|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 13, 2015 22:37:55 GMT -8
www.dailynews.com/sports/20150911/san-diego-chargers-miss-deadline-to-agree-on-new-stadium"The quickie (environmental impact report) is more like curdled milk, which looks worse the longer it sits around," Fabiani said in email Thursday. "In short, the Chargers are unwilling to go along with the city's ill-conceived legal strategies." Faulconer remained committed to a public vote if the two sides ever strike a deal, saying Friday that an election could be held next year in June or November. But Fabiani ruled out Chargers support for any proposal predicated on the same environmental review. "If that's your foundation, then nothing will ever happen," Fabiani told a group of civic leaders Friday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montezumas Revenge 88 on Sept 13, 2015 23:22:31 GMT -8
Also read in the article that they both can't even "agree to disagree," lol
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Sept 14, 2015 5:34:53 GMT -8
www.dailynews.com/sports/20150911/san-diego-chargers-miss-deadline-to-agree-on-new-stadium"The quickie (environmental impact report) is more like curdled milk, which looks worse the longer it sits around," Fabiani said in email Thursday. "In short, the Chargers are unwilling to go along with the city's ill-conceived legal strategies." Faulconer remained committed to a public vote if the two sides ever strike a deal, saying Friday that an election could be held next year in June or November. But Fabiani ruled out Chargers support for any proposal predicated on the same environmental review. "If that's your foundation, then nothing will ever happen," Fabiani told a group of civic leaders Friday.
"We have been working on this for many years, and always thinking about it in terms of enabling a relocation if all of the key issues have been analyzed and dealt with, thus enabling a successful move," Grubman said. "If we believe it can be done successfully in 2016, we will take it up with membership. If not, we won't."
So if it doesn't happen in 2016 the board will have to put up with you for another whole year?!?....  |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 14, 2015 11:15:40 GMT -8
www.dailynews.com/sports/20150911/san-diego-chargers-miss-deadline-to-agree-on-new-stadium"The quickie (environmental impact report) is more like curdled milk, which looks worse the longer it sits around," Fabiani said in email Thursday. "In short, the Chargers are unwilling to go along with the city's ill-conceived legal strategies." Faulconer remained committed to a public vote if the two sides ever strike a deal, saying Friday that an election could be held next year in June or November. But Fabiani ruled out Chargers support for any proposal predicated on the same environmental review. "If that's your foundation, then nothing will ever happen," Fabiani told a group of civic leaders Friday.
"We have been working on this for many years, and always thinking about it in terms of enabling a relocation if all of the key issues have been analyzed and dealt with, thus enabling a successful move," Grubman said. "If we believe it can be done successfully in 2016, we will take it up with membership. If not, we won't."
So if it doesn't happen in 2016 the board will have to put up with you for another whole year?!?.... And I guess the board will have to put up with you for the rest of our lives?  If only you would actually "retire." Stay or go; whatever; hope the NFL/Chargers don't drag this out any longer than need be. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 14, 2015 11:41:11 GMT -8
espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13633315/chargers-miss-san-diego-deadline-stadium-deal"With the Chargers, Raiders and Rams all competing for the opportunity to move to Los Angeles, Grubman said the league is still in the process of determining if 2016 is the right time for a franchise to relocate.
"We have been working on this for many years, and always thinking about it in terms of enabling a relocation if all of the key issues have been analyzed and dealt with, thus enabling a successful move," Grubman said. "If we believe it can be done successfully in 2016, we will take it up with membership. If not, we won't."
So if it doesn't happen in 2016 the board will have to put up with you for another whole year?!?.... And I guess the board will have to put up with you for the rest of our lives? If only you would actually "retire." Stay or go; whatever; hope the NFL/Chargers don't drag this out any longer than need be. Obviously your over simplified biased view of the situation isn't what the NFL is going to make their decision on. I'm still amazed any of you anti-Chargers folks actually post what the Liar for Hire says. I'm sure the NFL isn't quite that ignorant to believe what Policy and Fibiani spill off their lips. |
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Sept 14, 2015 12:15:48 GMT -8
Agree with ab. If it's in the media than you know it's just the latest dose of spin. I know with 100% certainty that I'll not vote for a tax financed stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Sept 14, 2015 13:38:13 GMT -8
Meaningless. Everyone knew from the beginning that this deadline was never going to be met. It was just another hoop the NFL made the city jump through.
