|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 12, 2016 15:12:41 GMT -8
Lets compare the two scenarios:
San Diego $1.2B stadium (CSAG said $1.1B but NFL told them those numbers were light)
+$100M in equity from the NFL +$350 from the City and County of San Diego (if by an act of God San Diegans approve it) +$120M in seat licenses (from CSAG report) +$250M in naming rights over 30 years (CSAG had $135-165M over 20 years so I took the higher number and converted to 30 year equivalent to compare below)
$380M needed from Chargers ($200M of this is the NFL G4 loan but that needs to be paid back with interest)
Los Angeles $1 per year to be a tenant -$550M relocation fee paid over 10 years and starting in 2019 when stadium opens -$200M for G4 loan that goes towards Kroenke world +$129.5M in naming rights over 30 years (18.5% of Farmer’s Field agreement) +$74M in PSL (18.5% of their Carson estimate)
$546M needed from Chargers
So factoring both of these it would cost the Chargers $166M more to go to LA than to stay in San Diego based on CSAG's numbers.
Kevin Acee says he is wowed the more he finds out about the LA scenario....he said that the Chargers make up to $50-80 million a year in San Diego but would make $300 million in LA as a partner in Inglewood so that delta could be made up in the first year in Inglewood and his franchise value would double.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 12, 2016 15:25:08 GMT -8
Lets compare the two scenarios: San Diego $1.2B stadium (CSAG said $1.1B but NFL told them those numbers were light) +$100M in equity from the NFL +$350 from the City and County of San Diego (if by an act of God San Diegans approve it) +$120M in seat licenses (from CSAG report) +$250M in naming rights over 30 years (CSAG had $135-165M over 20 years so I took the higher number and converted to 30 year equivalent to compare below) $380M needed from Chargers ($200M of this is the NFL G4 loan but that needs to be paid back with interest) Los Angeles $1 per year to be a tenant -$550M relocation fee paid over 10 years and starting in 2019 when stadium opens -$200M for G4 loan that goes towards Kroenke world +$129.5M in naming rights over 30 years (18.5% of Farmer’s Field agreement) +$74M in PSL (18.5% of their Carson estimate) $546M needed from Chargers So factoring both of these it would cost the Chargers $166M more to go to LA than to stay in San Diego based on CSAG's numbers. Kevin Acee says he is wowed the more he finds out about the LA scenario....he said that the Chargers make up to $50-80 million a year in San Diego but would make $300 million in LA as a partner in Inglewood so that delta could be made up in the first year in Inglewood and his franchise value would double. You're using the naming rights in SD to go towards the cost of a new stadium? I don't think the Chargers would agree to that, as they have said more than once that they would expect the naming rights money to go to them, and not towards the cost of any new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 12, 2016 15:29:43 GMT -8
Lets compare the two scenarios: San Diego $1.2B stadium (CSAG said $1.1B but NFL told them those numbers were light) +$100M in equity from the NFL +$350 from the City and County of San Diego (if by an act of God San Diegans approve it) +$120M in seat licenses (from CSAG report) +$250M in naming rights over 30 years (CSAG had $135-165M over 20 years so I took the higher number and converted to 30 year equivalent to compare below) $380M needed from Chargers ($200M of this is the NFL G4 loan but that needs to be paid back with interest) Los Angeles $1 per year to be a tenant -$550M relocation fee paid over 10 years and starting in 2019 when stadium opens -$200M for G4 loan that goes towards Kroenke world +$129.5M in naming rights over 30 years (18.5% of Farmer’s Field agreement) +$74M in PSL (18.5% of their Carson estimate) $546M needed from Chargers So factoring both of these it would cost the Chargers $166M more to go to LA than to stay in San Diego based on CSAG's numbers. Kevin Acee says he is wowed the more he finds out about the LA scenario....he said that the Chargers make up to $50-80 million a year in San Diego but would make $300 million in LA as a partner in Inglewood so that delta could be made up in the first year in Inglewood and his franchise value would double. You're using the naming rights in SD to go towards the cost of a new stadium? I don't think the Chargers would agree to that, as they have said more than once that they would expect the naming rights money to go to them, and not towards the cost of any new stadium. No, it the Chargers to do what they want with. The could put it in the bank or use it towards debt on the stadium. I'm just trying to show the basics of each deal.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 12, 2016 15:31:59 GMT -8
