1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Andy Stickland says the Chargers are going to LA, Chargers disagree

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by Concudan, Jan 25, 2015.

  1. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Chargers call report of stadium deal in Los Angeles untrue

    SAN DIEGO – The San Diego Chargers refuted a report from a St. Louis radio station that the team has a deal in place for a new stadium in Los Angeles.

    Andy Strickland of CBS Sports radio 920 AM in St. Louis reported Friday that according to high-ranking officials in St. Louis, Chargers owner Dean Spanos has a deal in place with Goldman Sachs to build a stadium in Los Angeles, and the NFL asked him to hold off from announcing or releasing those plans.

    You can listen to that report here.

    Earlier this month, a developer and a company operated by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke unveiled plans to build an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood, California, on land he owns near Hollywood Park.

    “He’s very, very unhappy that all of sudden Kroenke goes ahead and does his thing without the NFL’s approval,” Strickland said, referring to Spanos.

    Mark Fabiani, the Chargers’ special counsel and the point person on the stadium issue, refuted the report.

    “Although we have worked for years with Goldman Sachs as our investment banker, the remainder of the story is untrue,” Fabiani said.

    Goldman Sachs helped set up a financing plan for the San Francisco 49ers’ Levi’s Stadium. However, the investment banking firm was not responsible for raising revenue to help pay for the project.

    The Chargers also had to dispel similar speculation in 2010 after a report from a Canadian sports talk radio show host claiming that the Spanos family had sold 35 percent of the Chargers to Los Angeles entrepreneur Phil Anschutz, who heads up AEG’s efforts to build an NFL stadium in Los Angeles.

    Fabiani reiterated the team’s commitment to working toward a solution on a stadium deal in San Diego before testing the waters elsewhere.


    “If we didn’t want to be here, why would we have worked on this for 13 years?” Fabiani said. “There’s been plenty of opportunities to move to Los Angeles. People forget Ed Roski has had a stadium entitled in the City of Industry since 2008. And by entitled, I mean done, ready and everything settled – every environmental review cleared and every lawsuit settled.

    “AEG has had an entitled site for a couple years downtown, ready to go and everything settled. So if Dean had wanted to move, he would have moved a long time ago.”

     
  2. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,299
    Ratings:
    +4,411
    Not that they would admit to such a deal if it did indeed exist. ;)
     
  3. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    No, I doubt they would. I cant blame them though. They have offered up to $500 million of their money to build SD a stadium. A stadium that the City, not the Chargers would own. SD has sat on their hands or flipped the Chargers the bird for what, 15 or 16 years now?

    As H8er said on FB today:
     
  4. Scott the Rock

    Scott the Rock BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    795
    Ratings:
    +130
    Hey Conc. Don't forget that the stadium deal that was so close to a done deal in the river bottom right next to the existing stadium fell through because the Spanos family got greedy. They wanted all the development rights to the properties leading up to the stadium. There were to be shopping centers and high end condo/apartments to be built and they wanted those. They F'd that one up.
     
  5. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,299
    Ratings:
    +4,411
    The thing is, San Diego doesn't really need a Super Bowl sized stadium. The original 52,000 seats would sellout and they wouldn't have to worry about blackouts at all. It was the "need" to expand the seating to satisfy the NFL that made the stadium too large for it's own good. You can't blame that on the city. For the size of the local fanbase, the stadium only really needs around 65,000 seats at maximum. It's only the promise of hosting a Super Bowl that requires more seating. A lot more expense in construction for the honor of an occasional Super Bowl.... that's not exactly what I'd call smart economics.
     
  6. Savage Lizard

    Savage Lizard Charger fan at 7000'

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,853
    Ratings:
    +984
    They were going to foot the entire bill for the stadium, and then give it to the city in exchange for some of the land to develop to recoup the money spent on the stadium. It didn't seem unreasonable, but of course all of the "can't give anything to billionaires" people were unhappy. They weren't "giving" the Spanoses anything, they were trading that land for a stadium.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Greedy? How greedy is it for the deal, when Spanos was offering 500 million of his money to build it, and asked for some land to develop to help recoup the 500 mil? That is greedy in your book? It surely is not in mine. The one who f'ed that up was Donna Frye who blocked the deal at the last minute because she wanted the Q torn down and the entire area turned into a Park.

    If the Chargers were to own the stadium I agree, it would have been greedy to want free land. To offer to build the city a state of the art facility, improve the existing infrastructure around it, for some acreage to develop. That sounds like a business deal, and one that still heavily benefited the city.
     
