|
Post by pbnative on Jun 21, 2015 20:00:35 GMT -8
LMFAO!!! Economic impact of SUCCESSFUL corporations with highly skilled, highly educated, and highly paid workers to a City and County is in the BILLIONS Economic impact of the Chargers popcorn pushers and hot dog stuffers is Zero if not a Negative. and Government subsidies given to Nike are in the Billions. Look it up if you can figure out how to. If the Chargers are such a boon to a City, why is it a dump like Carson their only option? The Chargers even have to pay their own way 100% to build on an old landfill. I don't see anyone else showering the Spanos with offers. I haven't seen any city jump out and offer to subsidize the Chargers with even $20 let alone $200 million.
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jun 22, 2015 5:06:00 GMT -8
I dont disagree with any of that. I just have a hard time justifying giving Spanos tax money to build a stadium for his private team that he'll also profit hugely from the public. So he wants the public to fund it, and to buy the tickets Check out all the government subsidies that are "given" to corporations all over the place. Check out what Boeing has received. Add Nike, Adidas and many other named "successful" corporations. Look at what New York and Texas are giving corporations to move to their States. Why are they doing it? Because they "get it". They see the big picture and the OVERALL benefit to having those corporations be successful in their locales. Don't you think Torrance is going to miss Toyota since their moving thousands of jobs to Texas? Sometimes for the overall good, everybody must pay. I've paid plenty of tax dollars in San Diego for things I don't use. (see downtown library, convention center etc..) It's just what World Class Cities do. Toyota jobs are better than a hot dog vender. There's some middle class jobs that the Chargers provide I'm sure but I don't see it being the same as a corporation. Plus, when a city puts up money to get a corporation there they usually raise money by way of Industrial Revenue Bonds (therefore it isn't out of our tax dollars), which would not require voter approval. I'm pretty sure since there's a vote these are being taken out of our actual taxes.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 8:07:49 GMT -8
and Government subsidies given to Nike are in the Billions. Look it up if you can figure out how to. Care to compare the impact to the local/state economy of Nike vs the Chargers? That's not the point. The point is all the yahoos on here who don't want ANY public money spent on the San Diego Stadium while there are plenty of corporations who get subsidies, tax advantages etc.... just to keep them in their current locales OR to get them to move elsewhere. I don't hear any crying over the millions and billions spent on them. Do you? As far as economic impact, all the conversation so far relates to the part-time workers in the stadium. How about all the millionaires playing on the field, who live here year round and spend a good portion of their $$$ on cars, bars, restaurants, housing etc....
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 8:09:09 GMT -8
and Government subsidies given to Nike are in the Billions. Look it up if you can figure out how to. If the Chargers are such a boon to a City, why is it a dump like Carson their only option? The Chargers even have to pay their own way 100% to build on an old landfill. I don't see anyone else showering the Spanos with offers. I haven't seen any city jump out and offer to subsidize the Chargers with even $20 let alone $200 million. Carson isn't the only option. It just appears to be the #1 option. Is that $3.10/year going to kill you?
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Jun 22, 2015 9:56:29 GMT -8
If the Chargers are such a boon to a City, why is it a dump like Carson their only option? The Chargers even have to pay their own way 100% to build on an old landfill. I don't see anyone else showering the Spanos with offers. I haven't seen any city jump out and offer to subsidize the Chargers with even $20 let alone $200 million. Carson isn't the only option. It just appears to be the #1 option. Is that $3.10/year going to kill you? So what are their other options? ? I will admit I haven't done my homework there, but from the sound of it you have a PHD in all things Chargers. Please inform me what their other options are? In 15 years I have not heard of 1 private group or city that is willing to partner and provide a massive subsidy for the Chargers on a stadium. I would much rather my $3.10 go to SDSU for a better educated workforce, or for infrastructure to attract a corporation that provides thousands of high paying jobs.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 10:12:41 GMT -8
I would like it if they stayed, but not if we have to throw public funds at it $3.10 per person in the City per year. That's too much?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 10:25:36 GMT -8
and you have a point posting a link to Qualcomm? Dude, you're lost in space. look at the Holiday Bowl's attendance. If they only can play in a 35-40k seat stadium then there's no way television will provide as much revenue. There's also no way that Bowl would stay as a Tier 2 Bowl game. It would become another MGC Bowl vs MAC game. Economic impact goes down and voila. I know I'd have to spell it out for someone of your minimal brains. KMA while you're at it. Hmm ... a 40K capacity at&t park in San Francisco didn't stop Kraft from partnering for a Bowl Game. I don't think networks and national sponsors really care about the capacity of the bowl as much as they do the match-ups and national appeal. In fact, a smaller stadium would drive ticket prices and that would make the sponsors quite happy, a full stadium on TV would make the networks happy. I don't think your argument is as solid as you pretend it is. LOL- The game was moved to Levis's Stadium, home of the 49ers, as soon as they could. After that, they removed the WAC and added the Big Ten. "The Foster Farms Bowl is played each December at Levi's Stadium in San Francisco, California. Since 2002, the Foster Farms Bowl has treated millions of fans to some of the most exciting bowl games in college football. The game matches up a choice from the Pac-12 Conference with BYU in 2013. Beginning in 2014, it will feature a team from the Big Ten and be played at the new Levi's Stadium in San Francisco. The San Francisco has been sponsored in the past by Kraft and Diamond Foods, Inc. It was previously called the Fight Hunger Bowl, Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, and the Emerald Bowl." also.. "Sponsorships are one of the biggest revenue sources for the bowl game. The other two sources are ticket sales and TV rights." www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2013/12/11/fight-hunger-bowl.htmlIt appears my argument is ROCK SOLID as shown above.
