1. Welcome to Los Angeles Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

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

    Sign Up 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

Cohen: A new stadium is about more than just the Chargers

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by Sydalish, May 21, 2010.

  1. Sydalish

    Sydalish Addicted to Sports

    Nov 11, 2007
    Cohen: A new stadium is about more than just the Chargers

    By Andy Cohen, Guest Contributor
    Friday, May 21, 2010


    There’s a common misconception that a new NFL stadium for the Chargers is strictly a Chargers issue. That since the Chargers stand the most to gain from building a new stadium, then they should be entirely responsible for paying for it themselves. And if they’re not willing to do so, then they should just leave. The city will survive without them.

    And although all of these statements may be true, it is extremely shortsighted to look at the stadium as merely a Chargers issue, as if they’re the only ones affected. They’re not. And it’s about time folks started to understand that.


    The stadium issue is a San Diego issue. It is an economic issue that has much greater ramifications than whether or not we have an NFL franchise to call our own. It will largely determine SDSU’s ability to continue to field a Division I football team. It will absolutely determine whether San Diego maintains its ability to host the Poinsettia Bowl and the Holiday Bowl. San Diego greatly benefits from having fans of participating teams visit our fine city; they not only buy tickets to the game, but they stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, visit our attractions and patronize our stores.

    But even that is only a small part of the economic impact a stadium brings to our city. San Diego is a tourist destination, so a significant chunk of our local economy depends on bringing in tourist dollars.

    By losing an NFL franchise we lose an awful lot of free advertising on national and international television. When CBS, Fox, NBC, or ESPN broadcasts a game from San Diego in December or January they include video panoramas of the harbor, our beaches, and the skyline. Images of a cloudless sky and 75 degree temperatures get beamed across the world. And when commentators like Al Michaels declare that the NFL should hold the Super Bowl in San Diego every year while telling the hundreds of millions of viewers about the clear blue sky and the 70 degree day we are experiencing at the end of January while more than half of the United States is buried under three feet of snow; well, there simply is no better endorsement of our city.

    And about the Super Bowl: There is a lot of debate about the actual economic impact of hosting the event. The NFL says that the 2002 game had an overall economic impact of more than $300 million. Detractors claim it was less than $100 million. But whatever figure you believe, it is undoubtedly a huge net positive for our economy in direct numbers.
    In indirect terms, though, one cannot underestimate the value of having a giant, 10,000 megawatt spotlight on our city for two weeks solid leading up to the game. The state of California has spent millions of dollars on a national ad campaign to boost tourism in the state, yet we get direct exposure for our city for free! And make no mistake about it: The NFL is dying to bring the game back to San Diego, as it was an enormous success the previous three times it was here.

    Building a new stadium also puts San Diego squarely on the list of cities being considered as a venue for the World Cup should the United States be chosen as the host nation for the 2018 or 2022 tournament. There is little doubt that a new stadium in San Diego would entrench the city as one of the 12 chosen sites. It is estimated that the World Cup would have a national economic impact of at least $5 billion, with San Diego reaping between $350 million and $500 million of that haul.

    Consider, too, the need to expand the San Diego Convention Center. Mayor Sanders’ Convention Center Task Force recently published a study that estimated that “39.7% of prospective customers that do not book the San Diego Convention Center attribute that decision to “Center Unavailable,” or a lack of space.” The study found that in 2007, convention attendees generated $921 million in direct spending here despite an inability to accommodate the largest events. Without the added capacity, San Diego is losing out on a lot of business.

    The proposed convention center expansion combined with the availability of a stadium for added space would guarantee that no event is too large to be held in San Diego. When not being used for sporting events, the stadium floor itself could be used as a convention venue, not to mention the various club lounges and skybox suites that can be used to entertain smaller break-out groups as a part of the larger event.

    Critics abhor the idea of using any kind of public funds to build a stadium for a “private enterprise.” But the Chargers are more than that; they are a public asset in terms of the civic pride they generate in the community at-large and the revenues they help to create. Yet a stadium can be more than just the team that calls its field home. With the right location, a stadium can become a significant part of the economic engine that drives the city. There’s also the $17 million the current Qualcomm Stadium drains from the city’s coffers to take into account.

    The city absolutely should not bear the financial responsibility alone, nor will it. But since the city stands to benefit from the presence of such a facility, the tax increment bonds that would be issued to help build it should be considered an investment in the overall economic viability and vibrancy of our community for years to come.
    An investment in a stadium is an investment in the future of San Diego.

    Andy Cohen is a local blogger. He can be reached via his blog. In the interest of full disclosure, let it be known that I spent more than a decade working for the Chargers.

    Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-05-21/blog/a-more-perfect-union/a-new-stadium-is-about-more-than-just-the-chargers#ixzz0obDZQdq9

    More opinions on the new stadium proposal: Fabiani is ‘framing’ the Chargers stadium debate | What I always wanted for Christmas was a stadium | Why the continual push to use public funds for sports stadiums? | Cost of SD Chargers stadium

    BOLT POWER Well-Known Member

    Oct 21, 2006
    Thanks Syd for keeping us informed. I agree the Bolts new would benefit that downtown area more than hender it:yes:
  3. Buck Melanoma

    Buck Melanoma Guest

    Thanks, Syd. Were you at the last Fabiani-speak?
  4. coachmarkos

    coachmarkos BoltTalker

    Jul 12, 2009
    good article.

    Living out here in South Dakota, it doesn't affect me much, if at all, but I'd love for my chargers to stay in SD.

    The drain of the Qualcomm site on city finances has to be an issue that people consider. If this new stadium can be self sufficient, and they can knock down the Q for something else, how is this NOT a win/win?

    Again, I am far removed from the whole thing, but I really hope it works out.
  5. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Jan 24, 2010
    I am in the same boat as you since I am moving to Denver in 35 days.

    Although the City Of Industry site would be awesome since in is about 1mile from my in-laws house, and will be coming out to see them for Thanksgiving and X-Mas every other year
  6. Alpenbolt

    Alpenbolt BoltTalker

    Sep 9, 2006

    Repent or be cast out.
  7. Buck Melanoma

    Buck Melanoma Guest

    He's already moving to Denver. Not much worse you can do to him - unless you send him to Oakland. :icon_rofl:

Share This Page