|
Post by rebar619 on Mar 26, 2015 13:00:48 GMT -8
No one is saying LA is without obstacles and you know that...we also all know that in Cali nothing gets built quickly or easily. But that's all the more reason to be worried about where SD is at in this process compared to the two LA sites. I think I've said all I can say about this but I'll depart the conversation with this one last point/ observation: Lehman Bros made a statement awhile back that they are willing to indemnify the Chargers against losses incurred as a result of the move to LA. This signifies to me at least, that there will indeed be a cost to the move in such things as relocation payments, temporary facility leases/upgrades, construction bond debt service, loss of ticket sales etc. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They have a business purpose in mind and just let me say this: it isn't the Charger's bottom line they are thinking about. So, if you are the owner of the Chargers, you'll want to fully understand your exposure and you'll want to fully understand the terms of repayment. If you're Dean, you have to consider that if something goes wrong, construction delays, a lawsuit(s), environmental delays, lagging PSL sales... any number of things in a deal this complicated, the price you may end up paying is a de-facto partnership/ with Lehman, potentially loss of majority control or even forced sale of your beloved franchise. At best it will mean an as yet to be quantified cash flow hit. Now, place your bets. Spot on. Except it is Goldman Sachs, not Lehman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 13:06:33 GMT -8
It's not the exit fee, it's the entrance fee. A team moving into LA is going to owe around a billion to the league among other expenses. Yeah, because the NFL would totally allow a team to move to LA so they could bankrupt them. You are in denial about how close we are to losing the chargers. I have no idea what your stake is in having them stay, but your comments on this topic never seem balanced. just sayin I'm a native San Diegan and a Charger fan as well as an Aztec fan. Why does that bother you so much? You want the Chargers to leave. I don't. I also HATE conventional "wisdom" and prefer to think things through on my own. Sometimes I'm FOS . sometimes I'm right. big deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 13:07:57 GMT -8
Yeah, because the NFL would totally allow a team to move to LA so they could bankrupt them. You are in denial about how close we are to losing the chargers. I have no idea what your stake is in having them stay, but your comments on this topic never seem balanced. just sayin Well, there has not been an official amount for the relocation fee released but speculation is that it could be up to a billion dollars. From what I understand though it's based on different factors and does not hae to be paid all upfront. It's still a major deterrent to relocation however. Well considering Goodell has already said they may change the relocation rules to allow 1 or more teams to relocate earlier I would think they will also look to facilitate a smooth transition by limiting the debt burden as much as possible...the NFL is pretty wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 13:10:18 GMT -8
Well, there has not been an official amount for the relocation fee released but speculation is that it could be up to a billion dollars. From what I understand though it's based on different factors and does not hae to be paid all upfront. It's still a major deterrent to relocation however. Well considering Goodell has already said they may change the relocation rules to allow 1 or more teams to relocate earlier I would think they will also look to facilitate a smooth transition by limiting the debt burden as much as possible...the NFL is pretty wealthy. add to that ... the relocation fee was not going to stop someone like Kronke from moving anyway -- it's more of a deterrent for teams like the Chargers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 13:10:29 GMT -8
Yeah, because the NFL would totally allow a team to move to LA so they could bankrupt them. You are in denial about how close we are to losing the chargers. I have no idea what your stake is in having them stay, but your comments on this topic never seem balanced. just sayin I'm a native San Diegan and a Charger fan as well as an Aztec fan. Why does that bother you so much? You want the Chargers to leave. I don't. I also HATE conventional "wisdom" and prefer to think things through on my own. Sometimes I'm FOS . sometimes I'm right. big deal. You're projecting man. I'm also a native San Diegan and want the Chargers to stay, not only that but I hope they get a DT location that's top notch....it appears that I am somehow less naive than you however...which is a surprise. since I'm guessing you are in your 60's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 13:11:15 GMT -8
