|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jul 25, 2010 8:03:05 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2010 9:19:50 GMT -8
Excellent column. Of course, once you hire an consultant, it helps if you actually take his advice (Jeff Schemmel).
As an aside, I didn't know about the Rams' escape clause. Could THEY ultimately be the team which comes to L.A.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jul 25, 2010 9:31:11 GMT -8
Good article. He makes a very solid point that the debate needs to speak to the middle and avoid the fringes--such as what we usually see in threads--Those who are adamantly against a downtown stadium no matter what and those who want to give in and build one no matter what. We need to move from the agenda driven politician thought process to cold, hard, calculating analysis and discussion. Wonder if anything like bringing in pro to give it a meaningful run will ever happen, or is this city just so moribund that nothing will ever happen? Time will tell the tale. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecpaulg on Jul 25, 2010 10:04:56 GMT -8
As usual Sullivan cements his place as an outsider in this city by insulting the capabilities of elected officials and thus, insulting everyone who voted them into office. With an air of grandiose superiority and narcissism, he passes judgement from on high. If only the whole world thought like this mediocre sports writer. He pretends to have insight, but only uses hindsight to prove his point.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 25, 2010 10:48:29 GMT -8
As usual Sullivan cements his place as an outsider in this city by insulting the capabilities of elected officials and thus, insulting everyone who voted them into office. With an air of grandiose superiority and narcissism, he passes judgement from on high. If only the whole world thought like this mediocre sports writer. He pretends to have insight, but only uses hindsight to prove his point. I agree that insulting city officials is a bad tactic. It does not mean that they don't merit those insults and worse.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 25, 2010 11:05:45 GMT -8
Politicians want to look good to their taxpayers so they won't have to shell out any tax money. But here's something to think about.
The SF Giants couldn't get City Hall to help them build their baseball stadium so they took it upon themsleves to buy the land and build the park with their own money. No public funds so everybody looks good, right? Wrong!!!
The Giants owners will own their park, which should be paid off this year. The land, parking fees, concessions and tax breaks the City gave them are now their goldmine. They play to a fullhouse and the only money SF gets is some of the sales taxes from fan purchases. The city is going broke and the Giants are making money hand over fist since outside of income and property taxes, they don't have to share the revenues that they would normally have to if public funds were involved.
So go ahead San Diego. Try and get something for nothing. Make the Spanos pay for everything if that's what you're waiting for. If the city thinks they can still negotiate while the Spanos use their own money, then they're taking the taxpayers for idiots. The Spanos organization didn't get rich by being altruistic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2010 11:05:16 GMT -8
As usual Sullivan cements his place as an outsider in this city by insulting the capabilities of elected officials and thus, insulting everyone who voted them into office. With an air of grandiose superiority and narcissism, he passes judgement from on high. If only the whole world thought like this mediocre sports writer. He pretends to have insight, but only uses hindsight to prove his point. Checking your bio, I see that you are 30. At that age, I felt the same as you. Unfortunately, more than two decades on, I no longer have such faith in elected officials. Also, I didn't get from the column that Sullivan was criticizing "everyone who voted them into office." In the latter regard, this year's governor's race will be just one more in which I will be voting not for someone I really want to see elected, but rather for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 25, 2010 11:12:23 GMT -8
I don't remember which UT guy proposed it but I like the soft retractable roof idea, would open the stadium up for ComiCon (as well as other conventions), which would hopefully get them to stick around.
The stadium could benefit the city greatly if they're smart about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jul 25, 2010 12:14:02 GMT -8
Cost of Stadium $800M
Soft retractable roof $75M (optional, but they better include it to convince the public that it will be used for more than just football games)
Cost of relocating busyard and enviro clean up $100M
Total $975M
Chargers contribution $200M
Incredibly unlikely contribution from NFL's diminished G-3 stadium fund $150M
Best case scenario for City's contribution: $550M-$625M (with and w/o retractable roof)
Worse case: $700M-$775M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2010 12:19:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 25, 2010 12:30:07 GMT -8
Cost of Stadium $800M Soft retractable roof $75M (optional, but they better include it to convince the public that it will be used for more than just football games) Cost of relocating busyard and enviro clean up $100M Total $975M Chargers contribution $200M Incredibly unlikely contribution from NFL's diminished G-3 stadium fund $150M Best case scenario for City's contribution: $550M-$625M (with and w/o retractable roof) Worse case: $700M-$775M. Seriously, let them leave. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 25, 2010 12:37:55 GMT -8
Politicians want to look good to their taxpayers so they won't have to shell out any tax money. But here's something to think about. The SF Giants couldn't get City Hall to help them build their baseball stadium so they took it upon themsleves to buy the land and build the park with their own money. No public funds so everybody looks good, right? Wrong!!! The Giants owners will own their park, which should be paid off this year. The land, parking fees, concessions and tax breaks the City gave them are now their goldmine. They play to a fullhouse and the only money SF gets is some of the sales taxes from fan purchases. The city is going broke and the Giants are making money hand over fist since outside of income and property taxes, they don't have to share the revenues that they would normally have to if public funds were involved. So go ahead San Diego. Try and get something for nothing. Make the Spanos pay for everything if that's what you're waiting for. If the city thinks they can still negotiate while the Spanos use their own money, then they're taking the taxpayers for idiots. The Spanos organization didn't get rich by being altruistic. First baseball is 81 dates a year, they have a bowl game there and witht he aztecs and 2 bowl games the stadium would be 18-20 dates. Second, when the city forks over three quarters of a billion, at least, how long is it going to take to make that money back? They never will, a small percentage of parking and concessions is never going to pay back a billion dollars. The city might as well buy a billion dollars worth of saving bonds. Third, if it is so profitable to build a stadium and the owners can get even more rich owning the whole thing, why don't the Spanoi build the damn thing then? |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jul 25, 2010 12:52:34 GMT -8