Lets compare the two scenarios: San Diego $1.2B stadium (CSAG said $1.1B but NFL told them those numbers were light) +$100M in equity from the NFL +$350 from the City and County of San Diego (if by an act of God San Diegans approve it) +$120M in seat licenses (from CSAG report) +$250M in naming rights over 30 years (CSAG had $135-165M over 20 years so I took the higher number and converted to 30 year equivalent to compare below) $380M needed from Chargers ($200M of this is the NFL G4 loan but that needs to be paid back with interest) Los Angeles $1 per year to be a tenant -$550M relocation fee paid over 10 years and starting in 2019 when stadium opens -$200M for G4 loan that goes towards Kroenke world +$129.5M in naming rights over 30 years (18.5% of Farmer’s Field agreement) +$74M in PSL (18.5% of their Carson estimate) $546M needed from Chargers So factoring both of these it would cost the Chargers $166M more to go to LA than to stay in San Diego based on CSAG's numbers. Kevin Acee says he is wowed the more he finds out about the LA scenario....he said that the Chargers make up to $50-80 million a year in San Diego but would make $300 million in LA as a partner in Inglewood so that delta could be made up in the first year in Inglewood and his franchise value would double. lol 1 dollar rent. 300 mil a year kevin acee says thats like saying i had dinner wkth the easter bumny tooth fairy and santa clause in one night. the only facts are rams in inglewood, chargers in san diego and the commissioner of the nfl promised a gift of 100 mil. and this thread is off topic.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 12, 2016 16:17:32 GMT -8
Who will be the last man standing in Chargers stadium fight? www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/feb/10/cover-spanos-family-we-dont-intend-move/?page=1&Interesting review of how the Chargers got their ticket guarantee. Henderson was right about the Chargers/city in the past and his current views are on point… “The only thing government can do is get out of the business of providing a venue for sports teams,” Henderson says. “And the interesting thing is that L.A. has understood that, and actually San Francisco came to understand that. Just telling them, ‘No, we aren’t going to do business with you because we can’t.’ Henderson adds, “What you should do is say to a team, look, we’ll lease Qualcomm to you for 30 years, at market rates, and we have nothing to do with it. It’s just like we own a piece of land somewhere and you want to farm it. ‘We’ll lease it to you to farm, and all you do is make lease payments and obey the law. If you make money, fabulous. If you lose money, don’t look to us.’ “‘If you want police to come and manage anything on the site, you pay the going rate for having the police there. We don’t have anything to do with maintenance, we don’t have anything to do with operation, period.’ “And that’s the only negotiation.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Feb 12, 2016 16:28:32 GMT -8
Lets compare the two scenarios: San Diego $1.2B stadium (CSAG said $1.1B but NFL told them those numbers were light) +$100M in equity from the NFL +$350 from the City and County of San Diego (if by an act of God San Diegans approve it) +$120M in seat licenses (from CSAG report) +$250M in naming rights over 30 years (CSAG had $135-165M over 20 years so I took the higher number and converted to 30 year equivalent to compare below) $380M needed from Chargers ($200M of this is the NFL G4 loan but that needs to be paid back with interest) Los Angeles $1 per year to be a tenant -$550M relocation fee paid over 10 years and starting in 2019 when stadium opens -$200M for G4 loan that goes towards Kroenke world +$129.5M in naming rights over 30 years (18.5% of Farmer’s Field agreement) +$74M in PSL (18.5% of their Carson estimate) $546M needed from Chargers So factoring both of these it would cost the Chargers $166M more to go to LA than to stay in San Diego based on CSAG's numbers. Kevin Acee says he is wowed the more he finds out about the LA scenario....he said that the Chargers make up to $50-80 million a year in San Diego but would make $300 million in LA as a partner in Inglewood so that delta could be made up in the first year in Inglewood and his franchise value would double. The LA numbers are not accurate. Rent $1 Relocation $550m over 10 years Naming rights $0 PSL 100% In Inglewood or enough to pay most of the relocation fee if collected and invested then paid out over 10 years. It is a way better deal.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Feb 12, 2016 16:50:03 GMT -8
When everyone keeps saying their value will go up, they're not factoring in the costs associated with that. Forbes values the Chargers at about $1.5 billion right now. If they get a new stadium it's going to go up. I don't know by how much, but perhaps another $500 million? The 49'ers value jumped up big time, I believe around $1 billion, after they got their new stadium. The NY Giants are valued at $2.8 billion and the Jets at $2.6 billion and they're equal partners in their new stadium. If Spanos goes to LA as equal partners it's going to cost him $550 million (relocation) + somewhere around $1.3 billion to buy in. That's almost $2 billion before interest. That's not happening. If Spanos goes to LA as a tenant, it's going to cost him $550 million paid over 10 years (approximately $650 million), plus he loses out on the $100 million gift from the NFL + $50 million G4 loan forgiveness if they stay in San Diego. That's already an $800 million swing just to be a tenant. As a tenant, the value of the team is not going to jump up as much as people think. They're not going to be more valuable than the Jets since they would only be tenants. I would say there is not going to be much of a difference in their value either way if they stay here or go to LA as tenants. Kroenke can afford to sink in all that money because he's going to make it back with all the surrounding development. Spanos will never have that option in Inglewood. All his money is going to come from gameday revenue only. He'll be able to work out a much more favorable deal here over Inglewood. These are all financial things even before you factor in the personal issues going on here and owning your market vs being maybe 6th or 7th in the totem pole in the LA/OC market. I don't think the decision is even close for Spanos. San Diego is far and away the more attractive option and he realizes that and that's why you see the sudden change in attitude. Now, they just need to figure out how to win back the public. Davis may pounce on the opportunity to go to LA because Oakland is not interested in building a new stadium for them. They also have the A's stadium issue going on that they're dealing with. Right now, Davis doesn't have much of a choice but to leave Oakland, unless he sells the team to someone who has the money to get something done. The deal is done in LA. Spanos will not be a partner and will not share in the capital costs. His rent will be $1 per year. Value would go up just through tickets, marketing etc. Not too mention that after he gets to LA he can always play out the lease and then move to his own place in Carson or wherever. As for SD, his value may go up with a new stadium, but not like SF, plus the Spanos' will have some of their own money in the project extending the amount of time to payback. Plus the Raiders in LA along with the Rams. Wow! There are a lot of folks in LA right now that would love to have the Raiders back. The two combined would own Southern California. Sorry, and I may be wrong, but I just don't see it. After the emotions have settled Dean will make the best long term decision for his family even if that is with Kroenke. I hope I am wrong. The Rams and Raiders were in Southern California along with the Chargers for many years and it worked out fine. This was the "megamarket" BS all started by Carmen Policy trying to push the Carson agenda and it got shot down quickly by the NFL since they're all distinct markets. The NFL won't allow a second stadium in LA and therefore Spanos will never have a stadium in LA. Spanos needs a long term stadium solution and the only location right now where that is possible is San Diego. Becoming a tenant in LA doesn't solve that at all. If everything falls apart, he'll go to LA, but that's the last thing he wants now. Everything changed when he lost the vote in Houston last month.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Feb 12, 2016 19:29:21 GMT -8
The deal is done in LA. Spanos will not be a partner and will not share in the capital costs. His rent will be $1 per year. Value would go up just through tickets, marketing etc. Not too mention that after he gets to LA he can always play out the lease and then move to his own place in Carson or wherever. As for SD, his value may go up with a new stadium, but not like SF, plus the Spanos' will have some of their own money in the project extending the amount of time to payback. Plus the Raiders in LA along with the Rams. Wow! There are a lot of folks in LA right now that would love to have the Raiders back. The two combined would own Southern California. Sorry, and I may be wrong, but I just don't see it. After the emotions have settled Dean will make the best long term decision for his family even if that is with Kroenke. I hope I am wrong. The Rams and Raiders were in Southern California along with the Chargers for many years and it worked out fine. This was the "megamarket" BS all started by Carmen Policy trying to push the Carson agenda and it got shot down quickly by the NFL since they're all distinct markets. The NFL won't allow a second stadium in LA and therefore Spanos will never have a stadium in LA. Spanos needs a long term stadium solution and the only location right now where that is possible is San Diego. Becoming a tenant in LA doesn't solve that at all. If everything falls apart, he'll go to LA, but that's the last thing he wants now. Everything changed when he lost the vote in Houston last month. We will see, maybe you are right. But, I think that 20 years have changed a lot and when all is said and done the LA Chargers will be a reality.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 13, 2016 3:01:30 GMT -8
Lets compare the two scenarios: San Diego $1.2B stadium (CSAG said $1.1B but NFL told them those numbers were light) +$100M in equity from the NFL +$350 from the City and County of San Diego (if by an act of God San Diegans approve it) +$120M in seat licenses (from CSAG report) +$250M in naming rights over 30 years (CSAG had $135-165M over 20 years so I took the higher number and converted to 30 year equivalent to compare below) $380M needed from Chargers ($200M of this is the NFL G4 loan but that needs to be paid back with interest) Los Angeles $1 per year to be a tenant -$550M relocation fee paid over 10 years and starting in 2019 when stadium opens -$200M for G4 loan that goes towards Kroenke world +$129.5M in naming rights over 30 years (18.5% of Farmer’s Field agreement) +$74M in PSL (18.5% of their