|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 7:07:07 GMT -8
What to Watch for in a Chargers Stadium Deal 1. How much public money? 2. Where’s the public money coming from? 3. What kind of public money is it? 4. What’s the city budget on the hook for? 5. How much development? 6. Where’s the private money coming from and who’s getting it? 7. Who’s responsible for the stadium’s upkeep and who gets the money from its events? 8. What’s in the fine print? 9. Are we having a vote? When? 10.What are we giving up by building a stadium? www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/what-to-watch-for-in-a-chargers-stadium-deal/Since there are a number of pages of posts to read through, my comments may already have been made by others. If so, I apologize. EDIT: Yes, posters have addressed some of my questions. First, there is this additional question. Would SDSU have any input into the design process? Second, what about rental fees, both for the Chargers and the Aztecs? Do the former get a sweetheart deal while we get the shaft? Third, could you elaborate on point #10. When you say "we," do you refer to the taxpayers or to SDSU? Finally, another question. How likely is it that there were be lawsuits filed by those who object to any public money at all being spent to help the Chargers, a group that is a private, for-profit company? There may be other questions, of course. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 7:12:22 GMT -8
Stadium funding breakdown How the mayor’s task force proposes financing a new Chargers stadium. • Chargers $300M • NFL $200M • City Stadium Fund $121M ($7M/year over 30 years*) • County Stadium Fund $121M ($7M/year over 30 years*) • Personal Seat Licenses (PSLs) $60M ($120M total split evenly with Chargers) • Chargers Rent $173M ($10M per season) or 30 years* • SDSU Annual Rent $21.6M ($1.25M/year) over 30 years*• Bowl Games Rent $21.6M ($1.25M/year) over 30 years* • Developer Purchase (sale of 75 acres at $3 million an acre) $225M • Ticket Surcharge $84.7M ($4.75M/year) over 30 years* • Chargers Parking & Surcharge $26M ($1.5M/year) over 30 years* • Additional funding sources stadium is expected to generate $50M over 30 years* Total Recommended Revenues $1.4 Billion *Includes City land valued at $180 million. No new taxes. *Net Present Value based upon 4% discount rate over 30 years. How does this SDSU rental fee compare with the current rate? Also, assuming that we are talking about Mission Valley, I guess this kisses off for all time the idea of a West SDSU campus. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on May 19, 2015 7:15:51 GMT -8
Stadium funding breakdown How the mayor’s task force proposes financing a new Chargers stadium. • Chargers $300M • NFL $200M • City Stadium Fund $121M ($7M/year over 30 years*) • County Stadium Fund $121M ($7M/year over 30 years*) • Personal Seat Licenses (PSLs) $60M ($120M total split evenly with Chargers) • Chargers Rent $173M ($10M per season) or 30 years* • SDSU Annual Rent $21.6M ($1.25M/year) over 30 years*• Bowl Games Rent $21.6M ($1.25M/year) over 30 years* • Developer Purchase (sale of 75 acres at $3 million an acre) $225M • Ticket Surcharge $84.7M ($4.75M/year) over 30 years* • Chargers Parking & Surcharge $26M ($1.5M/year) over 30 years* • Additional funding sources stadium is expected to generate $50M over 30 years* Total Recommended Revenues $1.4 Billion *Includes City land valued at $180 million. No new taxes. *Net Present Value based upon 4% discount rate over 30 years. How does this SDSU rental fee compare with the current rate? Also, assuming that we are talking about Mission Valley, I guess this kisses off for all time the idea of a West SDSU campus. AzWm SDSU currently pays to operate the stadium. Basically, we reimburse the city for things like police, trash collection, electricity, maintenance, etc. And, the city gets $1 per ticket sold to SDSU games. Comes out to about half a million a year.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 7:19:10 GMT -8
