Chargers Header
Forum Home News Media Vault Schedule Team Charger Girls Tickets Fan Zone Community En Espaņol Fantasy Football Pro Shop

Go Back   The Official San Diego Chargers Forum > Chargers Talk > General Discussions
Register FAQ Members List Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7781  
Old 03-21-2012, 12:39 PM
RRizGod's Avatar
RRizGod RRizGod is online now
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Encinitas
Posts: 881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charger1_sj View Post
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.
__________________
Take that?
Reply With Quote
  #7782  
Old 03-21-2012, 01:19 PM
charger1_sj charger1_sj is online now
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRizGod View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7783  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:11 PM
Slinger61
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcRugby View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcRugby View Post
paying for $175 million in infrastructure improvements
Irrelevant, anyone buying that land would be responsible for the costs of developing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcRugby View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcRugby View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7784  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:23 PM
Slinger61
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sscottyg View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7785  
Old 03-22-2012, 06:35 PM
Slinger61
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRizGod View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #7786  
Old 03-23-2012, 09:55 AM
charger1_sj charger1_sj is online now
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slinger61 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #7787  
Old 03-23-2012, 10:35 AM
Slinger61
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charger1_sj View Post
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?
The land as-is is worth more than the stadium's debt.

The buyer can deal with the development and environmental costs.

I want to know what options the city has in ending the Chargers lease. Force them to pay rent that covers the costs of the existing site or evict them. They can build a new stadium with their own money if they want or leave town.

It's stupid to continually throw good money after bad. The Chargers leaving wont be the end of the world.
Reply With Quote
  #7788  
Old 03-23-2012, 01:09 PM
charger1_sj charger1_sj is online now
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slinger61 View Post
The land as-is is worth more than the stadium's debt.

The buyer can deal with the development and environmental costs.

I want to know what options the city has in ending the Chargers lease. Force them to pay rent that covers the costs of the existing site or evict them. They can build a new stadium with their own money if they want or leave town.

It's stupid to continually throw good money after bad. The Chargers leaving wont be the end of the world.
Nobody is going to buy that land if they have to spend millions in cleaning it up and demolishing a stadium. Why would they? They can go somewhere else. Your not making sense. This economic enviroment will have to change before this happens. Good luck.

The Chargers can get out of the lease because there is a buyout clause. The amount gets smaller as each year passes by. In the mean time the city is losing money. If they leave it gets worse.

One proposal has the site turning into a public park. Whose going to pay for that?

Chargers will not build a stadium with 100% of their own money. If SD wants them to stay they will need help. That's just the way it is.
There will be a city that will help them whether that's SD or not will be determined.
Reply With Quote
  #7789  
Old 03-23-2012, 04:04 PM
Tycebrew's Avatar
Tycebrew Tycebrew is offline
Беерман совета
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Mountains Edge
Posts: 5,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slinger61 View Post
The land as-is is worth more than the stadium's debt.

The buyer can deal with the development and environmental costs.

I want to know what options the city has in ending the Chargers lease. Force them to pay rent that covers the costs of the existing site or evict them. They can build a new stadium with their own money if they want or leave town.

It's stupid to continually throw good money after bad. The Chargers leaving wont be the end of the world.

The "Buyer"??? What buyer? There is no buyer? That's ridiculous and irrelevant isn't it, since there is no buyer. The City was dumb not to give the Chargers the land. Unfortunately, those councilmembers at that time were more worried about fraudulent activities amongst themselves.

You have to spend money to make money.
__________________
Let's get this done San Diego
Reply With Quote
  #7790  
Old 03-23-2012, 09:26 PM
Slinger61
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charger1_sj View Post
Nobody is going to buy that land if they have to spend millions in cleaning it up and demolishing a stadium. Why would they? They can go somewhere else. Your not making sense. This economic enviroment will have to change before this happens. Good luck.

The Chargers can get out of the lease because there is a buyout clause. The amount gets smaller as each year passes by. In the mean time the city is losing money. If they leave it gets worse.

One proposal has the site turning into a public park. Whose going to pay for that?

Chargers will not build a stadium with 100% of their own money. If SD wants them to stay they will need help. That's just the way it is.
There will be a city that will help them whether that's SD or not will be determined.
The idea that nobody will buy the qualcomm site is just ridiculous. Please don't let your fandom blind all logic.

First off, the Chargers leaving would be the absolutely best thing for San Diego from a strictly financial perspective, under all current proposed scenarios. That is basic if you can remove emotion from the decision. That's not what I want but I, and I'm willing to bet most in San Diego are against welfare for billionaires.

Fabaini was telling us how we could sell the Qualcomm land for $200 million as-is to contribute to a new stadium. Were the Chargers lying to us? say it ain't so.

There still is the lawsuit against the fuel site and there is no need to sell the property at the bottom of the market. Leaving the land empty as is would save the city money over having the Chargers there under their current lease terms.

No more free ride, if they don't like it they are free to leave. A city vote for taxpayer money will fail and i'm willing to bet that most Chargers fans on here wont put their money where their mouth is when the PSL reaper wants their money.

The only portion I've heard of as a park is the ~ 30 arcres south of the trolly on the river. No problem.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:18 PM.


© 2012 San Diego Chargers. All Rights Reserved.