  8. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    At the time the NFL told San Diego, and this was well publicized, that they would get the Super Bowl every three years if they built a stadium that could support it. No other city ever had such an offer. I don't know Blue, seemed like a solid deal to me.
     
  9. Cheapseats

    Cheapseats Loud, proud Charger fan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,363
    Ratings:
    +373
    As I recall, the NFL insisted on a new 70,000 seat venue as a minimum size for San Diego to be considered for Super Bowl contention. Does anyone know what the 166 acres that Qualcomm stadium sits on would be worth in today's real estate market?. That belongs to the city of San Diego and could generate a lot of money that the taxpayers wouldn't have to write the check for. That would go a long way towards a new stadium downtown.
     
  10. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,299
    Ratings:
    +4,411
    Perhaps is was back then, but hosting any event for the NFL today has a much higher cost. The added security, and all the stuff that the league now demands that they get provided for free is a substantial amount of money. Hosting the Super Bowl requires a city with deep pockets. Even for an event like the ProBowl, the city essentially losses money for the "honor" of hosting the game.
     
  11. Blitzy

    Blitzy Spanos Chargers Troll

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    8,203
    Ratings:
    +1,026
    They really wanna leave? Well as my Italian friends would say, "vaffanculo"! As for the politicians in the City of San Diego, ditto!

    I'll be going to the Del Mar dog beach more often on Sundays. How 'bout you Blew Balls?! ;)
     
  12. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    I dont buy it that the city loses money on the events. Do you have a link to something stating that?
     
  13. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,299
    Ratings:
    +4,411
  14. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Interesting, though I lean more towards the opinion of the Cardinals president. I call the Mayors claim malarkey. It does not add up. Nor does it factor that if they lost so much money before, why did they bid to get another Super Bowl? I think the guy is crying wolf in hopes to get state funding.
     
  15. NYCharger

    NYCharger BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Ratings:
    +81
    It wouldn't be crazy for Glendale to lose money. Glendale is just a suburb of Phoenix. It'd be like having a stadium in Poway and Poway saying they'll lose money if they host the Super Bowl; they'll have to incur a lot of costs but much of the revenues from hosting the game will accrue to the other parts of San Diego where people actually go to hang out.

    Regarding the Chargers building a stadium for the city, come on guys. A 70,000 seat stadium will be useful for exactly one thing and that's Chargers football. The city could instead use that land for lots of other things that would create plenty of revenue, but if the stadium gets built and the Chargers leave the spot is useless. But please do keep thinking the generous Spanos family was offering the city a shockingly good deal and the city was crazy for turning it down. Until we see better evidence the burden remains on sports franchises to show they are not looking to screw the public when new stadiums are built.
     
  16. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Really? So the Q is only used for the Chargers? I am sorry but this is a statement that does not reflect any reality. Where does SDSU play? Where are the CIF playoffs? How about the 2 college bowls?

    Only the Chargers? Hardly...

    Also you are so incoorect it is shocking when you say "Until we see better evidence the burden remains on sports franchises to show they are not looking to screw the public when new stadiums are built." There is no burden on the sports franchise UNLESS they own the facility. Are the Chargers owning the facility? If not, then there is absolutely NOTHING the franchise has to do. If the City cant provide an acceptable venue then the team will leave.

    Are the Chargers to own the San Diego stadium?
     
  17. NYCharger

    NYCharger BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Ratings:
    +81
    The CIF playoffs, SDSU football, a few concerts and a monster truck show aren't going to generate anywhere near the kinds of revenue the city could instead generate if they developed the land for other purposes. The city owning the stadium just doesn't move the needle all that much. Those other events might bring in enough to cover the costs of keeping the lights on at the new stadium, but the city isn't going to be drowning in cash because they have high school and poorly attended college football playing. It's great that the Chargers were going to privately fund the $500 million dollar stadium for the city to own, but it's not like the city could at some point turn around and sell the thing for anywhere near $500 million. The stadium itself would have almost no intrinsic value.

    The only thing that matters is whether the city is being properly compensated for what it is giving up. The Chargers do provide some civic pride and people don't want to lose them, but if the city is giving up a billion dollars worth of land in exchange for $20 million a year in stadium revenues, that's an awful deal. I have no idea what the actual numbers here are, but that's the calculation we need to see: How much is the land worth, and how much will the city make each year.

    As for the Chargers, they offered the deal because it was a good one for them. They aren't stupid.
     
