|
Post by HighNTight on May 19, 2015 8:31:19 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. In case you haven't had a chance to read the 42 page report for yourself, then maybe you should take a moment to actually do so. Then try some math regarding $225M for 75 acres and tell me if that is the low end or the high end of an estimate? Read through it and find for me the what party makes up the differences if revenues fall short of projections regarding PSLs. At this stage in a political negotiation regarding finance -- it is common to overstate revenue and understate costs ... it makes it more palatable. Unfortunately when the truth comes out you, what you have left are cost overruns and bonds being paid out of the City's General Fund (Stadium Expansion & Petco Park to name 2 examples). I am not against the Chargers getting a new stadium -- as long as they pay for most (if not all) of it. I personally don't think they need a $1.1B stadium and the CSAG estimate includes the cost for a parking garage I would have advanced a proposal that had: the Chargers paying $250Mthe NFL Loan for another $200MChargers Rent $150M ($7.5M for 20 years) Naming Rights $100M (anything over that is the chargers to keep) PSLs $100M (anything over that is the chargers to keep) I just sourced funds for an $800M stadium without selling 75 acres or building a parking garage ... and didn't use any public funds either. I also did it by using lower revenue estimates than the CSAG did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 8:35:33 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. Dean stepping down but continuing to handle the stadium issue is an interesting aspect of the discussion. How settled is he in San Diego? I should think that in the period of time he's resided here, most of his friends and close acquaintances are in San Diego. His kids grew up here. As we get on in years, these things matter. Picking up and moving on is discomfiting. Staying in the area I should think would be uncomfortable at best should he decide to move the franchise. It's been my observation that Dean prefers non-confrontation. Twice in recent memory, he sided with his direct report (the GM) when friction arose between the GM and a popular and successful coach; Bethard over Ross, AJ over Marty. In both instances, the correct football move was arguably to dump the GM and keep the coach. Bethard by the time Ross arrived on-scene had long ago jumped the shark, buying into his own myth of the King of the 6th round draft pick. AJ, by the time Marty turned the team around, was in the process of alienating the entire city just by being AJ. Yet Dean chose the path of least resistance, for him, and elected to delegate the messiness to the GM. In this situation, he has the opportunity to ride off into his Golden Years as the man that worked the deal to keep the hometown team at home,the path of least resistance OR he can chuck it all and force the move to LA understanding that the life he built here will most likely be in the rear view mirror, the more difficult path for him I should think.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 8:38:22 GMT -8
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. In case you haven't had a chance to read the 42 page report for yourself, then maybe you should take a moment to actually do so. Then try some math regarding $225M for 75 acres and tell me if that is the low end or the high end of an estimate? Read through it and find for me the what party makes up the differences if revenues fall short of projections regarding PSLs. At this stage in a political negotiation regarding finance -- it is common to overstate revenue and understate costs ... it makes it more palatable. Unfortunately when the truth comes out you, what you have left are cost overruns and bonds being paid out of the City's General Fund (Stadium Expansion & Petco Park to name 2 examples). I am not against the Chargers getting a new stadium -- as long as they pay for most (if not all) of it. I personally don't think they need a $1.1B stadium and the CSAG estimate includes the cost for a parking garage I would have advanced a proposal that had: the Chargers paying $250Mthe NFL Loan for another $200MChargers Rent $150M ($7.5M for 20 years) Naming Rights $100M (anything over that is the chargers to keep) PSLs $100M (anything over that is the chargers to keep) I just sourced funds for an $800M stadium without selling 75 acres or building a parking garage ... and didn't use any public funds either. There's no way that deal would ever fly. The CSAG proposal is a bad one for the Chargers and your numbers are even worse for them. Also, two things: The 75 acres is actually not part of the stadium financing deal. The CSAG proposal asks the Chargers to cover any overruns.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 8:48:22 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. Regardless of the board, this is ultimately about the Chargers. Reviewing the proposal this appears to be the first viable idea that has surfaced. But it's a proposal in its earliest of stages. Yes, there's still a lot that would have to be hammered out, including dealing with the inevitable lawsuits if this proposal actually gains some serious traction. After all, this IS San Diego. Regarding SDSU, they have little if any leverage in this deal. They've done nothing to deserve it.
Well, that's one way to look at it. On the other hand, SDSU has been here since 1897, and Aztec football since 1921. That's a lot of history and tradition here with several thousands of young men participating, most of whom (thinking of pre-1970) never benefited from a scholarship. When you say that SDSU has done nothing to deserve any part in the conceptualization and planning for a new stadium, I wonder what it is that they could have done to make you change your mind on that point. Multiple national championships? Perhaps you think that Aztec football does not even deserve to continue.
