Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 8:04:11 GMT -8
Oh and a simple majority vimote will pass imo with no tax increases involved If we don't vote yes if there are no tax increases involved we should just quit at life
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 3, 2015 8:14:40 GMT -8
Oh and a simple majority vimote will pass imo with no tax increases involved There in lies the rub. There may be no tax increase per say. However there will be a tax transfer. However the city decides to camouflage that is yet to be seen. It will be extremely difficult to build the density of housing/retail required on the Q site that would actually pay for a billion dollar stadium and associated infrastructure. Any developer will have to take on significant financial risk for this project. If a developer can even be found they will have serious hurdles to overcome. But I am getting ahead of myself. IMO this thing won't even get Voter approval. Let's see what the city stadium proposal looks like first. Not looking good so far.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 3, 2015 8:29:44 GMT -8
Acee just on the radio with D Smith: "Being around the owners meetings, you get the sense the Chargers are as good as gone. The Spanos family and M Fabiani have such an agenda to move the team to LA that all they did is present to the owners that a deal cannot get done in SD. CSAG's new mission is not to convince the Chargers that they have come up with a good deal, their top priory coming out of those meetings is to convince the other 31 teams that they have come up with a plan that will work for the city and the Chargers. They have to be convincing enough so 24 out of the 31 owners will not vote to allow the Chargers to move" He also said that he is extremely impressed with the work CSAG has done and it is his opinion that the deal they come up with will be good enough to at least go to the ballot. He was very clear though that is extremely obvious that Dean and Fabiani CLEARLY have an LA agenda and are trying like crazy to sell their sad story to the other owners. He also said it is very clear that the Inglewood location is by far the plan that is desired by the other owners over Carson. The biggest show-stopper for the Chargers will be their extremely lame Carson plan. Ain't gonna happen. And the owners know that. So Spanos and his puppet troll can posture all they want, they're stuck in San Diego. And then they'll have to live with the bad will they've generated over the past several years forever. Hell, they've burned so many bridges that I can see this whole thing blowing up in their faces. Kroenke moves the Rams and the Raiders to his new stadium in Inglewood. The Chargers are left without a chair when the music stops playing. Spanos and Fabiani go back to City Hall and the angry villagers with hat in hand and say, "Pretty please, can we dust off those Mission Valley plans again?" What a bunch of putzes. Former Raiders CEO Amy Trask was on the new L.A. sportstalk station The Beast on Wednesday. Among the topics which came up was speculation the Raiders could wind up in St. Louis if the Rams move to Inglewood. I've always thought that sounded far fetched but Trask said it was a real possibility. Kroenke seems hell bent on moving to Inglewood, which is hell bent to get the Rams, and the city of St. Louis has been really going gung ho to move forward with building a new stadium. So Trask thinks St. Louis' building of a stadium to house the Raiders could smooth over dissident owners and pave the way for smooth sailing for the Rams to move to Inglewood. They really didn't discuss the Chargers but it seems that if side deals like that are made that the Spanoi could similarly work something out with Kroenke to share the Inglewood stadium.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 3, 2015 8:38:25 GMT -8
Must have cOme from the future, you ignorant slut.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 3, 2015 8:45:54 GMT -8
So you do agree that water is an issue and a state of emergency; doesn't sound like a joke anymore. This will be yet an additional hurdle to jump when the CEQA & the entitlement process comes up. Depending on what kind of proposal gets recommended by the city will dictate what kind of vote will take place. If that vote is merely advisory or mandatory is yet to be determined. Either way, the chance of any vote passing approval is slim IMO. The only thing that might help is if the Chargers and or NFL invest more money in the project and are willing to give more concessions to the city/county. Everyone knows that won't happen. Of course having drinking water is mandatory for humans to live. The problem is the dependence of natural means for production of drinkable water. This should have been done in years or decades ago in California. It's lets kick the can down the road mentality is the problem. Mandatory reduction in water use is only as strong as the enforcement. Is the state prepared to turn off someone's water if they use too much? Or just raise their rates? The problem is enforcemnt. Ok so someones pays the rate now what? What is the money going to be used for ? We have no problem getting oil anywhere. The same should be for water. dependence on natural means is largely due to unintended by-products of artificial means creating bigger issues as well as the demands on the energy grid and the huge expense of each plant ... If desal was to provide enough water for 1/3 of California, and each plant produced enough water for 300K homes, how many coastal production plants would be needed? How many additional power plants would be needed to accommodate that many desal plants? How much salt would be produced as a by-product and what would be done with it? Then we can cover the secondary issues of infrastructure for moving the water produced from the plant to the intended aquifers and reservoirs, the property purchases and easements where it would have to traverse private property and more pump stations to move the water using more power from the grid. Is the State prepared to turn off someone's water? In effect, yes ... if a municipality exhausts its' supply of water, where is it going to get more from? Agriculture uses will be the first to experience cuts, and it will be really easy to see a 25% reduction based on their volume and in some cases you can visually see if there are 25% less strawberry fields or alfalfa tracts. At some point the word MANDATORY will sink in as it has, until now, always been voluntary -- when we go beyond ticketing for watering laws and washing cars to monthly metering and hefty fines or arrests for abusers all the way to the final phase ... Water trucks delivering your rations. Sooner or later the price of water per barrel will eclipse that of oil -- won't that be fun
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 3, 2015 8:53:33 GMT -8
The biggest show-stopper for the Chargers will be their extremely lame Carson plan. Ain't gonna happen. And the owners know that. So Spanos and his puppet troll can posture all they want, they're stuck in San Diego. And then they'll have to live with the bad will they've generated over the past several years forever. Hell, they've burned so many bridges that I can see this whole thing blowing up in their faces. Kroenke moves the Rams and the Raiders to his new stadium in Inglewood. The Chargers are left without a chair when the music stops playing. Spanos and Fabiani go back to City Hall and the angry villagers with hat in hand and say, "Pretty please, can we dust off those Mission Valley plans again?" What a bunch of putzes. Former Raiders CEO Amy Trask was on the new L.A. sportstalk station The Beast on Wednesday. Among the topics which came up was speculation the Raiders could wind up in St. Louis if the Rams move to Inglewood. I've always thought that sounded far fetched but Trask said it was a real possibility. Kroenke seems hell bent on moving to Inglewood, which is hell bent to get the Rams, and the city of St. Louis has been really going gung ho to move forward with building a new stadium. So Trask thinks St. Louis' building of a stadium to house the Raiders could smooth over dissident owners and pave the way for smooth sailing for the Rams to move to Inglewood. They really didn't discuss the Chargers but it seems that if side deals like that are made that the Spanoi could similarly work something out with Kroenke to share the Inglewood stadium. It makes no financial sense for Kroenke to share the LA market with Spanos. And it makes no financial sense for the Chargers to be a tenant in a Kroenke's stadium, in a market that doesn't care for the Chargers. The NFL says they want two teams in LA but that's just a lie. They really either want one (with the possibility of a second later) and that team would be the Rams or none at all. The threat of any team moving to LA in the past twenty years has gotten new stadiums built in many cities so why eliminate that threat with such a poor choice in the Chargers? I agree, unless something crazy happens, the Rams are inevitably going to LA. Maybe not next year but in 2017. There is so much momentum here now for a new stadium, I think it's going to pass the ballot. The CSAG is supposedly going to come up wtih a plan the Chargers will eventually agree with and the voters will accept since there will be no new taxes. Something may happen in Oakland but I could see them going to St. Louis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 9:02:14 GMT -8
