|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 7, 2010 11:32:14 GMT -8
At least according to one NFL owner. Article also has a lot of good stuff on how much a pro team helps a city and owners who cry "poverty": tinyurl.com/2fcxc4y=Bob |
|
|
|
Post by 83aztec on Sept 16, 2010 8:40:03 GMT -8
This is not a big shock. People have been saying this for awhile. That is why Spanos has tried his best to block other teams thinking of moving there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 16, 2010 17:37:50 GMT -8
This is not a big shock. People have been saying this for awhile. That is why Spanos has tried his best to block other teams thinking of moving there. True, but I posted that more for the comments on pro sports economics than the Spanosite story. People bitch and moan about how the U-T covers the Aztecs but I'd love to see more stories on Charger economics. Unfortunately, the only person at the U-T who ever did that was Don Bauder and he got fired for it. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Sept 16, 2010 19:56:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 16, 2010 20:11:57 GMT -8
Fine, take his 23 million and show him the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by 83aztec on Sept 20, 2010 14:36:27 GMT -8
So that means we have to be stupid like other cities? I think our elected officials are dumb enough. No need to go "Full Retard" |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 20, 2010 15:23:28 GMT -8
So that means we have to be stupid like other cities? I think our elected officials are dumb enough. No need to go "Full Retard" People on here like to bitch about BS and his "investigative reporting", but ever since the fish wrap canned Don Bauder because he got in the face of City Hall and its dealings with the Chargers and other local big money interests, there really hasn't been anyone at that paper who has offered a realistic look at what it costs a city to subsidize billionaire pro sports team owners. I know from a lot of email exchanges with Don that he considers himself to be an investigative reporter and while we disagreed heavily on Petco, he was and is pretty damn good at what he does. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Sept 20, 2010 16:39:24 GMT -8
So that means we have to be stupid like other cities? I think our elected officials are dumb enough. No need to go "Full Retard" That's debatable, but I think for competitive reasons, I can understand why they want a new stadium. Look at the landscape in the sport. I guess they feel that if Detroit and Cleveland can (in last 10-15 years), so can San Diego. We all know there's a way to do it. It needs to get done. Or, you can root for the LA Chargers. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 20, 2010 17:08:35 GMT -8
So that means we have to be stupid like other cities? I think our elected officials are dumb enough. No need to go "Full Retard" That's debatable, but I think for competitive reasons, I can understand why they want a new stadium. Look at the landscape in the sport. I guess they feel that if Detroit and Cleveland can (in last 10-15 years), so can San Diego. We all know there's a way to do it. It needs to get done. Or, you can root for the LA Chargers. It has to make economic sense and I'm not currently seeing that. The Spanosites want around a half-billion bucks from the redevelopment agency while still owning the stadium and, presumably, all the revenue from the luxury suites, advertising, parking and concessions. That's a bad deal. The NFL has been exposed over and over as lying about the economic benefits of a Super Bowl and there are virtually no economic benefits associated with a new stadium if the Spanosites own it other than property tax, which I don't think would be all that much. Petco was different because the East Village was completely underdeveloped at the time. That's not the case now - if anything it's overdeveloped with condos that nobody is buying. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not necessarily opposed to a new Downtown stadium, but I would like to see more economic analysis and less bull$#!+ from their snake oil salesman. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Sept 20, 2010 18:35:53 GMT -8
That's debatable, but I think for competitive reasons, I can understand why they want a new stadium. Look at the landscape in the sport. I guess they feel that if Detroit and Cleveland can (in last 10-15 years), so can San Diego. We all know there's a way to do it. It needs to get done. Or, you can root for the LA Chargers. It has to make economic sense and I'm not currently seeing that. The Spanosites want around a half-billion bucks from the redevelopment agency while still owning the stadium and, presumably, all the revenue from the luxury suites, advertising, parking and concessions. That's a bad deal. The NFL has been exposed over and over as lying about the economic benefits of a Super Bowl and there are virtually no economic benefits associated with a new stadium if the Spanosites own it other than property tax, which I don't think would be all that much. Petco was different because the East Village was completely underdeveloped at the time. That's not the case now - if anything it's overdeveloped with condos that nobody is buying. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not necessarily opposed to a new Downtown stadium, but I would like to see more economic analysis and less bull$#!+ from their snake oil salesman. =Bob Yes, the NFL has indeed exaggerated the amount....but even an idiot can not deny the obvious hundreds of millions in revenues a Super Bowl brings to a city. And San Diego could get one every ten years or so. Hotels full, attractions (zoo, etc), down to little tee and tourist shops and restaurants. BIG, BIG money. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 21, 2010 17:22:20 GMT -8
It has to make economic sense and I'm not currently seeing that. Since when does everything (or anything) have to make "economic sense"? It's not like we've balanced the budget in the absence of a new stadium, and I doubt we would balance it whether we build one or not. You know what doesn't make "economic sense" (and I want one, too)? A LIBRARY. Or a PARK. Neither I nor anyone I've ever known has ever seen any of the money that sports is supposed to generate in a local economy, but I don't think I've seen any money from parks and libraries either. So of the three things I've mentioned, assuming that none of them bring millions or billions to the local economy, I'd assume that the stadium would enhance the lives of more people than would a "nature preserve" or a big building full of books. Libraries and parks offer people something every day of the week. Stadiums offer people, at least those who can pay the outrageous ticket prices 10 days a year. I mean really, John, that's a stupid argument. How many of us have the disposable bucks to pay to attend even one Chargers game? The Chargers "enhance [my] life"? Please tell me how the do that. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 21, 2010 17:28:14 GMT -8
