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!

Chargers looking for as much as $700 million in public money for new stadium

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,629
    Ratings:
    +1,353
    And which of those "B.S. social program(s)" are you referring to?
     
  2. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,478
    Ratings:
    +627
    You do realize that companies spend millions to create revenue streams all the time, right? I don't think the city should be on the hook to pay for 70% of the project, but they will benefit from a new stadium, and should invest at least something into the project
     
  3. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    Yes, "companies" do, and Deano is willing to chip in a whopping 10% of the total cost. Now there's a business man who believes in his product. :rolleyes:

    We have an NFL owner (in the billionaire club) that expects the public to pay for more than 2/3 of the cost of a new stadium, of which, he will be the chief revenue recipient. 10% of the investment, and the lion's share of the profit. It would take many many years for the city to realize any real profit after laying out that kind of money.

    The public would be stupid to sign onto a plan like that. If Deano wants a new stadium built, then he should at least he willing to split the costs. The NFL is giving $200 million to any new stadium project anyway. Put your money where your mouth is Dean Spanos. We aren't running a charity here.
     
  4. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,478
    Ratings:
    +627
    I don't deny that, I was pointing out that many times, money needs to be spent in order to make money, which you seemed to deny with your comment about "I'm guessing you weren't a business major."

    No the city shouldn't be on the hook for what Dean wants them to pay, but the city will own the stadium, will make money every year and make money on things that happen in the stadium whether it is a concert, monster trucks, college bowl games, ect, so the city will benefit from a new stadium, but the investment needs to be reasonable for the level of revenue they will receive in return.
     
  5. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,629
    Ratings:
    +1,353
    Not to mention that the city is losing money just maintaining Qualcomm.
     
  6. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    What did I deny? I never said that the idea that it takes money to make money was invalid. What I said that the city throwing $700 million into a new stadium was a terrible investment...... and it is.

    Qualcomm hosts all those events now, and you could never call that stadium a moneymaker (and it's been paid for). It's still a money pit, due to the maintenance costs. If the city can't realize decent profits from Qualcomm, what makes anyone think it would realize profits from a new stadium that it shells out $700 million for?

    It would take 1oo years or more to realize a profit from that kind of outlay. That's not an investment, that's fiscal stupidity.
     
  7. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,478
    Ratings:
    +627
    Qualcomm hasn't had a concert of any type of magnitude in many years because the place is a pile of junk, and and huge reason they are losing money on the stadium is because the city has refused to do any normal maintenance on it, which has caused it to start falling apart. Just like a car, if you refuse to do regular $50 oil changes, the engine starts to go out costing much more than it would have had the oil changes been completed. Differed maintenance and the place falling apart, as well as high fees, have driven away events, just as the high fees at petco part ran away the USA 7's rugby tournament that happened a few years ago, and how the high fees at the convention center has had comic-con questioning moving out of SD every year, and eventually will lead to them leaving.

    As I said, there is no way the city should be paying for 70% of the stadium unless they are getting 70% of all income, which will never happen. But too many people are ignorant and think the city (I would go as far as saying, the entire county should be on the hook for the public portion, and benefiting from the profits) shouldn't be a partner in the project pay a share that is relative to their investment, especially since the income generated by a Super Bowl to local businesses, and in turn tax revenue to the public, should help to offset the costs the public owuld be paying.

    But investing nothing into money making ventures, and constantly driving projects and events out of the city due to high fees, is causing as much of a problem for the cities finances as just about any other thing.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    Apparently, you didn't read my prior posts on the subject very closely. I said that the Chargers' plan was too expensive, and they should be willing to pay at least half the costs of any new stadium.

    That means no $1 billion stadium..... a size the city doesn't need, and won't sell out on a consistent basis. And, it also means that half of a more modest stadium would be a more reasonable investment. Say, 50% of a $800 million stadium. That's something more realistic for this area to consider.
     
  9. Joy Division

    Joy Division Slightly-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,250
    Ratings:
    +492
    I like this model for many reasons.
    A few are the overall cost of construction- US$430 million (entire complex)
    ($549 million in 2013 dollars), publicly owned, multi-use (it could
    also lure a professional MLS team or expansion team.
    Oh yeah and...it's fu*#in' loud!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CenturyLink_Field
     
  10. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    One small problem........ "2013 dollars", doesn't mean it would costs that amount to build it today. 2002 construction costs are not 2013 construction costs.
     
  11. Joy Division

    Joy Division Slightly-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,250
    Ratings:
    +492
    Maybe. It's still less than a ridiculous 800mil- 1bil dollar stadium.
    Read the [Funding] and [Construction and Layout] sections of the Wiki page.
    Keep it simple, keep costs down (as Seattle did) and
    nice new loud stadium=happy fans=happy team=happy owner(s)=win-win...
    done and done!
     
  12. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    That stadium today would still be in the $800+ million range. All the costs of building a new stadium have gone up in the last 10 years. A 2002 stadium just isn't a realistic comparision to today's figures.

    They also need to expand the convention center...... another $$$ public project. There's only so much debt the city can take on, bond initiatives or not.

    If these two sides ever got together to workout a joint project, maybe something could get done. I'm not holding my breath though.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,478
    Ratings:
    +627
    Its a shame the city refused to do anything a decade ago, it could have cost closer to $500 mil for the same project
     
  14. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    The city had financial issues back then too. San Diego has never been well managed....... and nothing has changed.
     
