Stadium Proposals/Issues/News Thread

[gatomalo]

Joe, the second quote is not mine and the way you display it implies it is. The actual stadium property in Mission Valley is 166 acres I believe. Back when they were talking about all the stadium plans in and around metro LA, the minimum footprint for an NFL stadium was considered 60-70 acres. I believe this came up when they were originally looking at another parcel downtown more to the east of where AEG is now wanting to build and at Chavez Ravine (Dodger Stadium).

That plan is interesting because its similar to the one they currently are talking about in downtown San Diego. A lot of the same issues, and construction costs were estimated back then to be about $1B and that was how many years ago? Many of those costs are the same as would be faced by San Diego. That is why their estimates of $1B now are grossly under estimated. The more realistic cost today would be at least double that number here in San Diego.

The cost of building the actual stadium is the least expensive component. Funny how no one is offering an actual cost analysis of the actual expenses and only offer "estimates". Estimates by whom? Everyone offering these so called estimates have an agenda or other conflict of interest.

People are being asked to support a massive project with no clear understanding of the actual costs involved. Before they go to ballot there had better be a true independent offering of the true cost of this project. There need to be insurances built in to protect the investment or the public could be at risk of being left holding the bag on a huge white elephant.

[charger1_sj]

Originally Posted by gatomalo

Joe, the second quote is not mine and the way you display it implies it is. The actual stadium property in Mission Valley is 166 acres I believe. Back when they were talking about all the stadium plans in and around metro LA, the minimum footprint for an NFL stadium was considered 60-70 acres. I believe this came up when they were originally looking at another parcel downtown more to the east of where AEG is now wanting to build and at Chavez Ravine (Dodger Stadium).

That plan is interesting because its similar to the one they currently are talking about in downtown San Diego. A lot of the same issues, and construction costs were estimated back then to be about $1B and that was how many years ago? Many of those costs are the same as would be faced by San Diego. That is why their estimates of $1B now are grossly under estimated. The more realistic cost today would be at least double that number here in San Diego.


The cost of building the actual stadium is the least expensive component. Funny how no one is offering an actual cost analysis of the actual expenses and only offer "estimates". Estimates by whom? Everyone offering these so called estimates have an agenda or other conflict of interest.

People are being asked to support a massive project with no clear understanding of the actual costs involved. Before they go to ballot there had better be a true independent offering of the true cost of this project. There need to be insurances built in to protect the investment or the public could be at risk of being left holding the bag on a huge white elephant.

They are building a stadium in Santa Clara, CA for $850M. $1B is realistic if the proper financing can be obtained. Therein lies the snag. Up here Santa Clara the city got the loan not the 49ers. The stadium belongs to the city of Santa Clara. San Diego is not building a stadium for the Chargers, they haven't figured out how to pay for it, don't even have a site for that matter and please don't bring up the Q again.

[bigslick]

Originally Posted by charger1_sj

They are building a stadium in Santa Clara, CA for $850M. $1B is realistic if the proper financing can be obtained. Therein lies the snag. Up here Santa Clara the city got the loan not the 49ers. The stadium belongs to the city of Santa Clara. San Diego is not building a stadium for the Chargers, they haven't figured out how to pay for it, don't even have a site for that matter and please don't bring up the Q again.

Bazinga!

http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/2012/03...w-1-2-billion/

Cost of 49ers Santa Clara stadium now $1.2 billion
Posted on March 14, 2012 at 4:00 am by Stephanie M. Lee in Stadium

The cost of the 49ers‘ new stadium in Santa Clara has increased by $157 million to nearly $1.2 billion, as revealed in the first of several key approvals the city made this week.

The stadium project as a whole will cost roughly $1.177 billion, in contrast with the $1.02 billion estimate presented in December, according to a complex financing deal Santa Clara leaders approved 6-1 Tuesday night.

[charger1_sj]

Originally Posted by bigslick

Bazinga!

http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/2012/03...w-1-2-billion/

Cost of 49ers Santa Clara stadium now $1.2 billion
Posted on March 14, 2012 at 4:00 am by Stephanie M. Lee in Stadium

The cost of the 49ers‘ new stadium in Santa Clara has increased by $157 million to nearly $1.2 billion, as revealed in the first of several key approvals the city made this week.