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jun 22, 2015 10:29:04 GMT -8
I would like it if they stayed, but not if we have to throw public funds at it $3.10 per person in the City per year. That's too much? I have no idea where that number came from but if it's correct, then yeah that's still too much. I'm sick of taxes getting progressively higher and higher. If politicians keep adding new things to pay for (which they have) and each of them costs a little bit each year, it adds up quickly. San Diego shouldn't be desperate enough to build the Chargers a stadium. If the Chargers want to stay in San Diego then they can build one themselves, and if not then we don't need them and they can leave. There are lots of ways for that land to be used that would help the economy and city of SD more than a Charger stadium. The Chargers don't make or break San Diego IMO
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 10:33:30 GMT -8
$3.10 per person in the City per year. That's too much? I have no idea where that number came from but if it's correct, then yeah that's still too much. I'm sick of taxes getting progressively higher and higher. If politicians keep adding new things to pay for (which they have) and each of them costs a little bit each year, it adds up quickly. San Diego shouldn't be desperate enough to build the Chargers a stadium. If the Chargers want to stay in San Diego then they can build one themselves, and if not then we don't need them and they can leave. There are lots of ways for that land to be used that would help the economy and city of SD more than a Charger stadium. The Chargers don't make or break San Diego IMO $121 Million over 30 years divided by 1.3 million people in the City of San Diego. What part of a multi-purpose, multi-use Stadium for Concerts, etc.... don't you get? It's not just for the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 22, 2015 10:37:05 GMT -8
Hmm ... a 40K capacity at&t park in San Francisco didn't stop Kraft from partnering for a Bowl Game. I don't think networks and national sponsors really care about the capacity of the bowl as much as they do the match-ups and national appeal. In fact, a smaller stadium would drive ticket prices and that would make the sponsors quite happy, a full stadium on TV would make the networks happy. I don't think your argument is as solid as you pretend it is. LOL- The game was moved to Levis's Stadium, home of the 49ers, as soon as they could. After that, they removed the WAC and added the Big Ten. "The Foster Farms Bowl is played each December at Levi's Stadium in San Francisco, California. Since 2002, the Foster Farms Bowl has treated millions of fans to some of the most exciting bowl games in college football. The game matches up a choice from the Pac-12 Conference with BYU in 2013. Beginning in 2014, it will feature a team from the Big Ten and be played at the new Levi's Stadium in San Francisco. The San Francisco has been sponsored in the past by Kraft and Diamond Foods, Inc. It was previously called the Fight Hunger Bowl, Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, and the Emerald Bowl." It appears my argument is ROCK SOLID as shown above. uh, the fact that the game now has a new sponsor (Foster Farms) and moved the location to the newly opened Levis stadium does not change the fact that Kraft Foods sponsored the bowl game in a 40K venue. You are really, really bad at supporting your arguments ... it seems that your general tact is to change the premise and hope that no one notices. Once again the premise that you espoused was: "If they only can play in a 35-40k seat stadium then there's no way television will provide as much revenue. There's also no way that Bowl would stay as a Tier 2 Bowl game. It would become another MGC Bowl vs MAC game. Economic impact goes down and voila. I know I'd have to spell it out for someone of your minimal brains. KMA while you're at it." That has been debunked. Is it possible that the Holiday Bowl moves to a stadium in LA? That all depends on the games organizers, The San Diego Bowl Game Association. The mission of the non-profit San Diego Bowl Game Association is to generate tourism, exposure, economic benefit and civic pride for San Diego and its citizens by presenting the nation’s most exciting and entertaining bowl games and festivals of events. Maybe its just me, but I don't think they would be as effective promoting San Diego from a stadium in Carson.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 22, 2015 11:53:37 GMT -8