I think Canepa wrote an article on the stadium a few days ago as well. The sportswriters are getting nervous.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Jul 25, 2010 13:17:40 GMT -8
I like the soft retractable roof idea for a multi-purpose stadium. They could use it for large conventions like Comic Con which is now leaving San Diego, for Final Four basketball arena, for World Cup soccer, etc. As they indicated if built in the East end of the city it would also revitalize that area. Why wouldn't San Diego want something like this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 25, 2010 13:20:45 GMT -8
Politicians want to look good to their taxpayers so they won't have to shell out any tax money. But here's something to think about. The SF Giants couldn't get City Hall to help them build their baseball stadium so they took it upon themsleves to buy the land and build the park with their own money. No public funds so everybody looks good, right? Wrong!!! The Giants owners will own their park, which should be paid off this year. The land, parking fees, concessions and tax breaks the City gave them are now their goldmine. They play to a fullhouse and the only money SF gets is some of the sales taxes from fan purchases. The city is going broke and the Giants are making money hand over fist since outside of income and property taxes, they don't have to share the revenues that they would normally have to if public funds were involved. So go ahead San Diego. Try and get something for nothing. Make the Spanos pay for everything if that's what you're waiting for. If the city thinks they can still negotiate while the Spanos use their own money, then they're taking the taxpayers for idiots. The Spanos organization didn't get rich by being altruistic. First baseball is 81 dates a year, they have a bowl game there and witht he aztecs and 2 bowl games the stadium would be 18-20 dates. Second, when the city forks over three quarters of a billion, at least, how long is it going to take to make that money back? They never will, a small percentage of parking and concessions is never going to pay back a billion dollars. The city might as well buy a billion dollars worth of saving bonds. Third, if it is so profitable to build a stadium and the owners can get even more rich owning the whole thing, why don't the Spanoi build the damn thing then? The Spanosites' proposal at this point is that they would own the stadium, so I seriously doubt the City would see any revenue from it other than property taxes (which would go straight into the Redevelopment Agency as long as it exists rather than into the City's general fund. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jul 25, 2010 13:44:30 GMT -8
I've always believed in a joint partnership w/city. City kicks in the land, Chargers build it and other developments. After sales tax and property tax are paid, city would share in the revenues.
The "Q" site.......
As I have said before, without a new stadium, the Chargers go. Also going are the Holiday and Poinsetia bowls, any chance for a super bowl. At least the Padres have a stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecpaulg on Jul 25, 2010 15:26:17 GMT -8
As usual Sullivan cements his place as an outsider in this city by insulting the capabilities of elected officials and thus, insulting everyone who voted them into office. With an air of grandiose superiority and narcissism, he passes judgement from on high. If only the whole world thought like this mediocre sports writer. He pretends to have insight, but only uses hindsight to prove his point. Checking your bio, I see that you are 30. At that age, I felt the same as you. Unfortunately, more than two decades on, I no longer have such faith in elected officials. Also, I didn't get from the column that Sullivan was criticizing "everyone who voted them into office." In the latter regard, this year's governor's race will be just one more in which I will be voting not for someone I really want to see elected, but rather for the lesser of two evils.[/quote SGF, I completely agree with you about the perspective age can bring. Truly, youth is wasted on the young. I love your posts and the insights you bring to the board! |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 25, 2010 15:36:26 GMT -8
First baseball is 81 dates a year, they have a bowl game there and witht he aztecs and 2 bowl games the stadium would be 18-20 dates. Second, when the city forks over three quarters of a billion, at least, how long is it going to take to make that money back? They never will, a small percentage of parking and concessions is never going to pay back a billion dollars. The city might as well buy a billion dollars worth of saving bonds. Third, if it is so profitable to build a stadium and the owners can get even more rich owning the whole thing, why don't the Spanoi build the damn thing then? Let me go ask Jerry Jones. I think he has the answer to your question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2010 16:10:32 GMT -8
SGF, I completely agree with you about the perspective age can bring. Truly, youth is wasted on the young. I love your posts and the insights you bring to the board! Thanks for the compliment, Paul. After you've lost your idealism, it's difficult not to be cynical all the time but I try. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 25, 2010 16:20:36 GMT -8
First baseball is 81 dates a year, they have a bowl game there and witht he aztecs and 2 bowl games the stadium would be 18-20 dates. Second, when the city forks over three quarters of a billion, at least, how long is it going to take to make that money back? They never will, a small percentage of parking and concessions is never going to pay back a billion dollars. The city might as well buy a billion dollars worth of saving bonds. Third, if it is so profitable to build a stadium and the owners can get even more rich owning the whole thing, why don't the Spanoi build the damn thing then? Let me go ask Jerry Jones. I think he has the answer to your question. Great, the Chargers can build their own stadium then. |
|