The stadium project as a whole will cost roughly $1.177 billion, in contrast with the $1.02 billion estimate presented in December, according to a complex financing deal Santa Clara leaders approved 6-1 Tuesday night.

It's not surprising since they want all the bells and whistles. Stanford built a stadium that cost no where near $1B. Still Santa Clara was willing to stick their necks out San Diego is not. That's why we don't have a stadium deal.

[RRizGod]

Originally Posted by charger1_sj

It's not surprising since they want all the bells and whistles. Stanford built a stadium that cost no where near $1B. Still Santa Clara was willing to stick their necks out San Diego is not. That's why we don't have a stadium deal.

there is way more coporate money in that area. No way San Diego can find the club seat, suite, and sponsorship revenue that SF will have.

[charger1_sj]

Originally Posted by RRizGod

there is way more coporate money in that area. No way San Diego can find the club seat, suite, and sponsorship revenue that SF will have.

But that's a Charger issue. Your making a case for them to move to LA.

Santa Clara got the loans from the banks not the 49ers. They did it without bonds, ie tax payer help. Well sort of. They will raise hotel tax. Stadium naming rights goes to the city. 49ers will pay lease payments.

The Chargers have been searching for a site, never mind the financing for nearly 10 years. Still haven't found one. The Chargers will not do this alone, city help is needed or it won't get done and certainly not in SD.

[Slinger61]

Originally Posted by JoeMcRugby

Interesting contractual concept.

I'm ashamed to say that they didn't teach me that concept of "free" in my law school Contracts courses.

You can argue about whether it was a good deal for the City or not a good deal, but the one thing for certain is that the Chargers / Spanos were not asking for "free" land.

Yes they were asking for free land, you are just blinded by team loyalty.

From a strictly financial perspective the "Paying off a $100 millionish bond debt" was the only financial compensation for over 133 acres of land which was a ridiculously low price in 2002/2003. They were clearly asking to be given whatever portion of the land that was not within the fair market value of the ~ $100 million debt.

The park is a non-starter as that could've easily been developed from a fraction of the profits exceeding your $100 million figure on the sale of the 133+ acres north of the trolley station.

Originally Posted by JoeMcRugby

paying for $175 million in infrastructure improvements

Irrelevant, anyone buying that land would be responsible for the costs of developing it.

Originally Posted by JoeMcRugby

handing over ownership of a $450 million stadium to the City and taking on all financial responsibility for cost overruns (among other items)

Ridiculous and Irrelevant. Building a new stadium is not in the financial interest of the city and the only reason the Chargers wanted the city to own it is to avoid property taxes.

Originally Posted by JoeMcRugby

land that in the 1960s was gifted to the City by the County

Once again, Ridiculous and Irrelevant.

The land is a city asset regardless of how it was acquired. You don't just give it away because a billionaire threatens to take his ball back to LA.

BTW my first game was in 77 and I've been a long time season ticket holder.

Don't let your fandom trump reality.

[Slinger61]

Originally Posted by sscottyg

Plus the regional small airports dont add any revenue to the county or city. No frieght or commercial flights.

The Chargers don't add any net revenue to the county or city.

[Slinger61]

Originally Posted by RRizGod

there is way more coporate money in that area. No way San Diego can find the club seat, suite, and sponsorship revenue that SF will have.

Definitely, The 49ers are projecting $400 million to $500 million from PSL sales alone. A Chargers stadium would require at least $200 million from psl's under Fabiani's plan.

Would Chargers season ticket holders pay an average of $4000 for a psl for 50,000 seats?

[charger1_sj]

Originally Posted by Slinger61

Definitely, The 49ers are projecting $400 million to $500 million from PSL sales alone. A Chargers stadium would require at least $200 million from psl's under Fabiani's plan.

Would Chargers season ticket holders pay an average of $4000 for a psl for 50,000 seats?

That's an argument for the Chargers moving to LA.

Let me ask you this question. What is the city going to do with the Q site? Right now even with the Charger there it's costing the city money.
Any sort of development on that site is going to cost a lot of $$$. The site needs to be cleaned up and the stadium demolished. The Chargers would have done that and more. What will the city do?