Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 14:09:41 GMT -8
I don't believe they said they would indemnify the Chargers. What I understood is that they would provide funding to cover loses the Chargers would incur during of the transition. In other words, they would loan the Chargers the money they needed to make the transition. Fair enough but I think my point still stands. If things turn south, Spanos could find himself in a hole Yeah, this is good for the city...Sachs is more loan shark than financial backer, so it should motivate ownership to think very carefully before making a final decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 14:23:48 GMT -8
You're projecting man. I'm also a native San Diegan and want the Chargers to stay, not only that but I hope they get a DT location that's top notch....it appears that I am somehow less naive than you however...which is a surprise. since I'm guessing you are in your 60's. So I'm "projecting" whatever that means. Naive isn't a word usually used to describe me but if that's what you think, more power to you. We'll see when this all shakes out who's right and who isn't. We all bring our prejudices to these discussions. It means you are projecting your innate desire to see a specific outcome out of this whole deal onto me and accusing me of the very thing you yourself are guilty of... To be honest, I like the Aztec situation whether the Chargers stay or go, so I don't really fear or desire either outcome per say. Although, I can admit i would rather have the Chargers stay in SD than leave. Like you, a native to SD, I just feel that losing the Chargers will end up being a blow to the local identity and the perception of the city as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Mar 26, 2015 14:30:25 GMT -8
They said they don't want more than 2 in SoCal...So that means if Chargers stay in SD, only 1 team will likely be allowed to move to LA. That's not what Jerry Jones and a few other big shots told Sam Farmer of the L.A. Times last week. What they said was they expected two teams to move L.A. Confucius say when tea leaves and writing on wall coincide, a wise man will figure out Rams and Raiders or Rams and Chargers soon move to L.A.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 14:33:35 GMT -8
They said they don't want more than 2 in SoCal...So that means if Chargers stay in SD, only 1 team will likely be allowed to move to LA. That's not what Jerry Jones and a few other big shots told Sam Farmer of the L.A. Times last week. What they said was they expected two teams to move L.A. Confucius say when tea leaves and writing on wall coincide, a wise man will figure out Rams and Raiders or Rams and Chargers soon move to L.A. If you say so, I thought the specific wording was SoCal and not just LA. If they said SoCal its good for the Chargers as it puts them in prime position to stay and not fear competing with 2 new teams in LA, or move and only have to share all of SoCal with another team. I would think the Chargers front office would be against 2 LA teams if they're not one of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 15:17:34 GMT -8
I thought the specific wording was SoCal and not just LA. That's what I thought as well.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 15:34:02 GMT -8
Another interesting take on the situation: What is Mark Fabiani's Master Plan?Chargers' Special Counsel Mark Fabiani has launched an all-out attack against the Citizens' Stadium Advisory Group's selection of the Mission Valley site. How much of what he's saying is spin, and what does it mean for keeping the Chargers in San Diego? Here's a quote on the Mission Valley site from October of 2013..."The Qualcomm site drawing board always was there. Now that the economic and housing issues have improved, redeveloping the Qualcomm site is something we're discussing with our development partner as something of interest... The site is perfect for private development, for building an urban village."Here's another quote on the Mission Valley site from March of 2015..."If (CSAG) is going to do what we proposed back in 2004, which is construct the stadium along with an urban village around the stadium, to then pay for the stadium without any taxpayer money, that would take years... to get through the entitlement process. It would have worked in 2004 or 2005 when we proposed it and had time, but now we don't. The city doesn't even own the site, the water department owns half the site. The site is polluted by a huge plume that has leaked from the gas tanks there. there's no more redevelopment, so you can't capture the tax increment off the site."Both of these quotes came from the same person, Chargers' Special Counsel Mark Fabiani. So what the hell happened to the Mission Valley site in the last 18 months?