Carson estimate) $546M needed from Chargers So factoring both of these it would cost the Chargers $166M more to go to LA than to stay in San Diego based on CSAG's numbers. Kevin Acee says he is wowed the more he finds out about the LA scenario....he said that the Chargers make up to $50-80 million a year in San Diego but would make $300 million in LA as a partner in Inglewood so that delta could be made up in the first year in Inglewood and his franchise value would double. The LA numbers are not accurate. Rent $1 Relocation $550m over 10 years Naming rights $0 PSL 100% In Inglewood or enough to pay most of the relocation fee if collected and invested then paid out over 10 years. It is a way better deal. I used Sam Farmer's info from this article: "One bucket has seldom-sold assets connected to the stadium such as naming rights and personal seat licenses from both teams. The $200-million loan each team would receive from the NFL toward stadium construction would go in the bucket, along with revenue from non-football events like soccer matches and conventions. Most of the first bucket would go to pay off the multibillion-dollar stadium. Each team would receive a percentage of revenues from that bucket. The league has suggested 18.75% for each team." www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-chargers-20160129-20-story.html
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Feb 13, 2016 9:10:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by pbaztec17 on Feb 13, 2016 10:57:18 GMT -8
I had never heard of this guy prior to this, but he sounds like a really bright dude.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 14, 2016 13:49:59 GMT -8
Why anyone living in or from San Diego would be rooting for the Chargers at this point is a complete mystery. Similar to battered spouse syndrome? Probably. Some things are too complicated for some on here. Let me explain. To some of us, the value of having the Chargers in San Diego, whether it's downtown, Mission Valley, or wherever and with or without Spanos is far more important than letting them walk because we know it's just not that easy to get another team to take their place. We can all hope Spanos sells the team someday to someone with a helluva lot more money, more football sense, and whose goal is to win the Super Bowl but that may or may not happen. Either way, it's just that simple.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 14, 2016 13:51:41 GMT -8
Lets compare the two scenarios: San Diego $1.2B stadium (CSAG said $1.1B but NFL told them those numbers were light) +$100M in equity from the NFL +$350 from the City and County of San Diego (if by an act of God San Diegans approve it) +$120M in seat licenses (from CSAG report) +$250M in naming rights over 30 years (CSAG had $135-165M over 20 years so I took the higher number and converted to 30 year equivalent to compare below) $380M needed from Chargers ($200M of this is the NFL G4 loan but that needs to be paid back with interest) Los Angeles $1 per year to be a tenant -$550M relocation fee paid over 10 years and starting in 2019 when stadium opens -$200M for G4 loan that goes towards Kroenke world +$129.5M in naming rights over 30 years (18.5% of Farmer’s Field agreement) +$74M in PSL (18.5% of their Carson estimate) $546M needed from Chargers So factoring both of these it would cost the Chargers $166M more to go to LA than to stay in San Diego based on CSAG's numbers. Kevin Acee says he is wowed the more he finds out about the LA scenario....he said that the Chargers make up to $50-80 million a year in San Diego but would make $300 million in LA as a partner in Inglewood so that delta could be made up in the first year in Inglewood and his franchise value would double. Only fools believe that Acee has a clue what the hell the truth is. AJ Smith use to feed him what he wanted him to write and he suckered into it. He was the first one to write that for sure that the Chargers were guaranteed to be going to L.A. before the NFL had their meeting. Not surprised you haven't picked up on this.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Feb 14, 2016 16:18:12 GMT -8
Acee got all his information from Fabiani, who we all know was all in on pushing the Carson agenda, so it's hard to believe anything Acee reported as anything more than old propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 14, 2016 19:33:42 GMT -8
Acee got all his information from Fabiani, who we all know was all in on pushing the Carson agenda, so it's hard to believe anything Acee reported as anything more than old propaganda. Lol. Don't like the message?....just say he must have heard it from Fabiani.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Feb 14, 2016 21:38:19 GMT -8
Acee got all his information from Fabiani, who we all know was all in on pushing the Carson agenda, so it's hard to believe anything Acee reported as anything more than old propaganda. Lol. Don't like the message?....just say he must have heard it from Fabiani. To me it's fairly obvious which "reporters" out there are being fed info by Fabiani because they've all been wrong with just about everything. (Vinny B, Cole, Acee, Sileo) If that's not the case, then they either have even worse sources or are just making crap up. Either way, they've demonstrated zero credibility.