1 X $2,671 = $2,671 4 X $2,671 = $10,684 Considering all the Super Bowls the Chargers have won, it's a bargain. Good thing...for the Aztecs... I don't predicate how much I'm willing to spend on my entertainment based upon on the field success. Glass houses dude... BIG FRAGILE glass houses. I hope to goodness that Aztec fans will not have to buy personal seat licenses! ! ! If so, SDSU is really getting screwed. But what else should be expect? ! AzW,
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 7:29:05 GMT -8
What to Watch for in a Chargers Stadium Deal 1. How much public money? 2. Where’s the public money coming from? 3. What kind of public money is it? 4. What’s the city budget on the hook for? 5. How much development? 6. Where’s the private money coming from and who’s getting it? 7. Who’s responsible for the stadium’s upkeep and who gets the money from its events? 8. What’s in the fine print? 9. Are we having a vote? When? 10.What are we giving up by building a stadium? www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/what-to-watch-for-in-a-chargers-stadium-deal/Since there are a number of pages of posts to read through, my comments may already have been made by others. If so, I apologize. First, there is this additional question. Would SDSU have any input into the design process? Second, what about rental fees, both for the Chargers and the Aztecs? Do the former get a sweetheart deal while we get the shaft? Third, could you elaborate on point #10. When you say "we," do you refer to the taxpayers or to SDSU? Finally, another question. How likely is it that there were be lawsuits filed by those who object to any public money at all being spent to help the Chargers, a group that is a private, for-profit company? There may be other questions, of course. AzWm I doubt SDSU will have any input into the design process since they're not putting any money into the stadium. But I believe there was a quote from one of the CSAG members yesterday (Adam Day?) who mentioned something about home locker rooms for SDSU. I don't remember the exact quote however. I'm sure there will be lawsuits. We're a lawsuit happy society.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 7:30:15 GMT -8
Stadium funding breakdown How the mayor’s task force proposes financing a new Chargers stadium. • Chargers $300M • NFL $200M • City Stadium Fund $121M ($7M/year over 30 years*) • County Stadium Fund $121M ($7M/year over 30 years*) • Personal Seat Licenses (PSLs) $60M ($120M total split evenly with Chargers) • Chargers Rent $173M ($10M per season) or 30 years* • SDSU Annual Rent $21.6M ($1.25M/year) over 30 years*• Bowl Games Rent $21.6M ($1.25M/year) over 30 years* • Developer Purchase (sale of 75 acres at $3 million an acre) $225M • Ticket Surcharge $84.7M ($4.75M/year) over 30 years* • Chargers Parking & Surcharge $26M ($1.5M/year) over 30 years* • Additional funding sources stadium is expected to generate $50M over 30 years* Total Recommended Revenues $1.4 Billion *Includes City land valued at $180 million. No new taxes. *Net Present Value based upon 4% discount rate over 30 years. How does this SDSU rental fee compare with the current rate? Also, assuming that we are talking about Mission Valley, I guess this kisses off for all time the idea of a West SDSU campus. AzWm Couldn't SDSU be the group that buys the 75 acres of land they're proposing to sell?
