|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 16:03:41 GMT -8
Wow ... take off for a week and you miss a lot around here What I will respond to at the moment is what is in the City of San Diego's best interest in regards to the Q should the Chargers leave ...First: The city will pay the same amount for outstanding bonds whether the stadium stands or is demoed ... as long as SDSU wants to play there and their rent covers operating costs, the city won't take on the extra expense of taking a wrecking ball to it until they have a long term plan to address the property as a whole and that could take a decade or more especially with the entitlement process (I think the Pontiac Silverdome is still standing and on sale for $30M). The City is already deferring maintenance on the site, what's 5 more years of deferred maintenance if the Chargers leave? Second: There is a difference between the highest bidder for a property and the best use of that property -- the City will elect to do with the property whatever makes the most financial sense in the long term. This works in SDSU's favor as a huge economic engine that will offer a larger and longer ROI than a one time sale ... when one factors in infrastructure costs to the city for a mixed use commercial/residential development (industrial use is pretty much a non-starter). Third: Let's not forget that in order for the City to sell the property for private development, it would have to either pass a vote of the electorate or be sub-divided, graded and prepared into lots smaller than 80 acres to avoid a vote. Right now, without entitlement -- the 166+ acre property is valued at approximately $2M per acre. 80 of those acres are owned by the Water Dept. Even if the City should choose to sell their half for development, SDSU could still work with the Water Department for those 80 acres. It is my guess that the City will choose to avoid a lot of hassle regarding the Q if the Chargers leave by negotiating with SDSU to assume control of the property similar to what USC did with Los Angeles in terms of the Coliseum. SDSU and the City could enter into a long term lease of 100 years or more for the entire property with a provision for SDSU to purchase the property at some point. Much like the USC/LA deal, the lease would require SDSU to perform certain actions regarding the stadium that coincide with the retiring of the bond debt in 2027 like addressing the deferred maintenance issues either directly or through a renovation/rebuild. I will agree that no one really knows what is going to happen, but there are some really strong possibilities as to what would happen should the Chargers abandon San Diego. The Pontiac Silverdome is still standing--barely. It was sold in 2009 for the bargain price of $583,000, and now I understand that what remains inside the building is being auctioned off. The roof is gone, and it's open to the elements. Pontiac Silverdome on sale for $30 millionBy JC Reindl, Detroit Free Press June 12, 2015 The empty and now-ramshackle Pontiac Silverdome is for sale again. The asking price for the stadium and its 127 acres is a "flexible" $30 million, said CBRE realtor Robert Mihelich. The property hit the market several weeks ago and has received nearly two dozen inquiries and two actual offers, he said.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 12, 2015 16:13:32 GMT -8
In terms of covering a market vs. owning a market ... The Chargers cover Los Angeles -- right now they are having to prove they own it in order to be compensated if another team moves there. The Chargers claim that 25% of their fanbase comes from LA. That 25% claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny which challenges their "ownership" of that market. One could draw a parallel to the Pac-12 Network covering San Diego, but the Pac-12 itself not owning the market. If the amount of alumni living in a city were the basis for owning a market, then the B1G & the B12 both own both San Diego and Los Angeles. The B1G and the SEC also cover the San Diego market, neither could make a claim to own it nor can the Pac-12. As one of the 10 most populous cities in America, San Diego is desired by a lot of networks and as such they choose to make themselves available here. The Pac-12 Network could choose to make their network available in New York, Houston, Dallas or Chicago too, but they could not claim to own it if they did The B1G Network was available on the East Coast before the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. I'll guess that adding those schools was an effort to drive viewership on a network that was already in the market. An increase in advertising and sponsorship money comes with increased viewership and is just as important to a network as is increased subscriptions. Of course adding those schools might have got the network moved from the sports tier to the basic package in those markets -- something that drives both subscription revenue and advertising dollars. Solid post but one area you're a bit off the mark. While all networks are available in San Diego, the PAC gets the in footprint carriage fee. The SEC and B1G do not.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 16:29:11 GMT -8