SDSU deserves a say because THEY, not the Chargers, represent the best of San Diego. You are probably correct that the Aztecs will get the crumbs, and very pricey crumbs they may well be. Yes, the Chargers will get the benefit of millions of taxpayer dollars that no other private company could ever even hope to receive. It's a lousy deal, but it should not be a surprise. Unlike companies that actually produce something of value, pro sports franchises tend to have the locals by the short hairs.
It's an unfair world, in case you have not noticed it.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 19, 2015 8:49:35 GMT -8
In case you haven't had a chance to read the 42 page report for yourself, then maybe you should take a moment to actually do so. Then try some math regarding $225M for 75 acres and tell me if that is the low end or the high end of an estimate? Read through it and find for me the what party makes up the differences if revenues fall short of projections regarding PSLs. At this stage in a political negotiation regarding finance -- it is common to overstate revenue and understate costs ... it makes it more palatable. Unfortunately when the truth comes out, what you have left are cost overruns and bonds being paid out of the City's General Fund (Stadium Expansion & Petco Park to name 2 examples). I am not against the Chargers getting a new stadium -- as long as they pay for most (if not all) of it. I personally don't think they need a $1.1B stadium and the CSAG estimate includes the cost for a parking garage I would have advanced a proposal that had: the Chargers paying $250Mthe NFL Loan for another $200MChargers Rent $150M ($7.5M for 20 years) Naming Rights $100M (anything over that is the chargers to keep) PSLs $100M (anything over that is the chargers to keep) I just sourced funds for an $800M stadium without selling 75 acres or building a parking garage ... and didn't use any public funds either. There's no way that deal would ever fly. The CSAG proposal is a bad one for the Chargers and your numbers are even worse for them.Also, two things: The 75 acres is actually not part of the stadium financing deal. The CSAG proposal asks the Chargers to cover any overruns. 2 things ... If the Chargers are responsible for cost overruns and revenue shortfalls (which are not exactly the same thing but do have the same effect) then this deal is a really bad one for the Chargers As for my numbers CSAG number for rent is $300M ($10M x 30 yrs) -- mine is $150M ($7.5M x 20) = -$150M CSAG Chargers Contribution is $300M -- I reduced it to $250M = -$50M CSAG projects $120M in PSLS split 50/50 -- I say the Chargers keep anything over $100M ... (if PSLs are renewed every 10 yrs, the Chargers will make more in the long run) As for Naming Rights ... again I say the Chargers keep anything over $100M (which over 20 years is just $5M per year) Which means in my world the more the Chargers can get for PSLs & Naming Rights ... the more they earn WHILE paying LESS for a Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 19, 2015 8:53:30 GMT -8
The 75 acres is actually not part of the stadium financing deal. Really? I'm pretty sure you're totally wrong on that. The CSAG proposal asks the Chargers to cover any overruns. I haven't seen that detail specifically elaborated, but I'll trust you that it is in here. However, we all know that the Chargers will never accept this in a million years and that *IF* a deal gets done that piece will be changed so that SD taxpayers would be the ones on the hook for all cost over-runs and funding shortfalls...