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 7:30:21 GMT -8
If you can't see the obvious differences between Viejas and a shared stadium with the Chargers I can't help you. It's clear you have a personal stake in the matter driving your opinion anyway. You don't seem to be evaluating much, just rushing to defend a proposal that was released not but an hour ago. and you've rushed to criticize it. Sorry junior, I don't know how many f'ing times I've said I don't want the Chargers to move out of town. What part of that don't you get? That's my ONLY agenda. I've been a fan since they first moved to S.Diego. I'm not like people your age who dump teams just because they don't win enough. Your obvious is obvious only to you. Quit thinking like a Cowtown goat roper and start realizing that the door is open to State. They can buy the acreage that the City will sell if they so choose. The team can play in a NEW NFL Stadium or they can build their own. Options are plentiful for State and everybody can be "happy" except for some on here, like you, who just don't get the big picture. By the way how much are you going to donate to help State? Well, there seems to be one big thing that you don't get, Mr. I'm-the-world's-biggest-Chargers-fan-and-who-the-hell-cares-what-happens-to-the-Aztecs? Namely, that having to play in a new NFL caliber stadium will be a huge, repeat huge, negative for the Aztecs. For reasons repeatedly posted here and perfectly obvious, anyway. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 19, 2015 7:42:46 GMT -8
I hope this gets killed. The Chargers need to leave for SDSU to take our program to the next level.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 19, 2015 7:52:14 GMT -8
Since there are a number of pages of posts to read through, my comments may already have been made by others. If so, I apologize. First, there is this additional question. Would SDSU have any input into the design process? Second, what about rental fees, both for the Chargers and the Aztecs? Do the former get a sweetheart deal while we get the shaft? Third, could you elaborate on point #10. When you say "we," do you refer to the taxpayers or to SDSU? Finally, another question. How likely is it that there were be lawsuits filed by those who object to any public money at all being spent to help the Chargers, a group that is a private, for-profit company? There may be other questions, of course. AzWm I doubt SDSU will have any input into the design process since they're not putting any money into the stadium. But I believe there was a quote from one of the CSAG members yesterday (Adam Day?) who mentioned something about home locker rooms for SDSU. I don't remember the exact quote however. I'm sure there will be lawsuits. We're a lawsuit happy society. You are spot on. Adam Day yesterday said in an interview that he expects SDSU to have a part in the project with its own locker rooms and input on the design. He also stated that while SDSU would pay more rent in the proposal, the CSAG also recommends the City renegotiate with SDSU and the bowl games to allow them to earn more revenue from the new advertising opportunities in the new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 19, 2015 7:53:40 GMT -8
Day did say they were conservative in their estimates, overstating costs and understating revenue. The deal isn't a bad one for the city or county. It doesn't, on the surface, look as good for the team as other cities have done. Having read through the 42 pages just now -- I will actually say that the CSAG has done just the opposite ... they have overstated revenue and understated costs.These facts will bear themselves out as the negotiations begin giving more detail to who contributes how much exactly, and who is responsible for cost overruns / revenue shortfalls. For instance: Should the 75 acres sell for just $1M per acre instead of the estimated $3M would be a difference of $150M. If PSLs generate less than $120M -- will the City still get it's full $60M share for stadium funding or will the City and Chargers split whatever PSLs raise 50/50? If the County decides that their $120M is a loan -- who is paying them back? If it's not a loan, does it require a vote to use county funds for a sports franchise? If the Aztecs, Bowl Games and other events cease to use the stadium short of the predicted 30 year estimate, where will the money come from to cover those costs? And where do your numbers come from? As far as my statement goes I am repeating exactly what Day said at the conference. Complain to him, not me.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 19, 2015 7:54:55 GMT -8
I hope this gets kill ed the MWC and P5 teams. The Chargers Aztecs need to leavewin meaningful games and a lot of them for SDSU to take our program to the next level. FIFY
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 19, 2015 7:57:46 GMT -8
The only realistic ways SDSU could afford to increase its annual "rental" fee from about $500K to $1.2M are (1) to gain membership to the B12 or (2) to become part of a best of the rest conference. The former would mean we could pay $10.2M per year and still have a surplus but the chances of it happening any time in the next decade are nil. The latter possibility frankly depends very much on SDSU itself. I see no reason Hirshman and Sterk shouldn't at least be speaking with BYU and Fresno State about their possible interest.