In terms of covering a market vs. owning a market ... The Chargers cover Los Angeles -- right now they are having to prove they own it in order to be compensated if another team moves there. The Chargers claim that 25% of their fanbase comes from LA. That 25% claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny which challenges their "ownership" of that market. One could draw a parallel to the Pac-12 Network covering San Diego, but the Pac-12 itself not owning the market. If the amount of alumni living in a city were the basis for owning a market, then the B1G & the B12 both own both San Diego and Los Angeles. The B1G and the SEC also cover the San Diego market, neither could make a claim to own it nor can the Pac-12. As one of the 10 most populous cities in America, San Diego is desired by a lot of networks and as such they choose to make themselves available here. The Pac-12 Network could choose to make their network available in New York, Houston, Dallas or Chicago too, but they could not claim to own it if they did The B1G Network was available on the East Coast before the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. I'll guess that adding those schools was an effort to drive viewership on a network that was already in the market. An increase in advertising and sponsorship money comes with increased viewership and is just as important to a network as is increased subscriptions. Of course adding those schools might have got the network moved from the sports tier to the basic package in those markets -- something that drives both subscription revenue and advertising dollars. Solid post but one area you're a bit off the mark. While all networks are available in San Diego, the PAC gets the in footprint carriage fee. The SEC and B1G do not. The PAC-12 "footprint" includes the entire states of AZ, CA, CO, OR, UT & WA and is not necessarily market specific -- of course the Pac will seek those fees in San Diego. We are the 8th largest city in the country and they would be stupid not to. That allows them to almost double the rate, which would almost make up for the lack of viewership. It would also be why they don't seek those fees in Fresno. The P12network will have to do something to drive either viewership or subscriptions in order to keep 100% ownership by the conference. The Pac-12’s financial future: To sell the Pac12Nets … or not to sellThis will mean they will either have to consider adding a school like SDSU in order to actually penetrate our market or sell a large stake in the network -- again reinforcing the reality that they don't own the SD market. EDIT: If SDSU joined another conference that has a network ... the P12network would have to fight to keep carriage fees in the SD market, much like the Chargers are trying to hold on to LA
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 12, 2015 17:16:09 GMT -8
Wow ... take off for a week and you miss a lot around here What I will respond to at the moment is what is in the City of San Diego's best interest in regards to the Q should the Chargers leave ...First: The city will pay the same amount for outstanding bonds whether the stadium stands or is demoed ... as long as SDSU wants to play there and their rent covers operating costs, the city won't take on the extra expense of taking a wrecking ball to it until they have a long term plan to address the property as a whole and that could take a decade or more especially with the entitlement process (I think the Pontiac Silverdome is still standing and on sale for $30M). The City is already deferring maintenance on the site, what's 5 more years of deferred maintenance if the Chargers leave? Second: There is a difference between the highest bidder for a property and the best use of that property -- the City will elect to do with the property whatever makes the most financial sense in the long term. This works in SDSU's favor as a huge economic engine that will offer a larger and longer ROI than a one time sale ... when one factors in infrastructure costs to the city for a mixed use commercial/residential development (industrial use is pretty much a non-starter). Third: Let's not forget that in order for the City to sell the property for private development, it would have to either pass a vote of the electorate or be sub-divided, graded and prepared into lots smaller than 80 acres to avoid a vote. Right now, without entitlement -- the 166+ acre property is valued at approximately $2M per acre. 80 of those acres are owned by the Water Dept. Even if the City should choose to sell their half for development, SDSU could still work with the Water Department for those 80 acres. It is my guess that the City will choose to avoid a lot of hassle regarding the Q if the Chargers leave by negotiating with SDSU to assume control of the property similar to what USC did with Los Angeles in terms of the Coliseum. SDSU and the City could enter into a long term lease of 100 years or more for the entire property with a provision for SDSU to purchase the property at some point. Much like the USC/LA deal, the lease would require SDSU to perform certain actions regarding the stadium that coincide with the retiring of the bond debt in 2027 like addressing the deferred maintenance issues either directly or through a renovation/rebuild. I will agree that no one really knows what is going to happen, but there are some really strong possibilities as to what would happen should the Chargers abandon San Diego. Welcome back HNT.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 12, 2015 17:23:35 GMT -8
It will be overcome? Way too confident for such an unknown. Way way too confident. And again, that five year deal was from 2009? Is that intentionally disingenuous on your part? The five year lease clause trigger is in our current contract as I had already posted with Jim Sterk's comments previously. I posted former AD Jeff Schemel's comments to show the stadium issue has been on SDSU's radar for many years and that contingency plans have also been in place for many years. And yes, I am very confident. Particularly after attending the Aztec Football Legacy meeting with Rocky Long and many others at the Q last night.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 12, 2015 17:38:08 GMT -8
Time will tell if Wilner is correct. The only network numbers available to him at the time of that article were 10.5 months from launch. Not to say they are much better now that we have 22.5 months. But even he said the networks weren't expected to make much a distribution the first few years. Does it need more penetration and DirecTV? Absolutely. But this was a long play from jump for the networks. A wholly owned media company in an evolving industry.