I think I've said all I can say about this but I'll depart the conversation with this one last point/ observation: Lehman Bros made a statement awhile back that they are willing to indemnify the Chargers against losses incurred as a result of the move to LA. This signifies to me at least, that there will indeed be a cost to the move in such things as relocation payments, temporary facility leases/upgrades, construction bond debt service, loss of ticket sales etc. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They have a business purpose in mind and just let me say this: it isn't the Charger's bottom line they are thinking about. So, if you are the owner of the Chargers, you'll want to fully understand your exposure and you'll want to fully understand the terms of repayment. If you're Dean, you have to consider that if something goes wrong, construction delays, a lawsuit(s), environmental delays, lagging PSL sales... any number of things in a deal this complicated, the price you may end up paying is a de-facto partnership/ with Lehman, potentially loss of majority control or even forced sale of your beloved franchise. At best it will mean an as yet to be quantified cash flow hit. Now, place your bets. Spot on. Except it is Goldman Sachs, not Lehman. Right. good catch
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 13:12:40 GMT -8
I think I've said all I can say about this but I'll depart the conversation with this one last point/ observation: Lehman Bros made a statement awhile back that they are willing to indemnify the Chargers against losses incurred as a result of the move to LA. This signifies to me at least, that there will indeed be a cost to the move in such things as relocation payments, temporary facility leases/upgrades, construction bond debt service, loss of ticket sales etc. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They have a business purpose in mind and just let me say this: it isn't the Charger's bottom line they are thinking about. So, if you are the owner of the Chargers, you'll want to fully understand your exposure and you'll want to fully understand the terms of repayment. If you're Dean, you have to consider that if something goes wrong, construction delays, a lawsuit(s), environmental delays, lagging PSL sales... any number of things in a deal this complicated, the price you may end up paying is a de-facto partnership/ with Lehman, potentially loss of majority control or even forced sale of your beloved franchise. At best it will mean an as yet to be quantified cash flow hit. Now, place your bets. Spot on. Except it is Goldman Sachs, not Lehman. What is the current fair market value for the Chargers?
|
|
|
Post by OldSlowWhiteBaller on Mar 26, 2015 13:22:32 GMT -8
Do I understand the tax/fee increase will apply to Hotel Occupancy Room Tax and Auto Rental Tax/Fee? Would this not affect mostly tourists and other visitors, and not very much on the local population? Would the increase cause us to be higher than everywhere else? How much is the proposed hike? Samples of other cities below.
12.0-12.5% San Diego 12% Long Beach 12% Sacramento 14% San Francisco 12% Los Angeles
18.27% New York City
17.76% Nashville
17% Houston and Indianapolis
16.75% San Antonio, TX and Columbus, OH
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 13:28:59 GMT -8
Do I understand the tax/fee increase will apply to Hotel Occupancy Room Tax and Auto Rental Tax/Fee? Would this not affect mostly tourists and other visitors, and not very much on the local population? Would the increase cause us to be higher than everywhere else? How much is the proposed hike? Samples of other cities below. 12.0-12.5% San Diego 12% Long Beach 12% Sacramento 14% San Francisco 12% Los Angeles 18.27% New York City 17.76% Nashville 17% Houston and Indianapolis 16.75% San Antonio, TX and Columbus, OH don't quote me on this because I have not had time to verify it, but I believe there are restrictions on the uses of a TOT increase beyond needing a 2/3rds vote ... one reason for the Chargers play to have a combination stadium / convention center is because a convention center expansion would qualify under those restrictions. Before they made a play for the convention center funds, they tried using redevelopment agency funds, but the State disbanded the Centre City Development Corp. (whose tax capturing devices were at issue anyway)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 13:34:51 GMT -8
I'm a native San Diegan and a Charger fan as well as an Aztec fan. Why does that bother you so much? You want the Chargers to leave. I don't. I also HATE conventional "wisdom" and prefer to think things through on my own. Sometimes I'm FOS . sometimes I'm right. big deal. You're projecting man. I'm also a native San Diegan and want the Chargers to stay, not only that but I hope they get a DT location that's top notch....it appears that I am somehow less naive than you however...which is a surprise. since I'm guessing you are in your 60's. So I'm "projecting" whatever that means. Naive isn't a word usually used to describe me but if that's what you think, more power to you. We'll see when this all shakes out who's right and who isn't. We all bring our prejudices to these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Mar 26, 2015 13:35:52 GMT -8
No one is saying LA is without obstacles and you know that...we also all know that in Cali nothing gets built quickly or easily. But that's all the more reason to be worried about where SD is at in this process compared to the two LA sites. I think I've said all I can say about this but I'll depart the conversation with this one last point/ observation: Lehman Bros made a statement awhile back that they are willing to indemnify the Chargers against losses incurred as a result of the move to LA. This signifies to me at least, that there will indeed be a cost to the move in such things as relocation payments, temporary facility leases/upgrades, construction bond debt service, loss of ticket sales etc. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They have a business purpose in mind and just let me say this: it isn't the Charger's bottom line they are thinking about. So, if you are the owner of the Chargers, you'll want to fully understand your exposure and you'll want to fully understand the terms of repayment. If you're Dean, you have to consider that if something goes wrong, construction delays, a lawsuit(s), environmental delays, lagging PSL sales... any number of things in a deal this complicated, the price you may end up paying is a de-facto partnership/ with Lehman, potentially loss of majority control or even forced sale of your beloved franchise. At best it will mean an as yet to be quantified cash flow hit. Now, place your bets. I don't believe they said they would indemnify the Chargers. What I understood is that they would provide funding to cover loses the Chargers would incur during of the transition. In other words, they would loan the Chargers the money they needed to make the transition.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Mar 26, 2015 13:39:11 GMT -8
Spot on. Except it is Goldman Sachs, not Lehman. What is the current fair market value for the Chargers? Last I heard, it was about $900 million
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 26, 2015 13:44:57 GMT -8
Well considering Goodell has already said they may change the relocation rules to allow 1 or more teams to relocate earlier I would think they will also look to facilitate a smooth transition by limiting the debt burden as much as possible...the NFL is pretty wealthy. add to that ... the relocation fee was not going to stop someone like Kronke from moving anyway -- it's more of a deterrent for teams like the Chargers Would there even be much of a relocation fee if the Chargers did move to LA? After all, the NFL says that most of LA is the Chargers secondary market, so the argument could be made that the team was just shifting to another part of the league-assigned media market. Besides, if The League really is that desperate to get back into the LA market, would they charge ANY team anything more than a token relocation fee (if anything at all)?
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 26, 2015 13:46:29 GMT -8
Spot on. Except it is Goldman Sachs, not Lehman. What is the current fair market value for the Chargers? According to Forbes, the Chargers are valued at $995 million.
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Mar 26, 2015 13:46:35 GMT -8
I realize this is swimming against a riptide of naysayers but there have been some signs lately that may indicate there's some chance the Chargers may stay. First, one of the NFL owners let it drop that they don't want 3 teams in LA which makes a lot of sense. If that's the case, it would seem that they wouldn't want to put two teams from the same Division there either. Sure they can always realign the divisions, but to me it appears the Rams are almost certainly one of the teams since they're farther along with stadium development, they have a history in LA, and their owner has enough in the bank to do pretty much whatever he wants to.
That being said, which other team might go. Well the Raiders/Chargers plan seems to rely on two teams bearing the cost of construction and if the NFL only wants one to go then the notoriously cheap Spanos clan may need to come up with additional funds. Hmm, San Diego may be looking better. Also with only one team in Carson, only one set of PSL's can be sold, and who in their right mind wants to go to Carson when the Rams are in town too, and with no blackouts you can see the team without having to get on the 405.
So if you are Dean Spanos, do you hope the City/County can finally come up with a viable plan with the sweetheart rental agreement like they have now, or do you gamble on selling a ton of PSL's for a team whose franchise quarterback has all but said he's not going. Losing teams don't sell seats no matter how new they are to the town.
Therefore, I don't think this whole thing is over yet. The politicians have been pretty well scared with Fabiani running off at the mouth, and are at least trying to put something together, so we'll see. If the Chargers really wanted to move I think they would have done so already without all the theatrics. Unlike the politicians, they don't need to please anybody.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 13:51:38 GMT -8
They said they don't want more than 2 in SoCal...So that means if Chargers stay in SD, only 1 team will likely be allowed to move to LA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 13:53:08 GMT -8
I think I've said all I can say about this but I'll depart the conversation with this one last point/ observation: Lehman Bros made a statement awhile back that they are willing to indemnify the Chargers against losses incurred as a result of the move to LA. This signifies to me at least, that there will indeed be a cost to the move in such things as relocation payments, temporary facility leases/upgrades, construction bond debt service, loss of ticket sales etc. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They have a business purpose in mind and just let me say this: it isn't the Charger's bottom line they are thinking about. So, if you are the owner of the Chargers, you'll want to fully understand your exposure and you'll want to fully understand the terms of repayment. If you're Dean, you have to consider that if something goes wrong, construction delays, a lawsuit(s), environmental delays, lagging PSL sales... any number of things in a deal this complicated, the price you may end up paying is a de-facto partnership/ with Lehman, potentially loss of majority control or even forced sale of your beloved franchise. At best it will mean an as yet to be quantified cash flow hit. Now, place your bets. I don't believe they said they would indemnify the Chargers. What I understood is that they would provide funding to cover loses the Chargers would incur during of the transition. In other words, they would loan the Chargers the money they needed to make the transition. Fair enough but I think my point still stands. If things turn south, Spanos could find himself in a hole
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 26, 2015 13:54:08 GMT -8
I realize this is swimming against a riptide of naysayers but there have been some signs lately that may indicate there's some chance the Chargers may stay. First, one of the NFL owners let it drop that they don't want 3 teams in LA which makes a lot of sense. If that's the case, it would seem that they wouldn't want to put two teams from the same Division there either. Sure they can always realign the divisions, but to me it appears the Rams are almost certainly one of the teams since they're farther along with stadium development, they have a history in LA, and their owner has enough in the bank to do pretty much whatever he wants to. That being said, which other team might go. Well the Raiders/Chargers plan seems to rely on two teams bearing the cost of construction and if the NFL only wants one to go then the notoriously cheap Spanos clan may need to come up with additional funds. Hmm, San Diego may be looking better. Also with only one team in Carson, only one set of PSL's can be sold, and who in their right mind wants to go to Carson when the Rams are in town too, and with no blackouts you can see the team without having to get on the 405. So if you are Dean Spanos, do you hope the City/County can finally come up with a viable plan with the sweetheart rental agreement like they have now, or do you gamble on selling a ton of PSL's for a team whose franchise quarterback has all but said he's not going. Losing teams don't sell seats no matter how new they are to the town. Therefore, I don't think this whole thing is over yet. The politicians have been pretty well scared with Fabiani running off at the mouth, and are at least trying to put something together, so we'll see. If the Chargers really wanted to move I think they would have done so already without all the theatrics. Unlike the politicians, they don't need to please anybody. In previous negotiations with the Chargers over a stadium expansion or new stadium (1997, 2003 & 2009), the city has been pretty consistent in asking for a fair deal. I hope that continues to be the case this go around. If the deal is fair, then it should be easier to sell to the voters / tax payers who will eventually have to approve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 14:01:50 GMT -8
If the chargers go to LA, it sounds like Felipe Rios will not be going with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 14:07:18 GMT -8
If the chargers go to LA, it sounds like Felipe Rios will not be going with them. He should put that on his jersey!
|
|