|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 20, 2015 6:47:43 GMT -8
I don't recall ever saying that, especially not after the actual proposal came out. The initial proposal is going to be a lowball proposal. Why would the Chargers come out and say that they like the initial proposal? That's negotiating 101. Also, they can't just strike a deal with Kroenke. They have to be voted in by the other owners. That's the whole reason there is all this drama with a three team race to LA. Is it really a 3 team race any more? The Raiders are quickly becoming an afterthought. The Raiders are the paupers of the NFL. No better example of that than the money put up to pay for the plans for Carson. The amount was $900,000.00. To the average NFL team that's like $9.00 to you and I. However, the Chargers paid about 60% of it. As I heard a couple sportstalk guys say when I was in the Bay Area on business a couple months ago, Mark Davis needs to sell a large chunk of the team to somebody with bucks who is willing to put up the money necessary to built a new stadium in Oakland as being the purchase price for the shares. Since there's apparently land available in Dublin, if they build it there you won't see so many reputable people afraid to attend games and the team could actually sell luxury boxes and start earning money again. That Davis seems adamantly against doing that doesn't necessarily mean he's a chip off the old blockhead but he sure seems clueless about the cards he's holding.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 20, 2015 7:25:57 GMT -8
The stadium downtown (with a retractable roof) is part of a convention center expansion plan. All that bull$#!+ about contiguous is nothing but that. Run a monorail between the two and it's contiguous. My question is why they don't build the convention center taller if they want more space? There can't possibly be a height restriction when you consider the Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt are all on the water and way taller than the convention center. It's probably related more to architectural issues of going vertical with huge open spaces than anything else....you never really see large convention centers more than a few stories tall. LOL monorail! Before you choke on your LOL- what do you think they're going to do in Vegas as their convention center expansion entails the Riviera property, not exactly connected to the current Convention Center? Hell, they have one running now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 8:01:21 GMT -8
There's no business case for 2 teams flooding the market up there. If the owners want to do Dean a solid, they'll kick him some cash. I think that's exactly what they'll do. You may also see something like the NFL allowing regional broadcast of both teams into the LA/OC market Maybe. However, what about the possible precedent that will set? For example, what happens when the next middling team wants to share L.A. with the Rams if it can't get the city its presently located to whore itself out to them for a new stadium? You know, maybe some team like the Raiders? The LA threat will have run its course in very short order. Timing is critical here. The Chargers ( and city) need to be out in front of the announcement of the start of the Rams project. I expect movement in very short order first in the form of the new convention center survey results, which will reveal that a non-contiguous facility is an acceptable solution to their expansion requirements. Then, the Chargers will announcement that they are willing to come back to the table as long as the city will agree to re-open the downtown location as an option. The city will agree to this stipulation. Talks will occur "behind the scenes" that will be "fruitful", allowing the Chargers to announce they have put their plans to move north on hold for a year in order to work on the details of a plan. All of this has to occur in the next 2-3 months. If not,the Chargers lose their leverage, the city and con vis folks lose their opportunity to formulate a finance plan to upgrade our civic infrastructure. Keep in mind to all of these parties, and I'll throw in the unions, there's Money On The Table, even if it requires a 2/3rds vote to get it.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 20, 2015 8:12:24 GMT -8
As Bruce has said, the "contiguous" thing seems ludicrous to me. As an example, there are zero hotels "contiguous" with AT&T Park yet building that stadium has transformed San Francisco's China Basin from a seedy warehouse district to a happening area with pubs, lofts and the like.
Which begs the question, does the hotel industry run San Diego?
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 20, 2015 8:16:57 GMT -8
I'm not so sure their value would increase at all. A lot of the team's value correlates with their stadium. They don't have a stadium if they're a tenant of Kroenke. It's like renting an apartment. Their value increases a lot if they can be the solo team in LA and build a stadium in Carson but they'd have to borrow probably close to $2B to do it. Stadiums are a money loser. We all know that. That's why teams get their local governments to pay for some or most of it. That's the way the teams can make money off of it. And that's why the Chargers privately financing a stadium, especially in a market that doesn't want them, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Fabiani said they're banking on $800M in PSL money in LA, which is a joke. Even the Rams wouldn't get near that amount. They're either foolishly overestimating the market or this is all a desperate ploy to keep Kroenke out of LA and then trying to get the best deal here. Last time I looked, the Clippers were still playing in the Lakers' house. Maybe the Lakers don't own it but everybody considers it their home. Indeed, when it was being conceived there was talk of the Clippers moving down to the Honda Center. NFL and NBA stadiums are completely different animals. NFL stadiums are usually 2x-3x times more expensive to build. The main reason the Chargers and Raiders are two of the lowest valued franchises are because they have the two oldest stadiums in the league. Forbes lists the Rams as the lowest valued franchise, which is interesting and just gives more reasons as to why Kroenke is hellbent on moving (their stadium is only 20 years old) but it is an "older" stadium in a smaller market. The Chargers are ranked 26th, which is actually surprising considering that we are considered a smaller market and have an even older 50 year old stadium. It's still a very important market and the NFL has repeatedly said that.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 20, 2015 8:34:06 GMT -8
There was stadiums and there are stadiums. Metropolitan "Stadium" in Minneapolis was a POS from the day it was opened. I've been there a couple times so can say that from first hand experience. I've never been to the Rays' stadium in Tampa but it's apparently equally awful. Confucius say Either build stadium or do not build stadium but never, ever build cheapo discount stadium.
