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

Go Back   The Official Los Angeles Chargers Forum > Chargers Talk > Around the NFL
Register FAQ Members List Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-17-2017, 04:43 PM
JimWest's Avatar
JimWest JimWest is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFboltfan View Post
/agreed

Wonder why the SD moving per Dean thread was locked?? Is this the new stadium issue thread on the down low???
I was also surprised and am wondering why it was suddenly locked. I had just had a post exchange there, then the next day it was closed down.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-17-2017, 04:54 PM
JimWest's Avatar
JimWest JimWest is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Days Last2 View Post
It's not like Dean is throwing a whole bunch of risk or personal money into this move. He has no personal/monetary stake in the stadium and is probably only on the hook with his new practice facility as his only "real" investment. (And that's not assuming he's paying for that with his personal wealth either).
I like your reply post and take on that situation. I prefer to keep some flicking hope alive of an eventual Chargers return to their proper home.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-23-2017, 01:21 PM
JoeMcRugby's Avatar
JoeMcRugby JoeMcRugby is online now
Pollyana-ish Homer Mod
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Rossmoor
Posts: 49,254
Default As for Manchester ...

Ummmmmmm, never mind. He's going to "remodel" 50+ year-old built-to-house-baseball Qualcomm Stadium. No wonder Manchester wouldn't work with Spanos - it went directly against the pitbull Fabiani's admonition "Don't try anything on the cheap".

Quote:
'Q' would be saved under rival NFL stadium, soccer plan
By Roger Showley
February 23, 2017

As an alternative to the recently unveiled SoccerCity plan in Mission Valley, developer Doug Manchester is working on a proposal to remodel Qualcomm Stadium for professional soccer, football and the Aztecs; build an NBA sports arena; and provide for a lower-density housing and commercial development with less traffic from the city’s 166-acre property, consultants said Wednesday.

“We’re going to try and figure out a way to get it done,” Dick Gibbons, vice chairman of Manchester Financial Group, said of the Qualcomm renovation and redevelopment idea.

Also on Wednesday, La Jolla-based FS Investors placed a 52-page legal notice in the Union-Tribune to formally launch its SoccerCity plan to build a soccer stadium, demolish Qualcomm and build housing, hotels, offices, retail space, parks and parking.

Manchester sent a letter Feb. 8 to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying he wanted to build an new 70,000-seat football stadium but now has endorsed retaining 50-year-old Qualcomm instead.

“It’s worth preserving because we don’t have a lot of icons,” said Manchester development consultant Perry Dealy, an architect as well as developer in his own right. “It would save a lot of money for taxpayers.”

Several studies, including one by a 2015 city task force, have concluded that renovation was economically infeasible, and the Chargers and NFL dismissed the idea years ago.

FS Investors plans to launch a ballot initiative drive March 15 to gather at least 71,646 valid registered city voters that are required to place the item on the ballot, but the group will ask the City Council to approve it instead of placing it on a future ballot as a way to meet Major League Soccer deadlines for awarding new franchises later this year.

The Manchester concept resembles the FS plan but with some key differences:

Qualcomm Stadium: Spend about $500 million to upgrade the city-owned venue with new utilities, structural improvements interior flourishes, such as upgraded premium suites. The stadium would be designed to hold 60,000 to 70,000 seats for NFL, MLS, college bowl and San Diego State University football programs. The FS plan would set aside 16 acres for a new football stadium that a NFL team would have to commit to within five years.

Sports arena: Study the feasibility of building a new arena that would replace the 51-year-old Valley View Casino Center on Sports Arena Boulevard.

Commercial development: Phase in the construction of about 4,800 homes for SDSU students, faculty and staff and other renters or condo owners, the same number as proposed in SoccerCity; 1 million square feet of office space, compared with 2.4 million square feet in the competing package; 500,000 square feet of restaurant, bar and retail space, down from 740,000 square feet in the FS plan; one or more hotels (SoccerCity proposes 450 rooms spread across two hotels); and equivalent parkland.

SDSU west campus: Incorporate some of the university’s expansion needs, but not in the form of donated land, because Manchester says that the property should be returned to the city tax rolls.