That said, it was reported by Scott Kaplan yesterday that a source he spoke with within the Chargers organization said the CSAG report was DOA as far as the Spanoi were concerned. Combine that with yesterday's announcement the Chargers and Raiders have hired Carmen Policy to be their spokesman in pushing for NFL acceptance of a Carson stadium and the conclusion to be reached is the Chargers are going to play hardball with Faulconer's folks.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 19, 2015 7:59:45 GMT -8
Here's what I don't get: The Chargers get bumped to $300m, but the NFL stays at $200m. Why isn't the NFL, which has a license to print money, kicking in $300m, $400m or $500m on these projects? That is their standard contribution and it is a loan to the team, which has to pay back $150M of it (the latter point I saw just recently, I previously thought all of it had to be paid back).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 8:00:20 GMT -8
and you've rushed to criticize it. Sorry junior, I don't know how many f'ing times I've said I don't want the Chargers to move out of town. What part of that don't you get? That's my ONLY agenda. I've been a fan since they first moved to S.Diego. I'm not like people your age who dump teams just because they don't win enough. Your obvious is obvious only to you. Quit thinking like a Cowtown goat roper and start realizing that the door is open to State. They can buy the acreage that the City will sell if they so choose. The team can play in a NEW NFL Stadium or they can build their own. Options are plentiful for State and everybody can be "happy" except for some on here, like you, who just don't get the big picture. By the way how much are you going to donate to help State? Well, there seems to be one big thing that you don't get, Mr. I'm-the-world's-biggest-Chargers-fan-and-who-the-hell-cares-what-happens-to-the-Aztecs? Namely, that having to play in a new NFL caliber stadium will be a huge, repeat huge, negative for the Aztecs. For reasons repeatedly posted here and perfectly obvious, anyway. AzWm "San Diego State University appreciates the opportunity to have participated with the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group in the planning process for a new stadium and we are eager to participate fully in a partnership that will retain the Chargers in San Diego and advance our region. As we continue our efforts to become one of our nation's top 50 public universities, the development of, and investment in our athletic programs, including our football program, is a critical priority. And we are committed to channeling the support of our 350,000 students, faculty, staff and alumni to ensure the successful development of a new stadium for San Diego."Notice that the University is behind the development of a stadium for SAN DIEGO, not SDSU. Some on here, and I will put you at the very top of this list, need to take a lesson from this mature, reasoned, community minded response. For SDSU athletics to grow, it needs the support of the entire community. For SDSU to continue its impressive growth in academic performance it needs sound, reasoned stewardship of valuable, limited resources. Stadium construction would not be considered as such as I'm sure the leadership recognizes. I'll also add that the "West Campus" expansion so many here advocate, works against the stated goal of being a Top 50 Public University. Factoring significantly in the USNWR rankings is student "selectivity", meaning essentially the quality of students admitted. A larger student body means that you will be admitting on average,lower performing students. Lower performing students also affect other metrics on the back end such as Graduation Rate and Retention. CSU schools are already challenged in these areas due to Charter requirements.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 19, 2015 8:01:44 GMT -8
Ok so what is looking like the most likely outcome? It is up in the air? Or is there a clear leader? Please keep your biases out of it and don't say what you want to happen, just what it looks like will happen. I'm not good with this stuff. Looking at the CSAG proposal on the surface, it seems like a better deal for the city than the Chargers so I think there are tough negotiations ahead and I think the CSAG did a smart thing by have $300M of wiggle room in their proposal because the Chargers are going to balk at some of the things on the proposal. But the Chargers ultimately have nowhere else to go. Carson is a joke and being Kroenke's tenant isn't a winning proposal for them so I think they have no choice but to hammer out a deal with the city. I believe the actual contribution from the Chargers works out to be about $800-900M over the term of the lease. I find it unlikely they will accept that.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 19, 2015 8:05:40 GMT -8