I have no idea where that number came from but if it's correct, then yeah that's still too much. I'm sick of taxes getting progressively higher and higher. If politicians keep adding new things to pay for (which they have) and each of them costs a little bit each year, it adds up quickly. San Diego shouldn't be desperate enough to build the Chargers a stadium. If the Chargers want to stay in San Diego then they can build one themselves, and if not then we don't need them and they can leave. There are lots of ways for that land to be used that would help the economy and city of SD more than a Charger stadium. The Chargers don't make or break San Diego IMO $121 Million over 30 years divided by 1.3 million people in the City of San Diego. What part of a multi-purpose, multi-use Stadium for Concerts, etc.... don't you get? It's not just for the Chargers. I guess you just want to forget about the $225M of Qualcomm land the CSAG report wants to sell to fund the stadium as well? How about the additional $121M that the county would be kicking in?...you realize the residents of the City make up 42% of the counties population right so each of the Cities residents would be double dipped. $225M Q site land sale $121M from City of SD $51M (42% of $121M of Counties portion) That's $51 per year for a family of five for 30 freaking years. That's a lot of money genius. Doesn't matter as the Chargers think whats currently proposed is crap and Spanos has been using the pages of the CSAG report to wipe his A$$ for the last couple weeks.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jun 22, 2015 12:09:28 GMT -8
This argument has been done over and over but the benefits of having a pro sports team in your city goes beyond dollars and cents.
ab is correct. Subsidies go to big companies all the time and that includes sports teams. They don't have a impact like a Qualcomm does in terms of jobs here but they have an impact to the city in other ways.
Why is it that we only have two fortune 500 companies if this city is so wonderful?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 22, 2015 12:37:26 GMT -8
This argument has been done over and over but the benefits of having a pro sports team in your city goes beyond dollars and cents. ab is correct. Subsidies go to big companies all the time and that includes sports teams. They don't have a impact like a Qualcomm does in terms of jobs here but they have an impact to the city in other ways. Why is it that we only have two fortune 500 companies if this city is so wonderful?In an idea ... limited transportation capability for the shipment of goods required by most manufacturing sectors. Right now our major industries are tourism, tech and military -- we don't have the transportation infrastructure depth (seaport, rail or airport) to support manufacturing. LA has manufacturing in addition to the entertainment industry, SF has the financial industry and Silicon Valley -- both cities are supported by large transportation infrastructures.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 14:08:01 GMT -8
LOL- The game was moved to Levis's Stadium, home of the 49ers, as soon as they could. After that, they removed the WAC and added the Big Ten. "The Foster Farms Bowl is played each December at Levi's Stadium in San Francisco, California. Since 2002, the Foster Farms Bowl has treated millions of fans to some of the most exciting bowl games in college football. The game matches up a choice from the Pac-12 Conference with BYU in 2013. Beginning in 2014, it will feature a team from the Big Ten and be played at the new Levi's Stadium in San Francisco. The San Francisco has been sponsored in the past by Kraft and Diamond Foods, Inc. It was previously called the Fight Hunger Bowl, Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, and the Emerald Bowl." It appears my argument is ROCK SOLID as shown above. uh, the fact that the game now has a new sponsor (Foster Farms) and moved the location to the newly opened Levis stadium does not change the fact that Kraft Foods sponsored the bowl game in a 40K venue. You are really, really bad at supporting your arguments ... it seems that your general tact is to change the premise and hope that no one notices. Once again the premise that you espoused was: "If they only can play in a 35-40k seat stadium then there's no way television will provide as much revenue. There's also no way that Bowl would stay as a Tier 2 Bowl game. It would become another MGC Bowl vs MAC game. Economic impact goes down and voila. I know I'd have to spell it out for someone of your minimal brains. KMA while you're at it." That has been debunked. Is it possible that the Holiday Bowl moves to a stadium in LA? That all depends on the games organizers, The San Diego Bowl Game Association. The mission of the non-profit San Diego Bowl Game Association is to generate tourism, exposure, economic benefit and civic pride for San Diego and its citizens by presenting the nation’s most exciting and entertaining bowl games and festivals of events. Maybe its just me, but I don't think they would be as effective promoting San Diego from a stadium in Carson. Once again, your try to baffle everybody with your bull$#!