Do you really believe SDSU could get a P5 invite? Or are you just offering g a what if?
2003, when was that Sterk interview conducted. And explain to me how a lease contract has an automatic extension past the end date? That just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jun 12, 2015 17:47:01 GMT -8
Connecting some of the dots of recent rumblings about downtown, a non-contiguous convention center being back in play, I wouldn't hold my breath on the Dec 15th vote. That was more of a stand by the Mayor to the NFL about San Diego being serious about keeping the Chargers. Also, rumblings of the Rams and Raiders being the teams going to LA now and Mark Davis willing to sell part of the team, which is what the NFL wants to allow the Raiders in LA, my (maybe not so) bold prediction is that LA gets put off for another year, and the focus goes back downtown. I would have never believed this a few months ago but that's where I see this heading now.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 12, 2015 17:47:42 GMT -8
Time will tell if Wilner is correct. The only network numbers available to him at the time of that article were 10.5 months from launch. Not to say they are much better now that we have 22.5 months. But even he said the networks weren't expected to make much a distribution the first few years. Does it need more penetration and DirecTV? Absolutely. But this was a long play from jump for the networks. A wholly owned media company in an evolving industry. Do you really believe SDSU could get a P5 invite? Or are you just offering g a what if? 2003, when was that Sterk interview conducted. And explain to me how a lease contract has an automatic extension past the end date? That just doesn't make sense to me. January 21, 2015 I don't know exact specifics of the contract but Jim Sterk does. He would not comment on 1090 without having the correct information.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 12, 2015 18:07:13 GMT -8
The Pontiac Silverdome is still standing--barely. It was sold in 2009 for the bargain price of $583,000, and now I understand that what remains inside the building is being auctioned off. The roof is gone, and it's open to the elements. Pontiac Silverdome on sale for $30 millionBy JC Reindl, Detroit Free Press June 12, 2015 The empty and now-ramshackle Pontiac Silverdome is for sale again. The asking price for the stadium and its 127 acres is a "flexible" $30 million, said CBRE realtor Robert Mihelich. The property hit the market several weeks ago and has received nearly two dozen inquiries and two actual offers, he said. A "flexible" $30 million indeed. Good luck to the selling party trying to get that figure. They got 2 bids before, in 2008, of $12 mil and $18 mil. Then, they decided to throw it open to all bids with zoning regulations relaxed to stimulate the bidding. I think anyone bidding should just wait, as undoubtedly, the price will fall like the Silverdome's roof.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 18:08:34 GMT -8
Time will tell if Wilner is correct. The only network numbers available to him at the time of that article were 10.5 months from launch. Not to say they are much better now that we have 22.5 months. But even he said the networks weren't expected to make much a distribution the first few years. Does it need more penetration and DirecTV? Absolutely. But this was a long play from jump for the networks. A wholly owned media company in an evolving industry. Do you really believe SDSU could get a P5 invite? Or are you just offering g a what if? 2003, when was that Sterk interview conducted. And explain to me how a lease contract has an automatic extension past the end date? That just doesn't make sense to me. Are politics your thing? Politics and political pressure are usually at cause behind things that don't make sense to people. In this case, be the politician that kicked SDSU football to the curb without an extension that covers at least 5 years or until the bonds are paid off in 2027. The loss of SDSU football would cause SDSU basketball to find a new and lesser conference to join -- the citizens would not take kindly to that action. It is a well known secret in SD that should the Chargers leave, the City will turn to SDSU as one of the few entities in San Diego with enough money and need to make use of the whole property and have a positive economic impact on