Debt: Assume the city’s $38.4 million outstanding debt, which costs San Diego $4.7 million a year in payments for the 1997 Qualcomm upgrade, and cover operational costs. The loan comes due in 2027.

Financing: Develop the entire site without a public subsidy or tax increase. Instead, Manchester hope to use the same private source he is courting to underwrite his $1.3 billion Pacific Gateway project downtown. The purchase price for the Mission Valley property and other deal points would be negotiated with the city. FS Investors is relying on the city’s formal appraisal process to arrive at a purchase price.

Nick Stone, the FS Investors partner overseeing SoccerCity, said Manchester’s plan will not meet Major League Soccer’s key requirement for “soccer-specific stadiums.”

“In our view, certainty matters,” Stone said. “Our plan is viable, thoroughly researched and funded.”

Mary Lydon, who served on Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s 2015 stadium task force as a representative of the local Urban Land Institute chapter, said she would wait to see more of the details of Manchester’s proposal before commenting on the pros and cons.

“There’s nothing to say without a (formal) proposal,” Lydon said. “It would be great. Let’s see what he can pull together.”

Architect Rob Quigley, who had proposed inserting a new NFL-quality stadium into Qualcomm, said: “All proposals can and should incorporate the original stadium in some creative fashion.”

Gibbons said Manchester was motivated to prepare an alternate plan by his desire to bring the NFL back to San Diego and to keep rather than demolish Qualcomm, which received an American Institute of Architects honor award two years after it opened in 1967.

“We’ve got this great concrete structure that’s almost historic,” Gibbons said.

The professional football-going experience takes place within the building, not on the outside, he said, and that’s where new amenities for skybox holders, fans and team members and coaches would be vastly upgraded.

“It’s not a profit maker for us,” he said.

Gibbons noted that he is a neighbor of FS Investors partner Mike Stone (unrelated to Nick Stone) in La Jolla but has not had a chance to talk to him about possibly partnering on a joint-development deal.

“We’d love to work with them,” Gibbons said.

The alternate concept raises many more questions than answers at this point: Would any NFL team accept a remodeled Qualcomm; would the MLS agree to share a larger-than-desired stadium; and what rent would SDSU pay to play in a venue its officials consider to be is too big?

Gibbons said the Oakland Raiders are the most likely choice at the moment to move into Qualcomm to replace their age-old Chargers rival.

“It would be great,” Gibbons said. “I don’t know why I’d ever say that. Can we change the name?”

But he said NFL owners first have to vote next month if they will let the Raiders relocate to Las Vegas.

“There are other opportunities, there are other teams,” he said. “San Diego is such an incredible venue.”

Dealy added that bringing back the Chargers is a long shot, now that the team has lost a November ballot measure to fund a downtown stadium and paid the city to terminate its lease at Qualcomm early to move to Los Angeles.

“I think it’s too late,” he said. “They did a ‘scorched earth’ when they left. We’d offer it to them, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.”

Dealy, who has developed and consulted on numerous commercial projects in San Diego and elsewhere including stadium work in Denver, said it will take several weeks to develop a master plan and generate renderings.

“I think our primary objective was to create a stadium (plan), put in the Aztecs, incorporate soccer and make it a community asset and evaluate the opportunity to put in a sports arena,” Dealy said. “If an arena couldn’t go in, we could continue to redevelop with the centerpiece being Qualcomm.”

San Diego hosted the NBA with the San Diego Clippers from 1978 to 1984 and the San Diego Rockets from 1967 to 1971.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...223-story.html
So much for Scott Kaplan's savior.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You want analysis? Don't ask me: I'm just a Pollyanna lying idiotic know-nothing ball-watching stat boy.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-23-2017, 08:03 PM
ltinabottle ltinabottle is offline
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Murrieta
Posts: 2,607
Default

Oh my gosh...this is like a version of groundhog day. At the time, Alex Spanos has been there and done that with the renovation of Qualcomm just prior to the Super Bowl almost twenty years ago. Hindsight...we really should of moved for a new stadium back then. Leverage was there coming off a Super Bowl appearance. Oy vey...