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Mar 26, 2015 16:30:44 GMT -8
Another interesting take on the situation: What is Mark Fabiani's Master Plan?Chargers' Special Counsel Mark Fabiani has launched an all-out attack against the Citizens' Stadium Advisory Group's selection of the Mission Valley site. How much of what he's saying is spin, and what does it mean for keeping the Chargers in San Diego? Here's a quote on the Mission Valley site from October of 2013..."The Qualcomm site drawing board always was there. Now that the economic and housing issues have improved, redeveloping the Qualcomm site is something we're discussing with our development partner as something of interest... The site is perfect for private development, for building an urban village."Here's another quote on the Mission Valley site from March of 2015..."If (CSAG) is going to do what we proposed back in 2004, which is construct the stadium along with an urban village around the stadium, to then pay for the stadium without any taxpayer money, that would take years... to get through the entitlement process. It would have worked in 2004 or 2005 when we proposed it and had time, but now we don't. The city doesn't even own the site, the water department owns half the site. The site is polluted by a huge plume that has leaked from the gas tanks there. there's no more redevelopment, so you can't capture the tax increment off the site."Both of these quotes came from the same person, Chargers' Special Counsel Mark Fabiani. So what the hell happened to the Mission Valley site in the last 18 months? I think this article nailed it. It's all a leverage play and Fabiani, of course, is playing the bad cop.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 17:00:51 GMT -8
Another interesting take on the situation: What is Mark Fabiani's Master Plan?Chargers' Special Counsel Mark Fabiani has launched an all-out attack against the Citizens' Stadium Advisory Group's selection of the Mission Valley site. How much of what he's saying is spin, and what does it mean for keeping the Chargers in San Diego? Here's a quote on the Mission Valley site from October of 2013..."The Qualcomm site drawing board always was there. Now that the economic and housing issues have improved, redeveloping the Qualcomm site is something we're discussing with our development partner as something of interest... The site is perfect for private development, for building an urban village."Here's another quote on the Mission Valley site from March of 2015..."If (CSAG) is going to do what we proposed back in 2004, which is construct the stadium along with an urban village around the stadium, to then pay for the stadium without any taxpayer money, that would take years... to get through the entitlement process. It would have worked in 2004 or 2005 when we proposed it and had time, but now we don't. The city doesn't even own the site, the water department owns half the site. The site is polluted by a huge plume that has leaked from the gas tanks there. there's no more redevelopment, so you can't capture the tax increment off the site."Both of these quotes came from the same person, Chargers' Special Counsel Mark Fabiani. So what the hell happened to the Mission Valley site in the last 18 months? I think this article nailed it. It's all a leverage play and Fabiani, of course, is playing the bad cop. That was my read as well ...
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Mar 26, 2015 17:07:09 GMT -8
Plus, the "huge plume" is all but gone. The city is very near a "closure letter" and very little additional money needed to finish the work.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Mar 27, 2015 5:15:59 GMT -8
Like you, a native to SD, I just feel that losing the Chargers will end up being a blow to the local identity and the perception of the city as a whole. This is a curious comment echoed by a few on this board. Do people really think that San Diego's identity is inexplicably tied to the Chargers? Do people really think that if the Chargers leave, that somehow people all over the nation will think San Diego is some sort of hayseed City? I think people need to really examine the reality of what an NFL team really means to a communities identity...I would think that giant yellow/orange orb floating in the sky has far more to do with SD's identity than the Chargers. Detroit, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo, Cleveland, Oakland....is your perception of any of these cities really bolstered because there's an NFL team there?
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Mar 27, 2015 6:58:43 GMT -8
I think this article nailed it. It's all a leverage play and Fabiani, of course, is playing the bad cop. Fabiani was already notorious as a public relations crisis manager, and has always played loose with the facts since his days with the Clintons (reinforced by his work for the Sultan of Brunei and Lance Armstrong). However, he stepped into outright dishonesty with his recent fraudulent claims regarding the gas plume. No one negotiating with the Chargers should take anything that Fabiani says at face value.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 27, 2015 7:27:32 GMT -8
City, county unite to keep Chargers espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12564767/san-diego-mayor-county-partner-keep-chargers-nfl"Jacob said she would like to see more than an NFL stadium at the Qualcomm site -- a world-class entertainment venue in partnership with San Diego State and the San Diego River conservancy." "Faulconer said he remains committed to a public vote, which will not require a two-thirds majority, on any stadium proposal and that it will not require any new taxes." So, it is pretty clear there will be a vote on any stadium proposal (good luck getting even close to 50% Chargers). And apparently there will be no "new" tax. That begs the question; what current or old tax will be transferred from the city/county to pay for this billion dollar stadium? Can't wait to see this proposal.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Mar 27, 2015 7:46:04 GMT -8