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 8:55:54 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... ...................................................................... So anyways, the new Aztec Warrior Stadium looks like it will seat somewhere around 65,000. And the 20,000 to 25,000 fans actually in those 65,000 seats will look really impressive! Heck, even 35,000 fans, which would be a fairly decent crowd for a non-P5 program would not look like a big deal. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 9:02:28 GMT -8
It pains me to say this but San Diego has become a minor league sports town. When did Phoenix pass us by? Phoenix for God's sake! We cannot find a way to buils a footaball staduim for years and then when the plan comes up we al talk about lawsuits to stop it. Pretty dam sad if you ask me.We could have built it 10 years ago for half the cost.A Total lack of vision regarding sports. The most glaring example of lack of vision (though it's understandable why this was so at the time) was the destruction of the on-campus football stadium (Aztec Bowl) to build a basketball arena. My god, was that the ONLY place on campus for that building? Aztec fans are chewing their nails now because half a century ago the school bet that tagging along with the Chargers was the way to go. Bad decision. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 19, 2015 9:03:50 GMT -8
...................................................................... So anyways, the new Aztec Warrior Stadium looks like it will seat somewhere around 65,000. And the 20,000 to 25,000 fans actually in those 65,000 seats will look really impressive! Heck, even 35,000 fans, which would be a fairly decent crowd for a non-P5 program would not look like a big deal. AzWm I suppose they could have the canopy angle down and cover the top tier for Aztec games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 9:04:39 GMT -8
Asking the Aztecs to put 65k BITS against a G5 conference schedule is like asking the chargers to have no blackouts when they win less than 8 games in a season. It comes from the most uninformed honks on the board.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 9:05:12 GMT -8
I agree. Its pretty sad. No matter what goes there, there will be lawsuits. This is how lawyers operate, sue to generate income. What the mass amounts of torts do is take away from the suits that have merit. but, alas, there will be a vote and it will only be a simple majority, and it will pass. The proof is in the pudding. The chargers ticket sales have gone up this year. And if all that you say is correct, how much higher will Aztec ticket prices and parking fees rise? If too much, and if some sort of PSL is involved, the Aztec fan base will take a huge hit. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 19, 2015 9:09:26 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. Trust me. As a Niners fan, I'm fully aware that Carmen Policy is a joke. My point merely is that it's not at all coincidental that Dean Spanos has reassigned himself and issued the announcement about Policy simultaneously with the CSAG's report being issued. The point is the Chargers are putting out signals they aren't going to just accept the CSAG recommendations but are going to continue to play hardball.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 19, 2015 9:13:53 GMT -8
The 75 acres is actually not part of the stadium financing deal. Really? I'm pretty sure you're totally wrong on that. The CSAG proposal asks the Chargers to cover any overruns. I haven't seen that detail specifically elaborated, but I'll trust you that it is in here. However, we all know that the Chargers will never accept this in a million years and that *IF* a deal gets done that piece will be changed so that SD taxpayers would be the ones on the hook for all cost over-runs and funding shortfalls... The estimated income from sale of those 75 acres is indeed part of the calculus. In fact, the number isn't at all arbitrary. There is a city code provision which requires citizen approval of the sale of any parcel which is at least 80 acres in size so the 75 was virtually the maximum amount possible to put this together without the need for such a vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 9:14:21 GMT -8
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. Trust me. As a Niners fan, I'm fully aware that Carmen Policy is a joke. My point merely is that it's not at all coincidental that Dean Spanos has reassigned himself and issued the announcement about Policy simultaneously with the CSAG's report being issued. The point is the Chargers are putting out signals they aren't going to just accept the CSAG recommendations but are going to continue to play hardball. Negotiated a new car for my wife last week. Got free floor mats out of those bastards AND I made them detail the car! They just didn't know who they were messing with!
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 9:25:57 GMT -8
There's no way that deal would ever fly. The CSAG proposal is a bad one for the Chargers and your numbers are even worse for them.Also, two things: The 75 acres is actually not part of the stadium financing deal. The CSAG proposal asks the Chargers to cover any overruns. 2 things ... If the Chargers are responsible for cost overruns and revenue shortfalls (which are not exactly the same thing but do have the same effect) then this deal is a really bad one for the Chargers As for my numbers CSAG number for rent is $300M ($10M x 30 yrs) -- mine is $150M ($7.5M x 20) = -$150M CSAG Chargers Contribution is $300M -- I reduced it to $250M = -$50M CSAG projects $120M in PSLS split 50/50 -- I say the Chargers keep anything over $100M ... (if PSLs are renewed every 10 yrs, the Chargers will make more in the long run) As for Naming Rights ... again I say the Chargers keep anything over $100M (which over 20 years is just $5M per year) Which means in my world the more the Chargers can get for PSLs & Naming Rights ... the more they earn WHILE paying LESS for a Stadium. Are PSLs renewed every ten years? I don't like PSLs but I understand why the "need" for them with new stadiums. But wow, that's a crappy deal if true. Why would you suggest a 20 year lease and not a 30 year lease? In any event, the Chargers wouldn't go for that deal. The CSAG proposed a deal in favor for the city because they have to start high so it's going to come down after they negotiate. I just hope the city stays strong and doesn't give in too much in the final deal.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 9:43:16 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.
I can't speak for others, but it appears to me that there is a 98% chance that we will NEVER become a Pac-12 member. Period. As for joining the Big-12, I'd say that the odds against us are not much worse than those of Pac-12 membership. There appears to be NO talk whatsoever from that conference about expansion, and certainly none about adding a West Coast school.
That leaves us with three options.