Former Raiders CEO Amy Trask was on the new L.A. sportstalk station The Beast on Wednesday. Among the topics which came up was speculation the Raiders could wind up in St. Louis if the Rams move to Inglewood. I've always thought that sounded far fetched but Trask said it was a real possibility. Kroenke seems hell bent on moving to Inglewood, which is hell bent to get the Rams, and the city of St. Louis has been really going gung ho to move forward with building a new stadium. So Trask thinks St. Louis' building of a stadium to house the Raiders could smooth over dissident owners and pave the way for smooth sailing for the Rams to move to Inglewood. They really didn't discuss the Chargers but it seems that if side deals like that are made that the Spanoi could similarly work something out with Kroenke to share the Inglewood stadium. It makes no financial sense for Kroenke to share the LA market with Spanos. And it makes no financial sense for the Chargers to be a tenant in a Kroenke's stadium, in a market that doesn't care for the Chargers. The NFL says they want two teams in LA but that's just a lie. They really either want one (with the possibility of a second later) and that team would be the Rams or none at all. The threat of any team moving to LA in the past twenty years has gotten new stadiums built in many cities so why eliminate that threat with such a poor choice in the Chargers? I agree, unless something crazy happens, the Rams are inevitably going to LA. Maybe not next year but in 2017. There is so much momentum here now for a new stadium, I think it's going to pass the ballot. The CSAG is supposedly going to come up wtih a plan the Chargers will eventually agree with and the voters will accept since there will be no new taxes. Something may happen in Oakland but I could see them going to St. Louis. You could be right. To me the big question is what do the Chargers really want? If they really are hell bent on DT and don't get it I think all bets are off. But if they are reasonable, which may not be the case, they could accept a redeveloped Q site. So far there doesn't seem to be too many positive signs about their feelings towards the Q site.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 3, 2015 9:03:08 GMT -8
Former Raiders CEO Amy Trask was on the new L.A. sportstalk station The Beast on Wednesday. Among the topics which came up was speculation the Raiders could wind up in St. Louis if the Rams move to Inglewood. I've always thought that sounded far fetched but Trask said it was a real possibility. Kroenke seems hell bent on moving to Inglewood, which is hell bent to get the Rams, and the city of St. Louis has been really going gung ho to move forward with building a new stadium. So Trask thinks St. Louis' building of a stadium to house the Raiders could smooth over dissident owners and pave the way for smooth sailing for the Rams to move to Inglewood. They really didn't discuss the Chargers but it seems that if side deals like that are made that the Spanoi could similarly work something out with Kroenke to share the Inglewood stadium. It makes no financial sense for Kroenke to share the LA market with Spanos. And it makes no financial sense for the Chargers to be a tenant in a Kroenke's stadium, in a market that doesn't care for the Chargers. The NFL says they want two teams in LA but that's just a lie. They really either want one (with the possibility of a second later) and that team would be the Rams or none at all. The threat of any team moving to LA in the past twenty years has gotten new stadiums built in many cities so why eliminate that threat with such a poor choice in the Chargers? I agree, unless something crazy happens, the Rams are inevitably going to LA. Maybe not next year but in 2017. There is so much momentum here now for a new stadium, I think it's going to pass the ballot. The CSAG is supposedly going to come up wtih a plan the Chargers will eventually agree with and the voters will accept since there will be no new taxes. Something may happen in Oakland but I could see them going to St. Louis. That will change when the voters don't approve a stadium to be build for the Chargers in San Diego. LA, St. Louis or San Antonio will be their only option. Of course, you are assuming the Chargers will even approve of the city's proposal and even want to stay in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 3, 2015 9:10:06 GMT -8
It makes no financial sense for Kroenke to share the LA market with Spanos. And it makes no financial sense for the Chargers to be a tenant in a Kroenke's stadium, in a market that doesn't care for the Chargers. The NFL says they want two teams in LA but that's just a lie. They really either want one (with the possibility of a second later) and that team would be the Rams or none at all. The threat of any team moving to LA in the past twenty years has gotten new stadiums built in many cities so why eliminate that threat with such a poor choice in the Chargers? I agree, unless something crazy happens, the Rams are inevitably going to LA. Maybe not next year but in 2017. There is so much momentum here now for a new stadium, I think it's going to pass the ballot. The CSAG is supposedly going to come up wtih a plan the Chargers will eventually agree with and the voters will accept since there will be no new taxes. Something may happen in Oakland but I could see them going to St. Louis. That will change when the voters don't approve a stadium to be build for the Chargers in San Diego. LA, St. Louis or San Antonio will be their only option. Of course, you are assuming the Chargers will even approve of the city's proposal and even want to stay in San Diego. True ... any proposal that does not rely on tax increases or public property for private development, will have to have an increase in funding from the Chargers that also includes PSLs & Naming Rights If the deal does not also make the Chargers responsible for maintenance costs (like the Padres are at Petco) ... then the deal still may not pass the voters.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 3, 2015 12:18:38 GMT -8