  18. Nomad

    Nomad Very Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    634
    Ratings:
    +155
    So I guess you think that any deal that is good for the Chargers is automatically bad for the City? :geek:
     
  19. NYCharger

    NYCharger BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Ratings:
    +81
    Haha not at all. I just want to know what the city would be giving up and how much they'd be compensated for it. If the land is worth $100 million? Give it to the Chargers, let that be the city's very reasonable contribution, and call it a day. If it's worth $2 billion? The city better be projecting some big annual cash flows from the stadium and the surrounding developments.
     
  20. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF LAND?! ROFL!

    In 2005 when the Chargers offers 500 million to build the stadium, the city said they could not give away the 0 acres which could be worth a hundred million dollars.

    So how exactly are the Chargers to be reimbursed for their contribution to the CITIES stadium? Just give the city the cash out of the goodness of their heart?
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2015
  21. NYCharger

    NYCharger BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Ratings:
    +81
    High quality argument right there. Again, what is the city giving up and what are they getting?
     
  22. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    They are getting a stadium, and it paid for. What are the Chargers getting?

    So how did you come up with you value of the Qualcomm facility?
     
  23. NYCharger

    NYCharger BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Ratings:
    +81
    City's. The city's stadium.

    I have no idea what the value of the Qualcomm land is. All I'm saying is that it's valuable land that the city could develop to make plenty of money. If they instead give it to the Chargers, they should get some return on that valuable land they they've now given up. Maybe it comes in the form of tax revenue from all the awesome stuff the Chargers build and everyone's happy. Maybe it is worth just $100 million and we'd rather give up that than have the city issue $100 million in bonds to pay their share. But you seemed to be suggesting the city give up the land regardless of its value which can't possibly be the case.

    And again, the fact that the stadium would belong to the city doesn't answer the question. The stadium has to actually make money for the city to be worth anything. The city of Detroit sold the Pontiac Silverdome for 500k a few years back; they'd have been fools to give up even $100 million of land for that privilege.

    As I said earlier $100 million seems reasonable for the city's contribution and if that's what they'd be losing then I'm cool with it.
     
  24. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,299
    Ratings:
    +4,411
    Where did you get $500 million from? Are you counting the NFL's contribution, because I've never heard that Spanos was offering anywhere near that much of his own money.
     
  25. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    OK. So the Chargers say purchase 60 acres of Qualcomm land for say $500 million and you are ok?
    Go a step further, the Chargers then will build a state of the art facility and improve the infrastructure (approx $150 million above the $500 million)... Is that an OK deal? The City owns the facility, makes money off of the businesses and condos built on the land, make money off the events at the stadium. Stop acting like it is such a bad deal for the city. I can guarantee you the city will make much less with the Chargers in LA or San Antonio, because they will still have to pay for up keep of the stadium.

    You act as if the Chargers are paying nothing in this scenario. That is what I have a hard time believing. It seems to me that you think the Chargers should just throw money at the city and the city should do nothing. Give up nothing for it.
     
  26. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    $500 was the amount the Spanos last offered in updating the Qualcomm facility. Now they are offering between $200 and $400 million without a location specified.
     
  27. NYCharger

    NYCharger BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Ratings:
    +81
    What I'm saying is that the amount the Chargers spend doesn't make all that much difference to the city. The Chargers could build a 200 million dollar stadium and we could still get rock concerts and SDSU football. Or the Chargers could build a billion dollar stadium.

    How could I act like this is a bad deal for the city when I don't know what the numbers are? All I'm trying to tell you is that giving up the land at any price makes no sense.

    And why would the city have to pay for upkeep of the stadium if there is no stadium? And why wouldn't they have to pay for upkeep of the stadium if they own it? Earlier you were shocked that the Chargers would give the city money "out of the goodness of their hearts." Are we to assume they'd pay every dime of stadium security and upkeep costs? I know you can't tell me because none of us have any idea how the proposal was structured, so let's at least agree that this isn't guaranteed to be a good deal for the city.
     
  28. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,299
    Ratings:
    +4,411
    That was contingent on the city giving all that surrounding land to them for free. Hardly what I'd call a fair deal.
     
  29. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Again, how do you get for free? Where in the hell does FREE come from when the Chargers are paying all of the $500 million dollars, plus the infrastructure upgrade? I simply don't get the obtuse view to say that is free.

    If the stadium was to belong to the Chargers, then yes, it was free. That it belongs to the city and the Chargers would have to lease it in no way equals free.
     
  30. NYCharger

    NYCharger BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Ratings:
    +81
    What were the lease terms?
     

Share This Page