|
|
|
Post by fisherville on Feb 14, 2016 21:45:34 GMT -8
Said this before but I don't really trust any of the local writers on this issue, Acee I have never viewed as least bit credible, the semi new writer I forget his name I think he is a redhead doesn't seem interested in digging for info. So then it comes down to the national info, Florio is trash, Schefter hasn't said anything, Cole is kind of in middle I don't know whether to trust or not I'd lean towards no. The really credible national writers like Schefter haven't said anything since the day they voted, they don't seem very interested in the stadium stuff here or in Oakland.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 15, 2016 10:04:18 GMT -8
Lol. Don't like the message?....just say he must have heard it from Fabiani. To me it's fairly obvious which "reporters" out there are being fed info by Fabiani because they've all been wrong with just about everything. (Vinny B, Cole, Acee, Sileo) If that's not the case, then they either have even worse sources or are just making crap up. Either way, they've demonstrated zero credibility. Do you trust anyone that has reported on this issue or all they all just Fabianis puppets in your eyes?
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Feb 15, 2016 10:13:54 GMT -8
I think that Spanos will allow the end of March date to come and go. Then he will give the city until a couple of weeks after the draft to have a proposal ready. All the time acting like he is serious about a SD deal, with his minions saying how great season ticket sales, etc. will generate good will from Chargers leadership, etc. Then after the money is in he is going to bail on the project and move the team to LA. I think you should read this: espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/14752649/the-real-story-nfl-owners-battle-bring-football-back-los-angelesHow bout you just give us the Reader's Digest version so we're not compelled to read the internet version of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Feb 15, 2016 10:18:30 GMT -8
When everyone keeps saying their value will go up, they're not factoring in the costs associated with that. Forbes values the Chargers at about $1.5 billion right now. If they get a new stadium it's going to go up. I don't know by how much, but perhaps another $500 million? The 49'ers value jumped up big time, I believe around $1 billion, after they got their new stadium. The NY Giants are valued at $2.8 billion and the Jets at $2.6 billion and they're equal partners in their new stadium. If Spanos goes to LA as equal partners it's going to cost him $550 million (relocation) + somewhere around $1.3 billion to buy in. That's almost $2 billion before interest. That's not happening. If Spanos goes to LA as a tenant, it's going to cost him $550 million paid over 10 years (approximately $650 million), plus he loses out on the $100 million gift from the NFL + $50 million G4 loan forgiveness if they stay in San Diego. That's already an $800 million swing just to be a tenant. As a tenant, the value of the team is not going to jump up as much as people think. They're not going to be more valuable than the Jets since they would only be tenants. I would say there is not going to be much of a difference in their value either way if they stay here or go to LA as tenants. Kroenke can afford to sink in all that money because he's going to make it back with all the surrounding development. Spanos will never have that option in Inglewood. All his money is going to come from gameday revenue only. He'll be able to work out a much more favorable deal here over Inglewood. These are all financial things even before you factor in the personal issues going on here and owning your market vs being maybe 6th or 7th in the totem pole in the LA/OC market. I don't think the decision is even close for Spanos. San Diego is far and away the more attractive option and he realizes that and that's why you see the sudden change in attitude. Now, they just need to figure out how to win back the public. Davis may pounce on the opportunity to go to LA because Oakland is not interested in building a new stadium for them. They also have the A's stadium issue going on that they're dealing with. Right now, Davis doesn't have much of a choice but to leave Oakland, unless he sells the team to someone who has the money to get something done. The deal is done in LA. Spanos will not be a partner and will not share in the capital costs. His rent will be $1 per year. Value would go up just through tickets, marketing etc. Not too mention that after he gets to LA he can always play out the lease and then move to his own place in Carson or wherever.As for SD, his value may go up with a new stadium, but not like SF, plus the Spanos' will have some of their own money in the project extending the amount of time to payback. Plus the Raiders in LA along with the Rams. Wow! There are a lot of folks in LA right now that would love to have the Raiders back. The two combined would own Southern California. Sorry, and I may be wrong, but I just don't see it. After the emotions have settled Dean will make the best long term decision for his family even if that is with Kroenke. I hope I am wrong. Bingo. Although "wherever" is the operative word. Building a stadium over a toxic dump in Carson was always as much a farce as the mayor of that place. However, that large piece of land in the City of Industry remains vacant.
|
|