+ instead of dazzling anybody with brilliance. Almost every f'ing Bowl game has at least 1 name sponsor and other minority sponsors. Your point? Kraft only stuck w/ it for 3 years. You were quoting a 2010 article i.e. history. As I stated more than once....keep up now....the Holiday Bowl probably wouldn't move out of town (as long as there is a stadium) but would no longer be a big payday $$ and attract the bigger conferences (just like the Kraft Bowl at a smaller stadium) AFTER moving their bowl to a larger stadium they kicked up one of the opponents i.e. higher payday to the Big 10. Bigger named teams = bigger attendance = bigger $$$ as one of the 3 factors sited in the article I posted. Do you just like to argue for arguments sake? ever admit you were wrong? (Haven't seen it)
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 14:15:40 GMT -8
This argument has been done over and over but the benefits of having a pro sports team in your city goes beyond dollars and cents. ab is correct. Subsidies go to big companies all the time and that includes sports teams. They don't have a impact like a Qualcomm does in terms of jobs here but they have an impact to the city in other ways. Why is it that we only have two fortune 500 companies if this city is so wonderful?In an idea ... limited transportation capability for the shipment of goods required by most manufacturing sectors. Right now our major industries are tourism, tech and military -- we don't have the transportation infrastructure depth (seaport, rail or airport) to support manufacturing. LA has manufacturing in addition to the entertainment industry, SF has the financial industry and Silicon Valley -- both cities are supported by large transportation infrastructures. Limited transportation? - There are ships that come in here daily for Dole and the automobile manufacturers. I believe you should have said limited port space at this point. As for other transportation, there are freight trains leaving here every day as well as freight and passenger aircraft. Brown Field for a great deal of freight. Freeways head every direction. What LA has is far larger ports for shipping. More non-stop flights to more destinations throughout the World. Manufacturing - Could be a lot of that here but for whatever reason there isn't. I think it's pretty much a general rule of most major corporations to put their satelite offices in major cities in all regions. Compared to LA and the Bay Area we're small potatoes and will always be small potatoes.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 22, 2015 14:25:01 GMT -8
In an idea ... limited transportation capability for the shipment of goods required by most manufacturing sectors. Right now our major industries are tourism, tech and military -- we don't have the transportation infrastructure depth (seaport, rail or airport) to support manufacturing. LA has manufacturing in addition to the entertainment industry, SF has the financial industry and Silicon Valley -- both cities are supported by large transportation infrastructures. Limited transportation? - There are ships that come in here daily for Dole and the automobile manufacturers. I believe you should have said limited port space at this point. As for other transportation, there are freight trains leaving here every day as well as freight and passenger aircraft. Brown Field for a great deal of freight. Freeways head every direction. What LA has is far larger ports for shipping. More non-stop flights to more destinations throughout the World. Manufacturing - Could be a lot of that here but for whatever reason there isn't. I think it's pretty much a general rule of most major corporations to put their satelite offices in major cities in all regions. Compared to LA and the Bay Area we're small potatoes and will always be small potatoes. Congrats ... whether you meant to or not -- you just described the limited capability of San Diego to support manufacturing. When the freight train leaves San Diego it has to go to LA before joining a train heading East, thus MFG can save costs by locating themselves in LA where they will have access to the larger sea port, more air facilities (especially Ontario).