the City, County and State -- and all the City of San Diego has to do is let the university take control of the property. There doesn't even have to be a vote on it because it would not be for private development and entitlement would not be an issue. Do I think a P5 invite is possible? Yes. Is it probable? Not in the immediate future, but the conference re-alignment carousel is by no means done spinning. I believe that both the CFP will have to expand beyond the present 4 teams (my guess is to 8) and the other members of the P5 will compel the B12 to expand beyond its 10 members. My personal belief is the carousel will stop after the conferences try to expand to 16 -- (lessons learned from the WAC16) ... when that becomes unmanageable it will result in eight 10-team autonomy conferences each sending their champion to the quarter-finals of the CFP . It actually works out nicely for basketball too. That would be a total of 80 "P5's" You could argue for four 16-team conferences but who gets left out when you have to account for the 65th "P5" in Notre Dame? No, I think they will go to 72 or 80 teams rather than cut one out.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 12, 2015 18:10:10 GMT -8
Connecting some of the dots of recent rumblings about downtown, a non-contiguous convention center being back in play, I wouldn't hold my breath on the Dec 15th vote. That was more of a stand by the Mayor to the NFL about San Diego being serious about keeping the Chargers. Also, rumblings of the Rams and Raiders being the teams going to LA now and Mark Davis willing to sell part of the team, which is what the NFL wants to allow the Raiders in LA, my (maybe not so) bold prediction is that LA gets put off for another year, and the focus goes back downtown. I would have never believed this a few months ago but that's where I see this heading now. This Rams and raiders are in the lead to return to la Chargers moving downtown is the best chance sdsu has to obtain the Qualcomm site I understand the campus expansion. For football don't see it. Unless sdsu is in a p5 Confrence it's unwise money spent on a stadium
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 18:28:01 GMT -8
Connecting some of the dots of recent rumblings about downtown, a non-contiguous convention center being back in play, I wouldn't hold my breath on the Dec 15th vote. That was more of a stand by the Mayor to the NFL about San Diego being serious about keeping the Chargers. Also, rumblings of the Rams and Raiders being the teams going to LA now and Mark Davis willing to sell part of the team, which is what the NFL wants to allow the Raiders in LA, my (maybe not so) bold prediction is that LA gets put off for another year, and the focus goes back downtown. I would have never believed this a few months ago but that's where I see this heading now. This Rams and raiders are in the lead to return to la Chargers moving downtown is the best chance sdsu has to obtain the Qualcomm site I understand the campus expansion. For football don't see it. Unless sdsu is in a p5 Confrence it's unwise money spent on a stadium While I agree that a downtown NFL stadium would probably result in SDSU getting the Q site -- I wouldn't hold my breath for the downtown site to be a convention center/stadium. The commercial/residential development going in on the triangular piece of tailgate park along with the proposed hotel on the site of the Lexus premier lot on the other side of the pedestrian bridge will obstruct access from the convention center to the stadium. The proposed x-ing on Park Blvd will help but it's doubtful the convention center board or hoteliers will go along with it. Now I have long advocated for the Chargers to just put up their half of the money and build an $800M-$1B football-centric stadium without a roof downtown -- a roof could be added later when the team demands improvements, but I don't think the team is done trying to squeeze the city for everything it can yet.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 12, 2015 18:33:53 GMT -8
Forgetting the deferred maintenence, you're saying when the Chargers leave, sdsu will then takeover the maintenance? When the jumbo trip kicks the bucket, sdsu will replace it?instead of selling the land to sdsu, they'll keep Qualcomm standing til 2027 to retire the bonds? He'll, I was concerned keeping that dump standing for three more years.
