(04-26-2016 09:48 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 03:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If they go in with San Diego State, keep the bowls and add a few side events such as high school football, they can get into the mid-30's in days used per year.

You are making my point. These kinds of public funding deals only work if they bring NEW money to the city. They have to grow SD's economy enough to justify the 9 figure tax collection. But too many of the events you describe simply shift money from one local venue to another. Again, that helps the venue but not the city.

1) The difficult task, if you're trying to show that a new stadium would generate revenue, is identifying the revenue-generating events, other than Chargers games, that would be held there on a regular basis. I read somewhere that the city is essentially letting SDSU football use Qualcomm for free, so you can't count their home games, and SDSU might not want to play downtown anyway. High school FB playoffs are almost certainly not revenue generators; at best the city would recover some of the cost of using the stadium on those days. What does that leave? Concerts and other events that could otherwise be held in an arena.

2) On the other hand, if they want to keep the Chargers and pay to do so (which is the real question on the ballot), then the Q has to be replaced. The question then becomes, is this a cost-effective way to do that. Maybe the Chargers concluded that a "convadium" is easier to pitch to voters as a general-purpose facility than a new football stadium built next to the Q.

(04-26-2016 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:48 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 03:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If they go in with San Diego State, keep the bowls and add a few side events such as high school football, they can get into the mid-30's in days used per year.

You are making my point. These kinds of public funding deals only work if they bring NEW money to the city. They have to grow SD's economy enough to justify the 9 figure tax collection. But too many of the events you describe simply shift money from one local venue to another. Again, that helps the venue but not the city.

1) The difficult task, if you're trying to show that a new stadium would generate revenue, is identifying the revenue-generating events, other than Chargers games, that would be held there on a regular basis. I read somewhere that the city is essentially letting SDSU football use Qualcomm for free, so you can't count their home games, and SDSU might not want to play downtown anyway. High school FB playoffs are almost certainly not revenue generators; at best the city would recover some of the cost of using the stadium on those days. What does that leave? Concerts and other events that could otherwise be held in an arena.

It's not just revenue-generating events, it's revenue-generating events that will attract $$$ from beyond the local area. In the analyses I've read, one of the basic points is that people have relatively fixed entertainment budgets. Most folks won't attend a bunch more baseball games just because there's a new stadium. And if there's a new football team in town, they won't ADD to their budget to go see it. They'll simply attend less baseball games. So these venues/teams/events end up stealing from one another. Holding a concert at the new stadium instead of, say, Qualcomm, is great for the new stadium but doesn't bring appreciable new revenue to San Diego.

Which is why I say at least if you're gonna build a new venue, make it a dome/retractable roof and maximize the amount of events that can be hosted at it.

(04-26-2016 12:31 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Which is why I say at least if you're gonna build a new venue, make it a dome/retractable roof and maximize the amount of events that can be hosted at it.

If you know you can't pay for what you're building, make sure it's the snazziest, biggest thing you can't pay for. Maybe you won't lose as much money?

And this goes right back to the point of why the taxpayers shouldn't bend over and take it in the rear anyways.

I always say pro sports should contract franchises or at the very least, more teams should play in bigger markets, if not both. That way all these mid-sized or secondary cities like Oakland, Vegas and San Diego don't have to shell out so much money and the bigger markets can have a team for the AFC and NFC. In my unrealistic vision that won't happen.

8 teams are demoted to an NFL minor league, some of them who struggle mightily drawing fans:

Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers (yes, the NFC champions)
Detroit Lions
Jacksonville Jaguars
New Orleans Saints
Oakland Raiders/San Diego Chargers (whoever doesn't move to LA)
Tennessee Titans
Tampa Bay Bucs (they've quietly had attendance issues)

Here's how the rest of the NFL would look like:

AFC East:

Indianpolis Colts
Miami Dolphins
New England Patriots
New York Jets

AFC Central

Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Pittsburgh Steelers

AFC West

Denver Broncos
Houston Texans
Kansas City Chiefs
Los Angeles Raiders/Chargers

NFC East

Dallas Cowboys
New York Giants
Philadelphia Eagles
Washington Redskins

NFC Central

Atlanta Falcons
Chicago Bears
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings

NFC West

Arizona Cardinals
Los Angeles Rams
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks