|
|
Post by ab on May 21, 2015 8:51:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 21, 2015 9:55:20 GMT -8
At best, San Diego might get ONE Super Bowl out of a new stadium. That's it. And these days Super Bowls tend to LOSE money for the host city, or at minimum fall FAR short of the financial windfall they used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 21, 2015 10:15:19 GMT -8
My guess would be 1 or 2 SB’s in the new stadium lifecycle. Our 2 SB's were probably 2 of the most popular (the commissioners comments aside) from the media and attendees perspectives. I am sure there would be many folks pushing for a return fairly quickly.
The issue will be that we most likely would now be competing with an LA facility that has more bells and whistles, and a bigger and more glitzy market.
|
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 22, 2015 7:52:12 GMT -8
At best, San Diego might get ONE Super Bowl out of a new stadium. That's it. And these days Super Bowls tend to LOSE money for the host city, or at minimum fall FAR short of the financial windfall they used to be. I'd bet more, at least 2. Your comment about host cities losing money is sometimes true. Last SB, Glendale, AZ was the host city but many of the events were in Scottsdale and Phoenix. Did those cities lose money? Glendale was somewhat foolish to not include the other cities to share in the overall costs. San Diego is different as almost all, if not all, the events would be held IN San Diego. |
|