My thumbs are sore and the P5 discussion is too long. I don't disagree there will be one last round, but don't see anyway sdsu slides in to a spot. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jun 12, 2015 18:38:49 GMT -8
This Rams and raiders are in the lead to return to la Chargers moving downtown is the best chance sdsu has to obtain the Qualcomm site I understand the campus expansion. For football don't see it. Unless sdsu is in a p5 Confrence it's unwise money spent on a stadium While I agree that a downtown NFL stadium would probably result in SDSU getting the Q site -- I wouldn't hold my breath for the downtown site to be a convention center/stadium. The commercial/residential development going in on the triangular piece of tailgate park along with the proposed hotel on the site of the Lexus premier lot on the other side of the pedestrian bridge will obstruct access from the convention center to the stadium. The proposed x-ing on Park Blvd will help but it's doubtful the convention center board or hoteliers will go along with it. Now I have long advocated for the Chargers to just put up their half of the money and build an $800M-$1B football-centric stadium without a roof downtown -- a roof could be added later when the team demands improvements, but I don't think the team is done trying to squeeze the city for everything it can yet. They are trying to squeeze because they don't have the resources, is my guess. Forbes found it to be one of the lowest valued clubs, and with little in the way of luxury seats to fill their coffers, they likely don't have much in the reserves. Would creditors give them a good rate, what with what the casual fan can see of whimsical attendance, and little success? Seeing a sea of orange during a Broncos game is not a good look for a team trying to line up it's financials to say "hey, you can trust us". I don't blame the Bolts for trying, but the controversy of Petco isn't helping their cause.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 18:49:33 GMT -8
Forgetting the deferred maintenence, you're saying when the Chargers leave, sdsu will then takeover the maintenance? When the jumbo trip kicks the bucket, sdsu will replace it?instead of selling the land to sdsu, they'll keep Qualcomm standing til 2027 to retire the bonds? He'll, I was concerned keeping that dump standing for three more years. My thumbs are sore and the P5 discussion is too long. I don't disagree there will be one last round, but don't see anyway sdsu slides in to a spot. We'll see. I will not spend a lot of time explaining how SDSU is more than prepared to take over the Q, either as a straight purchase, eminent domain or in a lease deal similar to USC and the Coliseum. The most important things that I can pass on are that SDSU is already prepared to replace the jumbotron now ... and as a college team, would have no issue in playing in a stadium while it's being rebuilt in phases to address the deferred maintenance. The other thing is that the 5 year extension is based on a negotiating window for SDSU and the City to come to an agreement regarding the the Q itself or for SDSU to build its own stadium (either on campus or on the Q site should the university obtain all or part of the property). One last bit of information that may or may not be of interest ... something like 99% of the stadium is on property owned not by the city but by the Water Dept, which the city leases. So the university has multiple options when it comes to the site.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 18:55:07 GMT -8
While I agree that a downtown NFL stadium would probably result in SDSU getting the Q site -- I wouldn't hold my breath for the downtown site to be a convention center/stadium. The commercial/residential development going in on the triangular piece of tailgate park along with the proposed hotel on the site of the Lexus premier lot on the other side of the pedestrian bridge will obstruct access from the convention center to the stadium. The proposed x-ing on Park Blvd will help but it's doubtful the convention center board or hoteliers will go along with it. Now I have long advocated for the Chargers to just put up their half of the money and build an $800M-$1B football-centric stadium without a roof downtown -- a roof could be added later when the team demands improvements, but I don't think the team is done trying to squeeze the city for everything it can yet. They are trying to squeeze because they don't have the resources, is my guess. Forbes found it to be one of the lowest valued clubs, and with little in the way of luxury seats to fill their coffers, they likely don't have much in the reserves. Would creditors give them a good rate, what with what the casual fan can see of whimsical attendance, and little success? Seeing a sea of orange during a Broncos game is not a good look for a team trying to line up it's financials to say "hey, you can trust us". I don't blame the Bolts for trying, but the controversy of Petco isn't helping their cause. True ... but Goldman Sachs was willing to extend more than $1.7B in credit to the Chargers for the Carson deal without the Raiders. I am sure they can figure out something for $500M if they wanted to. The City and County have already saw fit to contribute $242M to the CSAG's effort in Mission Valley ... that would leave a little over $250M to cover if we're talking about a $1B stadium (without a roof). I don't seriously think a stadium downtown is going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 12, 2015 18:58:42 GMT -8
