West SDSU Taj Mahal can be built from the ashes? A petition drive has never been done in SD because it's never been defined as part of a process to get a new stadium built. A city council vote has never happened because there's never been a call for one. Bottom line is that this has yet to play out in one direction or the other and ANYONE that claims any particular insight not part of the Advisory group is speculating. As of now, CSAG is saying that: They are working towards a finance plan. An initial look gives them reason to be optimistic than a plan requiring an acceptable density can be worked out. There's a $150mil in potential funds available from Sacramento to be used for road access and wetlands enhancement and that they have a sponsor to go after those funds They are meeting with the NFL next week They are bringing in the county as a partner in the process That's all anybody knows, including gadfly's like Florio who report conventional wisdom. IMO, the Chargers will take the path of least resistance and if anyone thinks that LA/Carson/Inglewood (always up to no good) is the path of least resistance they are mistaken, at least at this point in the process. So is San Diego further along in the process of financing and building a new stadium or is LA(Inglewood)?
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 26, 2015 8:35:52 GMT -8
I love the token aztec reference in the last sentence of the article. That's how it will forever be if we remain joined at the hip with the Chargers. I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:36:13 GMT -8
There hasn't been a football stadium built in LA for 96 years. LA has been without pro football for greater than 20 years yet everyone thinks that LA can get it done. If LA was such a financial windfall, don't you think someone would have solved equation by now? I hope you folks don't spend much time in casinos. Can you see China with your head buried so deep? The NFL IS COMING to L.A.- in SPADES! And you call yourself an astute observer? Is there a team in LA? I looked on the NFL web site and sure enough, no LA team. There might be one coming, there might not. It might be the Chargers, it might not. It's a city that's let 2 NFL teams go and 1 AFL team go and it's a city that hasn't managed to build a football stadium in damn near 100 years. All of these things are true, none of these things has changed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:40:14 GMT -8
Can you see China with your head buried so deep? The NFL IS COMING to L.A.- in SPADES! And you call yourself an astute observer? Is there a team in LA? I looked on the NFL web site and sure enough, no LA team. There might be one coming, there might not. It might be the Chargers, it might not. It's a city that's let 2 NFL teams go and 1 AFL team go and it's a city that hasn't managed to build a football stadium in damn near 100 years. All of these things are true, none of these things has changed. The terms "writing on the wall" or "where's there smoke there's fire" mean nothing to you, huh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:41:08 GMT -8
Wishful thinking on whose part; those that think a deal can get done in SD or those that want the Chargers to leave so that a West SDSU Taj Mahal can be built from the ashes? A petition drive has never been done in SD because it's never been defined as part of a process to get a new stadium built. A city council vote has never happened because there's never been a call for one. Bottom line is that this has yet to play out in one direction or the other and ANYONE that claims any particular insight not part of the Advisory group is speculating. As of now, CSAG is saying that: They are working towards a finance plan. An initial look gives them reason to be optimistic than a plan requiring an acceptable density can be worked out. There's a $150mil in potential funds available from Sacramento to be used for road access and wetlands enhancement and that they have a sponsor to go after those funds They are meeting with the NFL next week They are bringing in the county as a partner in the process That's all anybody knows, including gadfly's like Florio who report conventional wisdom. IMO, the Chargers will take the path of least resistance and if anyone thinks that LA/Carson/Inglewood (always up to no good) is the path of least resistance they are mistaken, at least at this point in the process. So is San Diego further along in the process of financing and building a new stadium or is LA(Inglewood)? I don't know and neither do you. BTW, I didn't say anything about how far along any of these projects are. But this I can tell you; only one of these cities currently has an NFL team
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:43:13 GMT -8
But this I can tell you; only one of these cities currently has an NFL team you forgot the "with one foot out the door" part.
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Mar 26, 2015 8:43:45 GMT -8
Florio is dialed in. Wow. I believe he is dialed in to Fabiani. Inglewood is just about a done deal. Kronke already owns the land. THe city council is in 100%. Kronke has the dough to do whatever he wants. The Chargers were unwilling to be a tenant in downtown LA. I do not see them as Kronke's tenant. I do see Fabiani doing his best to fog up what is going on in San Diego. He will take Florio's, or anyone else's so he can fill the callers ears with spin. He's a lier, and a spin master and lazy sports journalists love him.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Mar 26, 2015 8:43:56 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:44:59 GMT -8
Is there a team in LA? I looked on the NFL web site and sure enough, no LA team. There might be one coming, there might not. It might be the Chargers, it might not. It's a city that's let 2 NFL teams go and 1 AFL team go and it's a city that hasn't managed to build a football stadium in damn near 100 years. All of these things are true, none of these things has changed. The terms "writing on the wall" or "where's there smoke there's fire" mean nothing to you, huh? No, it doesn't. There's been "smoke" in LA for a very long time. There's "smoke" concerning stadium progress in SD. Doesn't THAT mean anything to you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:47:44 GMT -8
But this I can tell you; only one of these cities currently has an NFL team you forgot the "with one foot out the door" part. opinion
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 8:50:04 GMT -8
So is San Diego further along in the process of financing and building a new stadium or is LA(Inglewood)? I don't know and neither do you. BTW, I didn't say anything about how far along any of these projects are. But this I can tell you; only one of these cities currently has an NFL team C'mon man, you know what I mean. The Chargers clearly are going to wherever they can get into a new stadium, they've made no secret of that. The fact that 2 communities in LA already have more political and community commitment/will to build a stadium than San Diego is troubling to say the least. If we can't provide them something and soon they are as good as gone. As a native San Diegan who saw how Petco changed downtown forever I really hope the city finds a way to get them downtown. As an Aztec fan I know that might lead to us playing downtown which is a last option, but the impact on the city will likely be worth it. Trust me, I'm not rooting for the Chargers to leave, just being realistic about what I'm seeing from them and also the NFL.
|
|