1. Drop football. 2. Continue playing in a conference that offers little and in which we never really fit in the first place. 3. The mythical Best-of-the-Rest conference for which, outside of AztecMesa, there appears to be little interest.
As I have said on many occasions, our chance to go really big time was when we were riding the crest of the Coryell/Gilbert wave. In other words, the late 1970s. It's been pretty much a downhill ride since then.
Question: When was the last time that a school began playing football and rose to prominence? Perhaps Miami of Florida, which began in 1926 and was big-time by 1950. UCLA is another candidate for that honor. Or Arizona State and BYU, which really hit their stride about when Claude Gilbert was HC here. And I shouldh't forget Boise State.
But that's only a handful of schools that, thinking in historical terms, have risen from the ranks of the bush leagues to national respectability recently. Basically, all the other usual Top-25 suspects (Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, Clemson, Oklahoma, etc.) were well established generations before the Bruins, Hurricanes, Sun Devils, Cougars and Broncos became nationally recognized football powerhouses. With the cost of maintaining a scholarship athlete in a program rising all the time, one has to wonder whether ANY also-ran school will be able to do what Miami, UCLA, Arizona State, etc. did. And, let me emphasize, all of that handful of relative newcomers to big-time football, with exception of BSU, earned their stripes decades ago.
Yes, the Aztecs need to win and win big to get a promotion to national respectability. And we had better start doing that pretty soon. That's why if it were up to me Rocky would be retired after this season if the team won fewer than 9 games. Perhaps those who disagree with me on that point do not feel that making a case for national recognition is important.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 19, 2015 9:46:16 GMT -8
2 things ... If the Chargers are responsible for cost overruns and revenue shortfalls (which are not exactly the same thing but do have the same effect) then this deal is a really bad one for the Chargers As for my numbers CSAG number for rent is $300M ($10M x 30 yrs) -- mine is $150M ($7.5M x 20) = -$150M CSAG Chargers Contribution is $300M -- I reduced it to $250M = -$50M CSAG projects $120M in PSLS split 50/50 -- I say the Chargers keep anything over $100M ... (if PSLs are renewed every 10 yrs, the Chargers will make more in the long run) As for Naming Rights ... again I say the Chargers keep anything over $100M (which over 20 years is just $5M per year) Which means in my world the more the Chargers can get for PSLs & Naming Rights ... the more they earn WHILE paying LESS for a Stadium. Are PSLs renewed every ten years? I don't like PSLs but I understand why the "need" for them with new stadiums. But wow, that's a crappy deal if true. Why would you suggest a 20 year lease and not a 30 year lease?In any event, the Chargers wouldn't go for that deal. The CSAG proposed a deal in favor for the city because they have to start high so it's going to come down after they negotiate. I just hope the city stays strong and doesn't give in too much in the final deal. In 15-20 years, the Chargers will demand changes and upgrades to keep up with the new NFL stadiums that will have been built or remodeled in the interim. Under the CSAG deal -- the Chargers are expected to contribute $300M, $150M (NFL loan - $50M), $300M (Rent), $60M+ (50/50 PSL split) for a total of $810M or more while also expected to have surcharges added to parking and tickets prices ... that is the deal on the table along with a 30 year ban on relocation. All I did was to reduce the rent from $10M/yr to $7.5M/yr and the term from 30 yrs to 20 yrs as well as remove the surcharges & public funding component (which the NFL already did as a requirement for the G4 loan). So my deal is virtually no different than the CSAG proposal (where the Chargers are concerned).
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 10:01:28 GMT -8
Trust me. As a Niners fan, I'm fully aware that Carmen Policy is a joke. My point merely is that it's not at all coincidental that Dean Spanos has reassigned himself and issued the announcement about Policy simultaneously with the CSAG's report being issued. The point is the Chargers are putting out signals they aren't going to just accept the CSAG recommendations but are going to continue to play hardball. Negotiated a new car for my wife last week. Got free floor mats out of those bastards AND I made them detail the car! They just didn't know who they were messing with! Man, you really showed them, didn't you?! AzWm
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 19, 2015 10:12:29 GMT -8
Related note, the Chargers and Raiders closed on the Carson land. They have title to the clean 11 acres and the remainder of the site is transferred to a stadium authority so the Chargers and Raiders will have no environmental liability.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on May 19, 2015 10:16:51 GMT -8
Reviewing the proposal, I'd always believed some, if not all, of the land would be turned over to developers. This development would make it a win/win regarding initial payment then city tax revenue.
Aztec people unhappy with this proposal should petition to upgrade the campus stadium...oh wait...
|
|