OK, thanks for the explanation.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 12, 2015 19:01:19 GMT -8
They are trying to squeeze because they don't have the resources, is my guess. Forbes found it to be one of the lowest valued clubs, and with little in the way of luxury seats to fill their coffers, they likely don't have much in the reserves. Would creditors give them a good rate, what with what the casual fan can see of whimsical attendance, and little success? Seeing a sea of orange during a Broncos game is not a good look for a team trying to line up it's financials to say "hey, you can trust us". I don't blame the Bolts for trying, but the controversy of Petco isn't helping their cause. True ... but Goldman Sachs was willing to extend more than $1.7B in credit to the Chargers for the Carson deal without the Raiders. I am sure they can figure out something for $500M if they wanted to. The City and County have already saw fit to contribute $242M to the CSAG's effort in Mission Valley ... that would leave a little over $250M to cover if we're talking about a $1B stadium (without a roof). I don't seriously think a stadium downtown is going to happen. And in any event, I don't see a stadium with a roof ever happening.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jun 12, 2015 19:01:56 GMT -8
They are trying to squeeze because they don't have the resources, is my guess. Forbes found it to be one of the lowest valued clubs, and with little in the way of luxury seats to fill their coffers, they likely don't have much in the reserves. Would creditors give them a good rate, what with what the casual fan can see of whimsical attendance, and little success? Seeing a sea of orange during a Broncos game is not a good look for a team trying to line up it's financials to say "hey, you can trust us". I don't blame the Bolts for trying, but the controversy of Petco isn't helping their cause. True ... but Goldman Sachs was willing to extend more than $1.7B in credit to the Chargers for the Carson deal without the Raiders. I am sure they can figure out something for $500M if they wanted to. The City and County have already saw fit to contribute $242M to the CSAG's effort in Mission Valley ... that would leave a little over $250M to cover if we're talking about a $1B stadium (without a roof). I don't seriously think a stadium downtown is going to happen. It makes me wonder what the terms were? Had they been extremely favorable, I would think they would have pulled every woe-is-me card in the book to mitigate the politico. I think the City and County are being favorable in their position, and could probably find easy justification on how the economic impact would be just at 242. 500M is an interesting figure. I can understand public contention.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 19:16:35 GMT -8
True ... but Goldman Sachs was willing to extend more than $1.7B in credit to the Chargers for the Carson deal without the Raiders. I am sure they can figure out something for $500M if they wanted to. The City and County have already saw fit to contribute $242M to the CSAG's effort in Mission Valley ... that would leave a little over $250M to cover if we're talking about a $1B stadium (without a roof). I don't seriously think a stadium downtown is going to happen. It makes me wonder what the terms were? Had they been extremely favorable, I would think they would have pulled every woe-is-me card in the book to mitigate the politico. I think the City and County are being favorable in their position, and could probably find easy justification on how the economic impact would be just at 242. 500M is an interesting figure. I can understand public contention. I didn't even take into account the NFL G4 loan of $200M -- if that were a separate part of the equation from the Chargers & Goldman Sachs, that would be nearly all the $1B needed for an $800M stadium (+cost overruns). The Chargers would get their luxury boxes and club seats in a new stadium plus all the other things (naming rights, PSLs, advertising & sponsorship etc) the terms for repayment by the Chargers to GS for $500M for San Diego should not be markedly different from paying back nearly $2B in Los Angeles ... unless that deal was a total fake and GS never intended to actually finance Spanos and was just giving the Chargers leverage with the NFL/Kroenke or both the NFL and Chargers vs. the City.
|
|