There's some speculation that we'll find out more at the meetings next month but my bet is that, nothing is going to be decided on until January.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Sept 14, 2015 15:44:05 GMT -8
Meaningless. Everyone knew from the beginning that this deadline was never going to be met. It was just another hoop the NFL made the city jump through. There's some speculation that we'll find out more at the meetings next month but my bet is that, nothing is going to be decided on until January. BINGO! The biggest non-news of the month as everyone (who is paying attention) knew this was coming months ago. Chargers have no incentive to talk to the city until the LA situation is sorted out so don't expect any news until then. I agree that any "decision" on the Chargers will come until after the regular season at the earliest as to not cause an issue at home games in 2015 (the NFL may be forced to announce a decision on the Rams though as Kroenke wants to break ground in December – during the regular season). I still think we are down to 2 real outcomes: 1) Rams go to Inglewood and the Chargers join them as a tenant 2) Rams go to Inglewood and the Chargers get some form of compensation from Kroenke, the NFL or both to stay in SD IMO Raiders do not figure in LA even though they really are the one team that needs help. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Sept 14, 2015 17:59:19 GMT -8
Chargers may join as a tenant but that's going to be after the Rams get to soak in the market for at least a year in their new stadium.
IMO this stadium situation is going to be lingering around for at least another year, maybe 3-4 years if the Chargers are serious about being a tenant of Kroenke, which I don't buy for a minute but we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by junior on Sept 14, 2015 19:55:38 GMT -8
Deadline, schmedline.
Wish they'd all drop dead. What a waste of newspaper ink and internet bytes.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 15, 2015 7:37:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 15, 2015 7:37:38 GMT -8
Agree with ab. If it's in the media than you know it's just the latest dose of spin. I know with 100% certainty that I'll not vote for a tax financed stadium. and I know I will. If the $ amount is spread over 30 years as with the CSAG proposal, it only amounts to about $3/year per person. Can't even buy a good beer at happy hour for that. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 15, 2015 7:43:15 GMT -8
Meaningless. Everyone knew from the beginning that this deadline was never going to be met. It was just another hoop the NFL made the city jump through. There's some speculation that we'll find out more at the meetings next month but my bet is that, nothing is going to be decided on until January. I'm pretty sure Grubman has already stated that nothing tangible will come out in October meetings. Hopefully the NFL holds some open forums here and I'll educate them to the lying ways of Policy and Fibiani.  |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 15, 2015 8:11:41 GMT -8
Agree with ab. If it's in the media than you know it's just the latest dose of spin. I know with 100% certainty that I'll not vote for a tax financed stadium. and I know I will. If the $ amount is spread over 30 years as with the CSAG proposal, it only amounts to about $3/year per person. Can't even buy a good beer at happy hour for that. Now you just have to get 51% of the vote.  Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 15, 2015 8:26:04 GMT -8
Chargers worth $1.5B as profit soars www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/14/chargers-value-nfl-profit-soars-stadium/Q: If Spanos makes so much money in San Diego, why move to Carson? A: Because moving could make his family vastly richer. Q: O.K., so new stadiums generate lots of cash. Why can’t Spanos just build one privately in San Diego? A: Given the earnings potential, he probably can afford it — but he may not have to. Cities still compete for NFL franchises. |
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Sept 15, 2015 8:32:53 GMT -8
So do you call it greed or just good business. I think we sometimes forget that many owners are financially invested while its the Fans who are emotionally invested.
If they are leaving I wish they would just go. Lets see what we could all do to get The San Diego Region fully behind The San Diego State University AZTECS.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Sept 15, 2015 9:52:37 GMT -8
Isn't this "good" news for a potential downtown stadium? A downtown stadium can only go along with a non-contiguous CC expansion. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 15, 2015 14:09:22 GMT -8
So do you call it greed or just good business. I think we sometimes forget that many owners are financially invested while its the Fans who are emotionally invested. If they are leaving I wish they would just go. Lets see what we could all do to get The San Diego Region fully behind The San Diego State University AZTECS. who is "we" Tonto? |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Sept 15, 2015 14:10:40 GMT -8
and I know I will. If the $ amount is spread over 30 years as with the CSAG proposal, it only amounts to about $3/year per person. Can't even buy a good beer at happy hour for that. Now you just have to get 51% of the vote. Good luck with that. With a good season including the playoffs, I suspect 51% is very attainable. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 15, 2015 15:18:53 GMT -8
and I know I will. If the $ amount is spread over 30 years as with the CSAG proposal, it only amounts to about $3/year per person. Can't even buy a good beer at happy hour for that. Now you just have to get 51% of the vote. Good luck with that. Don't forget, you also need a team to have interest in the proposal. |
|