The Rams' "stadium" in St. Louis is cheapo discount.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 20, 2015 14:36:29 GMT -8
Maybe. However, what about the possible precedent that will set? For example, what happens when the next middling team wants to share L.A. with the Rams if it can't get the city its presently located to whore itself out to them for a new stadium? You know, maybe some team like the Raiders? The LA threat will have run its course in very short order. Timing is critical here. The Chargers ( and city) need to be out in front of the announcement of the start of the Rams project. I expect movement in very short order first in the form of the new convention center survey results, which will reveal that a non-contiguous facility is an acceptable solution to their expansion requirements. Then, the Chargers will announcement that they are willing to come back to the table as long as the city will agree to re-open the downtown location as an option. The city will agree to this stipulation. Talks will occur "behind the scenes" that will be "fruitful", allowing the Chargers to announce they have put their plans to move north on hold for a year in order to work on the details of a plan. All of this has to occur in the next 2-3 months. If not,the Chargers lose their leverage, the city and con vis folks lose their opportunity to formulate a finance plan to upgrade our civic infrastructure. Keep in mind to all of these parties, and I'll throw in the unions, there's Money On The Table, even if it requires a 2/3rds vote to get it. Cory Briggs has reared his head again, and is in the process of trying to get an initiative on the June 2016 ballot that would eliminate the Tourism Marketing District, and raise TOT by 5%, but use that 5% for infrastructure repair--none of it would go towards a new stadium or convention center expansion (if I read his proposal correctly).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 15:04:42 GMT -8
The LA threat will have run its course in very short order. Timing is critical here. The Chargers ( and city) need to be out in front of the announcement of the start of the Rams project. I expect movement in very short order first in the form of the new convention center survey results, which will reveal that a non-contiguous facility is an acceptable solution to their expansion requirements. Then, the Chargers will announcement that they are willing to come back to the table as long as the city will agree to re-open the downtown location as an option. The city will agree to this stipulation. Talks will occur "behind the scenes" that will be "fruitful", allowing the Chargers to announce they have put their plans to move north on hold for a year in order to work on the details of a plan. All of this has to occur in the next 2-3 months. If not,the Chargers lose their leverage, the city and con vis folks lose their opportunity to formulate a finance plan to upgrade our civic infrastructure. Keep in mind to all of these parties, and I'll throw in the unions, there's Money On The Table, even if it requires a 2/3rds vote to get it. Cory Briggs has reared his head again, and is in the process of trying to get an initiative on the June 2016 ballot that would eliminate the Tourism Marketing District, and raise TOT by 5%, but use that 5% for infrastructure repair--none of it would go towards a new stadium or convention center expansion (if I read his proposal correctly). I've heard him say in the past that he thinks the stadium should be built in conjunction with the convention center, it should be downtown and should be funded with a TOT, so who knows. DICK Rider Part Duex
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 20, 2015 15:17:40 GMT -8
Cory Briggs has reared his head again, and is in the process of trying to get an initiative on the June 2016 ballot that would eliminate the Tourism Marketing District, and raise TOT by 5%, but use that 5% for infrastructure repair--none of it would go towards a new stadium or convention center expansion (if I read his proposal correctly). I've heard him say in the past that he thinks the stadium should be built in conjunction with the convention center, it should be downtown and should be funded with a TOT, so who knows. DICK Rider Part Duex Just have to ask. Have any of you gone to the modest trouble to Google that guy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 15:43:36 GMT -8
I've heard him say in the past that he thinks the stadium should be built in conjunction with the convention center, it should be downtown and should be funded with a TOT, so who knows. DICK Rider Part Duex Just have to ask. Have any of you gone to the modest trouble to Google that guy? I know who he is what he does. There are times I agree with him and times I don't. He's a creation of the dysfunctional times in which we live and I'm inherently suspicious of self-appointed crusaders. The damage they do is often worse the the "wrongs" they are attempting to address.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 20, 2015 16:10:53 GMT -8
Just have to ask. Have any of you gone to the modest trouble to Google that guy? I know who he is what he does. There are times I agree with him and times I don't. He's a creation of the dysfunctional times in which we live and I'm inherently suspicious of self-appointed crusaders. The damage they do is often worse the the "wrongs" they are attempting to address. Agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Aug 20, 2015 16:50:21 GMT -8