It has to make economic sense and I'm not currently seeing that. The Spanosites want around a half-billion bucks from the redevelopment agency while still owning the stadium and, presumably, all the revenue from the luxury suites, advertising, parking and concessions. That's a bad deal. The NFL has been exposed over and over as lying about the economic benefits of a Super Bowl and there are virtually no economic benefits associated with a new stadium if the Spanosites own it other than property tax, which I don't think would be all that much. Petco was different because the East Village was completely underdeveloped at the time. That's not the case now - if anything it's overdeveloped with condos that nobody is buying. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not necessarily opposed to a new Downtown stadium, but I would like to see more economic analysis and less bull$#!+ from their snake oil salesman. =Bob Yes, the NFL has indeed exaggerated the amount....but even an idiot can not deny the obvious hundreds of millions in revenues a Super Bowl brings to a city. And San Diego could get one every ten years or so. Hotels full, attractions (zoo, etc), down to little tee and tourist shops and restaurants. BIG, BIG money. Josh, read the studies. A Super Bowl does not bring in "BIG, BIG money" and certainly not hundreds of millions of bucks. It's all bull$#!+ the NFL puts out there in order to scam local governments into going way into debt in order to give the billionaire owners more profit. The NFL ain't a charitable organization - it exists to offer profits for the owners and the Super Bowl is nothing more than an excuse to force cities, counties and states into ponying up massive amounts of money for the owners' benefit by totally lying about how many bucks a Super Bowl brings in. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Sept 21, 2010 17:49:25 GMT -8
You're saying local tourism is not greatly effected (in the positive), by a Super Bowl?
|
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Sept 21, 2010 18:31:55 GMT -8
=Bob,
I don't think we're completely disagreeing. Just somewhat.
The NFL and politicians lied for years, hell, decades about the "hundreds of millions" in "profit" host cities could expect.
When it came down to actual "profits", and not cutting out what sales would be withOUT the game there, many financials rags proved the actual profits to be much, much less.
I think I read that Miami last year was expected to clear $25-$40 million in profit for hosting.
I don't care if the billionare hotel kingpins get richer.....but its nice or local service employees as far as tips, bartenders, hotel employees, servers, valet parkers, little mom and pop tourist shops, etc. They can have huge months.
And the excitement in the town.....killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Sept 22, 2010 4:00:45 GMT -8
The Chargers "enhance [my] life." Please tell me how the do that. I don't know about you, but they give me a lot of enjoyment. I love football, and the Chargers have been one of the NFL's best teams over the last 8 or so years. I enjoy watching the Chargers on TV. If they move to L.A. they won't mean as much to me (or most current Charger fans), because they would then represent another city - not mine (ours). The Chargers create civic pride (something that brings a lot of disparate people from differing backgrounds together - a common cause, if you will). That's no small thing. The Chargers enhance the image of the city - San Diego is seen as a big time city (one of the elite members of a rather exclusive club). If the Chargers leave San Diego will be looked at as something of an overgrown podunk town that can't even keep their pro sports teams (Rockets, Clippers, Chargers). With a city government that has been run into the ground, the Chargers leaving would hardly give any company confidence that San Diego is a good place to be located. Other businesses have left, downsized, or shut down altogether, and if the Chargers leave that will be a big image problem for the city. And whether or not the Chargers leave, Qualcomm needs more and more repair work each year - and it keeps being pushed off and pushed off and becomes more and more expensive in the process. It already costs the city tens of millions in maintenance each year, and that big repair bill will eventually come due. Building a new stadium may cost more, but it would keep the Chargers here, bring Super Bowls back to San Diego (which is good for the local economy as a whole), and would allow the city to eventually get rid of Qualcomm stadium (or develop some of the parking lot land to make revenue to offset the repair costs if the Aztecs continue to play there). If the Chargers leave town it's a lose/lose for the city. |
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Sept 22, 2010 6:13:42 GMT -8
Terrific post, Erik. I agree 100%.
|
|
|
|
Post by 83aztec on Sept 22, 2010 8:33:30 GMT -8
Erik
The argument that the Chargers make San Diego look like a big time city really does not make much sense. This is not Cleveland. San Diego will always be San Diego Chargers or not.
Big revenue for Ma and Pa during Super bowls. Hmmm not really. Most of all the catering is contracted before the Superbowl by outside vendors. Hell even the limos are brought in for out of town. Plus adding in extra cops and overtime. Hell just read the reports. Not much there for locals. Now does a tream give a city pride? Only if they win. Not much pride in the ugly Charger years if I remember.
I am all for the city working with the chargers and maybe providing some land and maybe roads but the hundreds of millions they demand.
Spanos will make a few minor changes but overall his and the Chargers demands will end up to be too much for the city and he can then say "I tried" and move the team to LA as he always wanted to do. I have known about the Spanos since I was a little kid and they have always talk out of the side of their mouths.
I think there is no more than a 40% chance the Chargers stay in SD for the long term.
|
|