Is the Q the 8th wonder of the world? Well worth preserving? I'd say not.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-25-2017, 02:33 PM
northerner's Avatar
northerner northerner is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: santa clara
Posts: 319
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltinabottle View Post
Oh my gosh...this is like a version of groundhog day. At the time, Alex Spanos has been there and done that with the renovation of Qualcomm just prior to the Super Bowl almost twenty years ago. Hindsight...we really should of moved for a new stadium back then. Leverage was there coming off a Super Bowl appearance. Oy vey...

Is the Q the 8th wonder of the world? Well worth preserving? I'd say not.
"historic" - i could not believe what i was reading. they should have just turned off the mic/recorder when that statement was issued. 100% of everyone has said that the Q is outdated and needs to go, and now this.

i am onboard for wanting a SD reunion, but i don't see how they do it once the PSL's are sold at the LA stadium?? you can't can't have people with 40 year guarantees that raised 200-300 million and then do it all over again in 5 years when SD gets a proposal done. i think the PSL's make this 10x more complicated.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-03-2017, 07:18 PM
JimWest's Avatar
JimWest JimWest is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by northerner View Post
"historic" - i could not believe what i was reading. they should have just turned off the mic/recorder when that statement was issued. 100% of everyone has said that the Q is outdated and needs to go, and now this.

i am onboard for wanting a SD reunion, but i don't see how they do it once the PSL's are sold at the LA stadium?? you can't can't have people with 40 year guarantees that raised 200-300 million and then do it all over again in 5 years when SD gets a proposal done. i think the PSL's make this 10x more complicated.
It was interesting to read of the Q being considered as historic. Merely being a 50 year old stadium does not in itself make it so. It does not have a rich history.

In New York, three stadiums with extremely rich histories of championships, legendary players, and noteworthy events in their lifetimes - Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds, and Ebbets Field, were all torn down.

The basic structure of the parks made it too expensive to retrofit them to suit today's desire for fan enhancements, luxury suites, etc.

And as eventually happens with virtually every park/stadium, the cost/benefit analysis does not add up for renovation.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-09-2017, 06:27 PM
The Moekid's Avatar
The Moekid The Moekid is offline
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 32,410
Default

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...story,amp.html
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-09-2017, 11:24 PM
Padres15's Avatar
Padres15 Padres15 is offline
Ocean Beach
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Yo mamma's house
Posts: 1,758
Default

Articles like this are the only thing that keep me hooked. It's not new stadium talk, but it's a reminder just how long Fabs and crew were dishing out their warnings. It's not like they just walked out on us. They were pleading their case and letting us know that alternative solutions were available since way back in 2010.

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/201...hargers_c.html

Edit: Post is not meant to create a stir, or even discussion really. I just thought it was an interesting article that might heal some wounds for fans that remain on edge like me.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-10-2017, 07:09 PM
JimWest's Avatar
JimWest JimWest is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Padres15 View Post
Articles like this are the only thing that keep me hooked. It's not new stadium talk, but it's a reminder just how long Fabs and crew were dishing out their warnings. It's not like they just walked out on us. They were pleading their case and letting us know that alternative solutions were available since way back in 2010.

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/201...hargers_c.html

Edit: Post is not meant to create a stir, or even discussion really. I just thought it was an interesting article that might heal some wounds for fans that remain on edge like me.
Quite interesting that you found that article on NJ.com. I do read that site, but missed that from 2010. Back then, I believed that there was plenty of time, it was just matter of finding a suitable stadium site in San Diego County somewhere. The Chargers leaving didn't seem like a critical, immediate issue, so was only passively keeping up with events.

Came across an interesting piece posted by the editor of the San Diego Times on January 10, 2017, in the Opinion section. It was a mere two days before Spanos announced he was taking the Chargers out of San Diego. It was very pro-new stadium.

One of the statements he made in the opinion piece I found stunning was this one: "
Forget Spanos’ determination to get to Los Angeles. He doesn’t mean it."

Right to the bitter end, some remained convinced there was no way Spanos was leaving. Kind of jarring to read that in hindsight. I wish he had been right in that belief.
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 03:50 AM.


© 2017 Los Angeles Chargers. All Rights Reserved.