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 14:25:56 GMT -8
$121 Million over 30 years divided by 1.3 million people in the City of San Diego. What part of a multi-purpose, multi-use Stadium for Concerts, etc.... don't you get? It's not just for the Chargers. I guess you just want to forget about the $225M of Qualcomm land the CSAG report wants to sell to fund the stadium as well? How about the additional $121M that the county would be kicking in?...you realize the residents of the City make up 42% of the counties population right so each of the Cities residents would be double dipped. $225M Q site land sale $121M from City of SD $51M (42% of $121M of Counties portion) That's $51 per year for a family of five for 30 freaking years. That's a lot of money genius. Doesn't matter as the Chargers think whats currently proposed is crap and Spanos has been using the pages of the CSAG report to wipe his A$$ for the last couple weeks. I didn't forget about any of it. Get your facts straight bozo. It's $121 million from the City and $121 millionfrom the County. I live in the City. You can figure out the remaining 1.8 million that reside in the County. As for double dipping, not sure that's every been brought out. I'd think that the $121 mill would be divided among the remaining 1.8 million people. $51/year is a lot of money? Wow! How sad are you? Shall I write you a check now? Oh that's right, you don't live in San Diego city or county so it's a moot point to you. I suspect the only major reason that Spanos will head North is the fact that Sterling sold the Clips for well over the estimated value of $700 million. Spanos sees the similar situation for his Chargers as the value of the team would probably go from $900 million to at least $3 Billion. That and the fact Goldman Sachs has said they'd cover their losses for the first couple years. If he thinks they're going to draw any sort of crowds that's a joke. They won't. Despite their contrived stat of saying that 25% of their season ticket base comes from L.A. which anybody can figure out is bull$#!+. Will he sell more suites? Sure. Will they have more sponsors? Will they sell more season tickets?...heck no.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 22, 2015 14:26:20 GMT -8
uh, the fact that the game now has a new sponsor (Foster Farms) and moved the location to the newly opened Levis stadium does not change the fact that Kraft Foods sponsored the bowl game in a 40K venue. You are really, really bad at supporting your arguments ... it seems that your general tact is to change the premise and hope that no one notices. Once again the premise that you espoused was: "If they only can play in a 35-40k seat stadium then there's no way television will provide as much revenue. There's also no way that Bowl would stay as a Tier 2 Bowl game. It would become another MGC Bowl vs MAC game. Economic impact goes down and voila. I know I'd have to spell it out for someone of your minimal brains. KMA while you're at it." That has been debunked. Is it possible that the Holiday Bowl moves to a stadium in LA? That all depends on the games organizers, The San Diego Bowl Game Association. The mission of the non-profit San Diego Bowl Game Association is to generate tourism, exposure, economic benefit and civic pride for San Diego and its citizens by presenting the nation’s most exciting and entertaining bowl games and festivals of events. Maybe its just me, but I don't think they would be as effective promoting San Diego from a stadium in Carson. Once again, your try to baffle everybody with your bull$#!+ instead of dazzling anybody with brilliance. Almost every f'ing Bowl game has at least 1 name sponsor and other minority sponsors. Your point? Kraft only stuck w/ it for 3 years. You were quoting a 2010 article i.e. history. As I stated more than once....keep up now....the Holiday Bowl probably wouldn't move out of town (as long as there is a stadium) but would no longer be a big payday $$ and attract the bigger conferences (just like the Kraft Bowl at a smaller stadium) AFTER moving their bowl to a larger stadium they kicked up one of the opponents i.e. higher payday to the Big 10. Bigger named teams = bigger attendance = bigger $$$ as one of the 3 factors sited in the article I posted. Do you just like to argue for arguments sake? ever admit you were wrong? (Haven't seen it) I never get tired of making you look like an idiot ... well I can't take all the credit -- you do most of the work, I just highlight it.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 22, 2015 14:28:41 GMT -8
Limited transportation? - There are ships that come in here daily for Dole and the automobile manufacturers. I believe you should have said limited port space at this point. As for other transportation, there are freight trains leaving here every day as well as freight and passenger aircraft. Brown Field for a great deal of freight. Freeways head every direction. What LA has is far larger ports for shipping. More non-stop flights to more destinations throughout the World. Manufacturing - Could be a lot of that here but for whatever reason there isn't. I think it's pretty much a general rule of most major corporations to put their satelite offices in major cities in all regions. Compared to LA and the Bay Area we're small potatoes and will always be small potatoes. Congrats ... whether you meant to or not -- you just described the limited capability of San Diego to support manufacturing. When the freight train leaves San Diego it has to go to LA before joining a train heading East, thus MFG can save costs by locating themselves in LA where they will have access to the larger sea port, more air facilities (especially Ontario). I didn't prove your bull about limited capability of manufacturing. but, the cost of transportation could very well be higher ... and so is the cost of any facilities, property, and housing. I guess our Craft Brew Manufacturers haven't been scared about the cost of shipping have they?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 22, 2015 14:30:39 GMT -8
Congrats ... whether you meant to or not -- you just described the limited capability of San Diego to support manufacturing. When the freight train leaves San Diego it has to go to LA before joining a train heading East, thus MFG can save costs by locating themselves in LA where they will have access to the larger sea port, more air facilities (especially Ontario). I didn't prove your bull about limited capability of manufacturing. but, the cost of transportation could very well be higher ... and so is the cost of any facilities, property, and housing. I guess our Craft Brew Manufacturers haven't been scared about the cost of shipping have they? LOL ...we're talking about fortune 500 and you want to talk about craft brew that factors the cost of limited production and transportation into the price point? Do you know how much San Diego craft beer costs in NYC?
|
|