The Aztecs won't be sharing a stadium if the plan is taken to the people of San Diego for a vote...because there won't be a new stadium... Simply put...the majority of the people in the city / county of San Diego don't care about sports and would rather use our tax money for other projects beyond that of a sports stadium...this is the reason why a new stadium will never happen...and even if the politicians manage to avoid a vote...there will then be lawsuits filed from here to Monday to prevent the construction from ever happening...but heck...maybe it'll work it's way through the courts quickly and efficiently....just like the Mt. Soledad cross... File away! Of course there will be lawsuits. You build anything in California and there will be lawsuits trying to prevent you from doing so. If the Chargers bail and in the unlikely event SDSU finds the money to build their own stadium there will be lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 19, 2015 8:09:58 GMT -8
Having read through the 42 pages just now -- I will actually say that the CSAG has done just the opposite ... they have overstated revenue and understated costs.These facts will bear themselves out as the negotiations begin giving more detail to who contributes how much exactly, and who is responsible for cost overruns / revenue shortfalls. For instance: Should the 75 acres sell for just $1M per acre instead of the estimated $3M would be a difference of $150M. If PSLs generate less than $120M -- will the City still get it's full $60M share for stadium funding or will the City and Chargers split whatever PSLs raise 50/50? If the County decides that their $120M is a loan -- who is paying them back? If it's not a loan, does it require a vote to use county funds for a sports franchise? If the Aztecs, Bowl Games and other events cease to use the stadium short of the predicted 30 year estimate, where will the money come from to cover those costs? And where do your numbers come from? As far as my statement goes I am repeating exactly what Day said at the conference. Complain to him, not me. Quit complicating the issue with facts.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 8:10:32 GMT -8
The only realistic ways SDSU could afford to increase its annual "rental" fee from about $500K to $1.2M are (1) to gain membership to the B12 or (2) to become part of a best of the rest conference. The former would mean we could pay $10.2M per year and still have a surplus but the chances of it happening any time in the next decade are nil. The latter possibility frankly depends very much on SDSU itself. I see no reason Hirshman and Sterk shouldn't at least be speaking with BYU and Fresno State about their possible interest. That said, it was reported by Scott Kaplan yesterday that a source he spoke with within the Chargers organization said the CSAG report was DOA as far as the Spanoi were concerned. Combine that with yesterday's announcement the Chargers and Raiders have hired Carmen Policy to be their spokesman in pushing for NFL acceptance of a Carson stadium and the conclusion to be reached is the Chargers are going to play hardball with Faulconer's folks. The "source" Kaplan was referring to wasn't inside the Chargers organization. He is a member of the San Diego Stadium Coalition, which sounds official but in reality is just a grassroots organization who is pushing for a downtown stadium and are obviously against CSAG's recommendation for a stadium in MV. The Carmen Policy thing is a joke. He's been retired for ten years but I guess they couldn't get anyone else that is more relevant to hitch their wagon to the joke that is Carson. But yes, the Chargers are trying desperately to keep the Carson farce alive. The harder they try, the more obvious that they really want to stay in San Diego in my opinion. I don't agree with their methods but it's all negotiation tactics and they need to do something I suppose because the CSAG deal is a good one for the city, not for the Chargers at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 8:15:54 GMT -8
Looking at the CSAG proposal on the surface, it seems like a better deal for the city than the Chargers so I think there are tough negotiations ahead and I think the CSAG did a smart thing by have $300M of wiggle room in their proposal because the Chargers are going to balk at some of the things on the proposal. But the Chargers ultimately have nowhere else to go. Carson is a joke and being Kroenke's tenant isn't a winning proposal for them so I think they have no choice but to hammer out a deal with the city. I believe the actual contribution from the Chargers works out to be about $800-900M over the term of the lease. I find it unlikely they will accept that. I'm certain that the $200M from the NFL is a loan to the Chargers (that's the way it's always been) but Adam Day didn't seem to explain that well yesterday because he made it sound like the NFL is contributing that, unless the NFL recently changed their policy. So $500M from the Chargers ($300M + $200M loan from the NFL). Is it really accurate to count the $300M from the Chargers in rent over 30 years? That's standard and based on the CSAG report, it's on the lower end of rent payments compared to other recently built NFL stadiums.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 8:17:53 GMT -8
Here's what I don't get: The Chargers get bumped to $300m, but the NFL stays at $200m. Why isn't the NFL, which has a license to print money, kicking in $300m, $400m or $500m on these projects? That is their standard contribution and it is a loan to the team, which has to pay back $150M of it (the latter point I saw just recently, I previously thought all of it had to be paid back). Good catch. I do remember hearing that exact number yesterday as well. So the NFL is throwing in $50M and the Chargers would be contributing $450M.
|
|