City, county unite to keep Chargers espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12564767/san-diego-mayor-county-partner-keep-chargers-nfl"Jacob said she would like to see more than an NFL stadium at the Qualcomm site -- a world-class entertainment venue in partnership with San Diego State and the San Diego River conservancy." "Faulconer said he remains committed to a public vote, which will not require a two-thirds majority, on any stadium proposal and that it will not require any new taxes." So, it is pretty clear there will be a vote on any stadium proposal (good luck getting even close to 50% Chargers). And apparently there will be no "new" tax. That begs the question; what current or old tax will be transferred from the city/county to pay for this billion dollar stadium? Can't wait to see this proposal. I think the general public does not harbor the level of antipathy toward the Chargers which you and others on this board hold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 7:49:19 GMT -8
City, county unite to keep Chargers espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12564767/san-diego-mayor-county-partner-keep-chargers-nfl"Jacob said she would like to see more than an NFL stadium at the Qualcomm site -- a world-class entertainment venue in partnership with San Diego State and the San Diego River conservancy." "Faulconer said he remains committed to a public vote, which will not require a two-thirds majority, on any stadium proposal and that it will not require any new taxes." So, it is pretty clear there will be a vote on any stadium proposal (good luck getting even close to 50% Chargers). And apparently there will be no "new" tax. That begs the question; what current or old tax will be transferred from the city/county to pay for this billion dollar stadium? Can't wait to see this proposal. I think the general public does not harbor the level of antipathy toward the Chargers which you and others on this board hold. I wouldn't say there is a deep seated dislike of the Chargers. But if they're so popular a public vote shouldn't be such an issue.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfili on Mar 27, 2015 7:51:20 GMT -8
The sad thing about all of this is, had Spano's not lied to the citizens so often, this probably would have taken place. LA is NOT an NFL city. History proves that. Carson? lol Ever been there? We need our own stadium, it will happen just as soon as these clowns get out of their own way. Chargers, my bet, are gone. Regardless of what ends up happening with the Chargers, San Diego will get a new stadium. This makes me happy.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Mar 27, 2015 8:12:33 GMT -8
I think the general public does not harbor the level of antipathy toward the Chargers which you and others on this board hold. I wouldn't say there is a deep seated dislike of the Chargers. But if they're so popular a public vote shouldn't be such an issue. My impression is that no one is afraid of a simple majority vote. But reaching a 2/3 vote is tough under any and all circumstances for any purpose, and for good reasons.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Mar 27, 2015 8:39:47 GMT -8
I wouldn't say there is a deep seated dislike of the Chargers. But if they're so popular a public vote shouldn't be such an issue. My impression is that no one is afraid of a simple majority vote. But reaching a 2/3 vote is tough under any and all circumstances for any purpose, and for good reasons. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Mar 27, 2015 8:59:25 GMT -8
Like you, a native to SD, I just feel that losing the Chargers will end up being a blow to the local identity and the perception of the city as a whole. This is a curious comment echoed by a few on this board. Do people really think that San Diego's identity is inexplicably tied to the Chargers? Do people really think that if the Chargers leave, that somehow people all over the nation will think San Diego is some sort of hayseed City? Absolutely, just like L.A. became a hayseed city when the Rams and Raiders left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 9:09:04 GMT -8
With or without a NFL team LA is still LA, the largest west coast metro, and second largest metro in the country. Also, when the NFL left LA it wasn't yet what it is today. San Diego is a transient feeling city compared to most. The Chargers are the most visible common symbol people of the region can identify. Will losing the chargers turn us in to a Podunk city? No, but it may mean never having a shot at superbowls, olympics, as well as less national recognition for a region living in the shadow of the 2nd largest metro in the country.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 27, 2015 9:14:32 GMT -8
There are several aspects of the stadium issue that could require a public vote (to varying majorities)
55% majority for a county bridge loan (countywide vote) These funds will have to be paid back -- how it's paid back could involve another vote like the ones listed below ...
66% majority for a tax increase or special tax to pay for a loan, bond or both (city of San Diego vote) If, for any reason, the proposed development does not pass CEQA requirements or lawsuits (or just plain doesn't raise enough funds) -- this will be the only alternative to pay for the stadium
Majority (50% +1), 60% or 66% for approval of public lands for private development, depending on the official designation of the land itself (city of San Diego vote) If private development of the Q site is the method selected to pay for a new stadium, the people will have to vote to approve the transfer of land from the public trust to private citizens -- if the land has a recreational designation (like that of a park, or public venue -- the vote required for approval would be higher than a simple majority, and could be as high as 2/3.
|
|