It makes no financial sense for Kroenke to share the LA market with Spanos. And it makes no financial sense for the Chargers to be a tenant in a Kroenke's stadium, in a market that doesn't care for the Chargers. The NFL says they want two teams in LA but that's just a lie. They really either want one (with the possibility of a second later) and that team would be the Rams or none at all. The threat of any team moving to LA in the past twenty years has gotten new stadiums built in many cities so why eliminate that threat with such a poor choice in the Chargers? I agree, unless something crazy happens, the Rams are inevitably going to LA. Maybe not next year but in 2017. There is so much momentum here now for a new stadium, I think it's going to pass the ballot. The CSAG is supposedly going to come up wtih a plan the Chargers will eventually agree with and the voters will accept since there will be no new taxes. Something may happen in Oakland but I could see them going to St. Louis. You could be right. To me the big question is what do the Chargers really want? If they really are hell bent on DT and don't get it I think all bets are off. But if they are reasonable, which may not be the case, they could accept a redeveloped Q site. So far there doesn't seem to be too many positive signs about their feelings towards the Q site. Fabiani is grasping to any leverage right now while he can. I have to admit, he's doing an excellent job with how utterly terrible the Carson proposal looks. So many people are convinced the Chargers are actually going to Carson. Ultimately, no one here really knows what's going down behind closed doors so this is all speculation but my feeling is that Kroenke's is just not a good fit for the Chargers and Kroenke will never go for it anyway so this is all Fabiani's scheme to get the best deal here. The Chargers are going to accept a deal from the city and it will go to vote next year. Whether it passes or not, is an entirely different issue but since there won't be new taxes requiring a 2/3 vote, I think there's a good chance it will pass.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 3, 2015 12:38:02 GMT -8
You could be right. To me the big question is what do the Chargers really want? If they really are hell bent on DT and don't get it I think all bets are off. But if they are reasonable, which may not be the case, they could accept a redeveloped Q site. So far there doesn't seem to be too many positive signs about their feelings towards the Q site. Fabiani is grasping to any leverage right now while he can. I have to admit, he's doing an excellent job with how utterly terrible the Carson proposal looks. So many people are convinced the Chargers are actually going to Carson. Ultimately, no one here really knows what's going down behind closed doors so this is all speculation but my feeling is that Kroenke's is just not a good fit for the Chargers and Kroenke will never go for it anyway so this is all Fabiani's scheme to get the best deal here. The Chargers are going to accept a deal from the city and it will go to vote next year. Whether it passes or not, is an entirely different issue but since there won't be new taxes requiring a 2/3 vote, I think there's a good chance it will pass. I wonder how many years Kroenke would want in LA alone to "establish a market" before he would open up his stadium to a tenant? In the meantime, what would the Chargers do? Would they ask for financial compensation from the Rams for giving up part of their market? Would the Q debate be affected, delayed or scuttled? I don't think the NFL will approve a G4 loan for a stadium a few miles away from another one, so the Chargers may have to finance an additional $200M for their Carson project. EDIT: A San Diego stadium may have to survive multiple votes: Countywide vote to approve a bridge loan Citywide vote to approve public land for private development Both City and County Votes to establish an infrastructure zone for all of Mission Valley to allocate property taxes for stadium development
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 3, 2015 13:39:55 GMT -8