Darren Smith on the Mighty 1090 implied that some group has finally come around to the idea of increasing the TOT in an attempt to expand the convention center and keeping the Chargers. He said we might hear about this as early as next Friday. He also said that by not designating the TOT raise specifically to a stadium/convention center expansion, the vote would only have to be >50%. I apologize for typos, I'm currently eating haha
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 20, 2015 17:34:59 GMT -8
Darren Smith on the Mighty 1090 implied that some group has finally come around to the idea of increasing the TOT in an attempt to expand the convention center and keeping the Chargers. He said we might hear about this as early as next Friday. He also said that by not designating the TOT raise specifically to a stadium/convention center expansion, the vote would only have to be >50%. I apologize for typos, I'm currently eating haha Scott Kaplan basically said the same thing today. Hoteliers are going to back an TOT initiative on the June 2016 ballot. Because it's not going to be specifically designated for the CC or stadium, it's going to be a majority vote. This is pretty much what Corey Briggs was talking about last month or so. Says a press conference should be coming next week.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Aug 20, 2015 17:39:28 GMT -8
Darren Smith on the Mighty 1090 implied that some group has finally come around to the idea of increasing the TOT in an attempt to expand the convention center and keeping the Chargers. He said we might hear about this as early as next Friday. He also said that by not designating the TOT raise specifically to a stadium/convention center expansion, the vote would only have to be >50%. I apologize for typos, I'm currently eating haha Scott Kaplan basically said the same thing today. Hoteliers are going to back an TOT initiative on the June 2016 ballot. Because it's not going to be specifically designated for the CC or stadium, it's going to be a majority vote. This is pretty much what Corey Briggs was talking about last month or so. Says a press conference should be coming next week. My bad. I meant Scott Kaplan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 5:45:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Aug 21, 2015 8:07:32 GMT -8
Raising the tourist tax?...Geee why didn't they think of that years ago and why did the Convention Center try sooooo hard to avoid a vote and circumvent the need for one by just taxing themselves? Because it requires a 2/3rds vote thats why. If they could just avoid the need for 2/3rds by not designating the funds specifically for that need than it would have been done already. This is just the latest desperation attempt to try to keep the Chargers but just like the Hoteliers end around for the Convention Center this one would also not stand up in court.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Aug 21, 2015 8:36:04 GMT -8
Call me a skeptic if you wish but at least IMO, neither Scott Kaplan nor Cory Briggs is exactly a credible source on this stuff.
Far from it, actually.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Aug 21, 2015 8:36:14 GMT -8
also there were printed articles that if the Chargers joined the RAMS at their facility . Raiders could be looking at San Diego, either in MV or DT . LA Raider fans could travel down here for games . San Diego City Council has said they would like an NFL team, have chatted off the record with some NFL teams . Davis would be second tenant for 49'ers , move to St. Louis , Alamo or stay in CA with San Diego .
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 21, 2015 8:41:29 GMT -8
Call me a skeptic if you wish but at least IMO, neither Scott Kaplan nor Cory Briggs is exactly a credible source on this stuff. Far from it, actually. Is anyone who is actively speaking publicly about this actually a credible source, on either side?
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Aug 21, 2015 9:23:18 GMT -8
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/20/ballot-measure-would-boost-hotel-room-taxInitiative by attorney Briggs would scuttle tourism marketing tax San Diego — Attorney Cory Briggs says he is putting up $250,000 in seed money for a signature-gathering effort for an initiative that would boost San Diego’s hotel-room tax and do away with a separate tourism marketing tax on hotel guests. Last month Briggs revealed during a speech to the Rotary Club that he was preparing a ballot measure that would increase the city’s existing 10.5 percent (on the dollar) transient occupancy tax to 15.5 percent and eliminate the 2 percent Tourism Marketing District tax. Briggs takes issue with the latter, in part, because it was not approved by voters but by hotel owners, who he says have control over the money. If he gets the backing and the signatures, the proposal would be placed on the June 2016 ballot. In a release this week, Briggs mentioned the seed money and presumably is looking for more financial backing. He said that the additional 5 percent hotel tax would go to the city’s general fund for “basic city services such as infrastructure backlog, street, sidewalk, and pothole repairs, public safety, and beaches and lifeguards, parks, and libraries.” Hotels with fewer than 30 rooms would be exempt from the increase. Briggs said the ballot measure would be passed if supported by a simple majority because it does not specify how the additional money would be spent. If the funds were earmarked, the ballot measure would require two-thirds voter approval. Briggs has battled the city and private developers over a variety of environmental, tax and transparency issues. He successfully sued to overturn a hotel-room tax to fund the downtown convention center expansion because it was not approved by voters; instead, it was approved by a vote within the local hotel industry.
|
|