  15. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,478
    Ratings:
    +627
    Back then, they had the opportunity to do it with very little capital in exchange for land. I have also read that the Chargers offered to buy the land and do everything with private money, but the city refused to sell the land as they didn't want to lose out on the rental income but also refused to spend anything on the project. They wanted the best of both worlds, and the citizens kept voting in the same types of people over and over again, and still are
     
  16. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    San Diego is a big city in population, but a small town in leadership...... always has been.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,478
    Ratings:
    +627
    Every city/state has their goods and bads. Denver still has only 1 North/South highway, and 1 east/west, and each are only 3 lanes in most areas. Although SD and Cali aren't keeping up with the traffic increases, they are at least trying to expand the highways, Denver/Colorado isn't doing anything to expand the highways here or even build new ones. A lot of the Denver Metro area doesn't even have access to a freeway within 10-15 mins of them, which is ridiculous for a metro area of nearly 3 mil, and one that continues to build more and more houses without highways to a accommodate them
     
  18. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    Perhaps, they are trying to retain their small town feeling. ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,478
    Ratings:
    +627
    Yeah, with LA style traffic and ridiculous 55mph speed limits
     
  20. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    Urban sprawl has its downside.
     
  21. FCBolt

    FCBolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,355
    Ratings:
    +606
    No worries on the speed limits, the cops only work the express lanes.
     
  22. Fossil

    Fossil BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    650
    Ratings:
    +300
    Chargers win or at least make it to the Super Bowl, and the citizens will vote for a new stadium. As a taxpayer, a home owner, and a Charger's fan, I'm not completely sure I hope that happens.
     
  23. Sydalish

    Sydalish Addicted to Sports

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,424
    Ratings:
    +1,684
    Blue... I get what you're saying, but Florio and PFT is full of ****. The $700M number is more shock value than substance. So let's not get too wrapped around the axel over that number.

    This article has a more accurate breakdown. Though I disagree somewhat with his stance around the desire of the hotel/etc owners to find a way to minimally increase hospitality taxes/fees if it meant keeping comic-con bringing in more conventions, concerts and other big money events - regardless the article has the most relevant and realistic info imo.


     
  24. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    The real question, is why would Spanos be offering to pay less now than before? If he's really serious, he should be upping his ante, not lowering it. The idea that the league would pay twice what he's willing to give is a joke. That money should supplement his contribution, not top it.

    I still say that their plan is too ambitious. The Chargers don't need a Super Bowl sized stadium, because they won't sell it out on a regular basis, and chasing Super Bowls is a vanity thing..... it never brings in enough money to make the extra capacity costs pay off. A multi-purpose stadium that could tie in with the convention center expansion would make the most sense for the city.

    For the little amount the Chargers are willing to chip in, they frankly have no right to dictate terms anyway. Beggars can't be choosers.
     
  25. FCBolt

    FCBolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,355
    Ratings:
    +606
    I'm not sure why Spanos' stake would be an estimate. This directly benefits him, so he should pony up. Further, he's in control of his future financial output (unlike any governmental entity), so if he wanted, he could present that figure publically.

    Maybe Spanos thinks he's involved in some sort of bartering process, in which he should not be clear about how much he's willing to put out there. That doesn't work though. San Diego finances are such a political morass that the barter game won't work; Spanos would do well to stop playing games, give SD a figure, and get on with it.

    Unless he's willing to follow through on the ultimatum to move elsewhere.

    But of course anyone who pours $$$ and time into a Perry campaign without vetting the guy first can't be expected to have a strategic planning process...
     
  26. Sydalish

    Sydalish Addicted to Sports

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,424
    Ratings:
    +1,684

    FWIW I don't believe the NFL will chip in the full $200M amount unless the owner matches it (that's my understanding of the program anyway). There's some really good discussion in the comments of that article as well from people who have a better understanding of that process than I do.

    While I don't think a Super Bowl worthy stadium, one that regularly suits our market size AND is tied into the Convention Center is mutually exclusive I do agree with you that we need the latter far more than a Super Bowl - it would generate more consistent revenues that's for sure!

    However, bringing in a Super Bowl would be a very good thing for San Diego. I consider it equal to our hosting the US Open at Torrey Pines, which brought it countywide revenue and gave our little tourist destination some great pub. Being completely honest vanity is not a bad thing when you're trying to entice visitors to vacation and host events/retreats/conventions/etc...

    I don't blame the Chargers for cutting back on what they're willing to offer after all the bs the city has put everyone through - I also (personally) don't think they are as unwilling to chip in as is widely believed or even implied - until there is some consistent/reliable cooperation and effort made by the city/county to get something done I don't imagine the Chargers will be very forthcoming.
     
  27. FCBolt

    FCBolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,355
    Ratings:
    +606
    That's a fair assessment. But under that scenario, Spanos continues to play the game that SD is playing, gets nowhere, and the stadium continues to go to hell. It's a lose-lose for Spanos eventually...unless he moves.
     
  28. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,458
    Ratings:
    +3,398
    Either Spanos is really serious about getting a stadium built here, or he isn't. What's he's currently offering doesn't make it sound like he's doing anything more than bidding his time.
     
  29. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,478
    Ratings:
    +627
    Not in CO where they love their speed traps
     
  30. Sydalish

    Sydalish Addicted to Sports

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,424
    Ratings:
    +1,684

    Mayor Sanders was making headway when he was in office - his departure and the subsequent load of crap that took office has definitely halted any progress that was being made. It's really frustrating :( but until there are people at the city level who are willing to work with the Chargers to (1) work on public perception of the project and (2) work together on a viable plan (not just waste time posturing back and forth) there's not much that can be done.

    People like to rip the Spanos' for being cheap billionaires and spend their money for them - the problem is, most of those billions aren't real liquid money - they're billionaires on paper but they are no Jerry Jones with cash to burn - quite a bit of their money is already tied up in the Chargers organization and for all intents and purposes already spent.
     

Share This Page