Fabiani is grasping to any leverage right now while he can. I have to admit, he's doing an excellent job with how utterly terrible the Carson proposal looks. So many people are convinced the Chargers are actually going to Carson. Ultimately, no one here really knows what's going down behind closed doors so this is all speculation but my feeling is that Kroenke's is just not a good fit for the Chargers and Kroenke will never go for it anyway so this is all Fabiani's scheme to get the best deal here. The Chargers are going to accept a deal from the city and it will go to vote next year. Whether it passes or not, is an entirely different issue but since there won't be new taxes requiring a 2/3 vote, I think there's a good chance it will pass. I wonder how many years Kroenke would want in LA alone to "establish a market" before he would open up his stadium to a tenant? In the meantime, what would the Chargers do? Would they ask for financial compensation from the Rams for giving up part of their market? Would the Q debate be affected, delayed or scuttled? I don't think the NFL will approve a G4 loan for a stadium a few miles away from another one, so the Chargers may have to finance an additional $200M for their Carson project. EDIT: A San Diego stadium may have to survive multiple votes: Countywide vote to approve a bridge loan Citywide vote to approve public land for private development Both City and County Votes to establish an infrastructure zone for all of Mission Valley to allocate property taxes for stadium development Correct, teams that are relocating are not eligible for a G4 loan. Kroenke won't get one but he doesn't need it anyway. Yes, I think the Chargers are definitely going to ask for financial compensation. That's the whole reason they keep pushing this crap that "LA/OC is 25% of their market". In my opinion, Kroneke will never share his stadium, just like the 49ers aren't sharing with the Raiders (and the Raiders don't want to as well anyway). There's no money in being a tenant in another team's stadium. The recent story that the Inglewood stadium will be able to house two teams is just to keep relocation a possiblity in the future. That is infinitely more valuable to the NFL than bringing a poor team like the Chargers into LA as just tenants. The Jets-Giants situation is completely different because they were able to privately finance it together. The Chargers and Raiders don't have the money to do that. This is why I think Goodell came out and said they're not focusing on 2016 for relocation. He's giving the Chargers and Raiders another year to get deals done in their cities. The NFL doesn't want the Chargers in LA and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 3, 2015 14:15:56 GMT -8
The Chargers aren't among the half dozen NFL financial elite but they aren't "poor" either. And it's speculated they could move up the monetary food chain by moving to L.A. where because of the many more corporate headquarters, they are likely to be able to sell several times more luxury boxes than in SD.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 3, 2015 15:23:49 GMT -8
The NFL doesn't want the Chargers in LA and vice versa. Really? I think the NFL wants one, and more likely two teams in LA within 5 years. I get that YOU don't want the Chargers in LA.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 3, 2015 17:23:20 GMT -8
The NFL doesn't want the Chargers in LA and vice versa. Really? I think the NFL wants one, and more likely two teams in LA within 5 years. I get that YOU don't want the Chargers in LA. I explained why I feel that way and it doesn't have anything to do with where I want the Chargers to be. There is more value to the NFL to have an empty spot in LA to threaten cities when teams will ask for new stadiums in the future. And that value is worth much, much more over a weak option like the Chargers. Do people not understand that people in LA don't give a sh*t about the Chargers? Have you seen the polls they've run in LA on which team they want? The Chargers get about 3% of the vote at best. They would be at the bottom of all professional and college teams in LA/OC. The only way I could see the Chargers standing a chance in LA is if they completely rebrand, drop the Charger name and start from scratch. But even then I'm still skeptical. LA won't want a "loser" team from their little brother city from the south.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 3, 2015 17:33:11 GMT -8
Really? I think the NFL wants one, and more likely two teams in LA within 5 years. I get that YOU don't want the Chargers in LA. I explained why I feel that way and it doesn't have anything to do with where I want the Chargers to be. There is more value to the NFL to have an empty spot in LA to threaten cities when teams will ask for new stadiums in the future. And that value is worth much, much more over a weak option like the Chargers. Do people not understand that people in LA don't give a sh*t about the Chargers? Have you seen the polls they've run in LA on which team they want? The Chargers get about 3% of the vote at best. They would be at the bottom of all professional and college teams in LA/OC. The only way I could see the Chargers standing a chance in LA is if they completely rebrand, drop the Charger name and start from scratch. But even then I'm still skeptical. LA won't want a "loser" team from their little brother city from the south. I think there is merit to what you say, aztecbolt. LA is indifferent to San Diego in most ways. In fact, if you did a survey, I'm sure they would overwhelmingly claim that San Diego is somewhere SOUTH of Southern California. Camp Pendleton is a visual and mental barrier for LA and even OC.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Apr 4, 2015 8:04:41 GMT -8
Of course having drinking water is mandatory for humans to live. The problem is the dependence of natural means for production of drinkable water. This should have been done in years or decades ago in California. It's lets kick the can down the road mentality is the problem. Mandatory reduction in water use is only as strong as the enforcement. Is the state prepared to turn off someone's water if they use too much? Or just raise their rates? The problem is enforcemnt. Ok so someones pays the rate now what? What is the money going to be used for ? We have no problem getting oil anywhere. The same should be for water. dependence on natural means is largely due to unintended by-products of artificial means creating bigger issues as well as the demands on the energy grid and the huge expense of each plant ... If desal was to provide enough water for 1/3 of California, and each plant produced enough water for 300K homes, how many coastal production plants would be needed? How many additional power plants would be needed to accommodate that many desal plants? How much salt would be produced as a by-product and what would be done with it? Then we can cover the secondary issues of infrastructure for moving the water produced from the plant to the intended aquifers and reservoirs, the property purchases and easements where it would have to traverse private property and more pump stations to move the water using more power from the grid. Is the State prepared to turn off someone's water? In effect, yes ... if a municipality exhausts its' supply of water, where is it going to get more from? Agriculture uses will be the first to experience cuts, and it will be really easy to see a 25% reduction based on their volume and in some cases you can visually see if there are 25% less strawberry fields or alfalfa tracts. At some point the word MANDATORY will sink in as it has, until now, always been voluntary -- when we go beyond ticketing for watering laws and washing cars to monthly metering and hefty fines or arrests for abusers all the way to the final phase ... Water trucks delivering your rations. Sooner or later the price of water per barrel will eclipse that of oil -- won't that be fun This is what I think. Have water as an open market commodity like oil. Transportation Is not a problem. Oil trucks bring oil gas stations water trucks could transports water. Easements exist everywhere freeways are great places to burry water pipes It was done before. In the 60 and 70s the infrastructure was done that built San diego it can be done again. news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040215-746349-california-governor-jerry-brown-issues-water-use-restrictions.htm
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Apr 4, 2015 8:05:47 GMT -8
In fact water districts purchase water daily from the Colorado river. They could easily buy it from other sources as well
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Apr 4, 2015 8:39:03 GMT -8
The NFL doesn't want the Chargers in LA and vice versa. Really? I think the NFL wants one, and more likely two teams in LA within 5 years. I get that YOU don't want the Chargers in LA. No hoobs. I get you want the Chargers gone. The NFL wants the right em team in la first and that is the Rams. Then once the Rams establish their market maybe expand to a second team. This is the plan. What about this confuses you?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 4, 2015 8:43:30 GMT -8
In fact water districts purchase water daily from the Colorado river. They could easily buy it from other sources as well Yes, it could be done. But the real problem is supply and demand---for votes. Politicians need more gratification, sooner. Thus they back issues that are more immediate: Giving away money now, in exchange for votes and kudos now. Water ducts/pipes, desalination plants, dams, etc., are easy targets for the environmental lobby, creating interminable delays, before a project can come to fruition. That protracted time also costs money; and politicians don't want posthumous praise. Time kills long term projects and politicians. When you have a tiny shrimp, or tiny fish, or a butterfly, or a rat, given priority over humans, you now witness the environmental obeisance, as the new authoritarian religion.
|
|