CSNbbs

Quote:The San Diego Chargers announced Friday they will play the 2016 season in San Diego in an attempt to find a long-term stadium solution in the city.

“This has been our home for 55 years and I want to keep the team here and provide the world-class stadium experience you deserve,” Chargers owner Dean Spanos said in a written statement.

OK, I have to admit here, I have no idea what Spanos' strategy is, if he even has one.

He has an agreement in principle to share Inglewood with Kroenke (even though the two of them have reportedly not met since the owner's meeting in Houston).

All he's saying about San Diego is, "I am committed to looking at this from a fresh perspective." No proposal, no "here's where we want the stadium and how we think it should be funded"... and the Chargers have very little time to even get something specific ready to be on the ballot this year, let alone time to change the minds of voters (at least according to polls that have been taken) who say they would vote no.

(01-29-2016 06:57 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The San Diego Chargers announced Friday they will play the 2016 season in San Diego in an attempt to find a long-term stadium solution in the city.

“This has been our home for 55 years and I want to keep the team here and provide the world-class stadium experience you deserve,” Chargers owner Dean Spanos said in a written statement.

OK, I have to admit here, I have no idea what Spanos' strategy is, if he even has one.

He has an agreement in principle to share Inglewood with Kroenke (even though the two of them have reportedly not met since the owner's meeting in Houston).

All he's saying about San Diego is, "I am committed to looking at this from a fresh perspective." No proposal, no "here's where we want the stadium and how we think it should be funded"... and the Chargers have very little time to even get something specific ready to be on the ballot this year, let alone time to change the minds of voters (at least according to polls that have been taken) who say they would vote no.

You are right about the timing that's a good point. Maybe he's just trying to sweet talk San Diegans into buying one more year's worth of tickets? That'll never work.

It makes little sense, morale is sure to be down given the populace knows the team is on the way out.

1) chargers would be the second tier team in LA ala clippers
2) chargers might not be able to afford $500M relocation fee
3) chargers might not want the raiders in SD
4) NFL might not want the raiders in las vegas so chargers stay in SD, raiders go to LA
5) chargers are top dogs in SD and have $300M in NFL money to help build a stadium

i do wonder how much the chargers are worth in LA compared to how much in SD but the team isn't for sale.

Agreed except about the Chargers being the second tier team to the Rams. Such a scenario cannot exist, as there is no Lakers franchise by comparison. Perhaps if the 49ers had moved to LA for 13 seasons and had their same level of success in that time span, moved back to the Bay Area then moved back now, that could be the case. As it stands, even if the more popular Raiders had put all of this into motion, the Chargers would not be a JV team by comparison, particularly because the Chargers would still be near their old fanbase.

Did y'all notice the LA Times article says the Chargers will be tenants under the deal with the Rams? $1/yr, and they have to share in some of the construction costs, but it solidifies their position as second fiddle and I assume it restricts their ability to share revnue. In that context it's not that surprising Spanos is grasping for straws to try to create an advantage somewhere.

I just don't see why the Chargers wouldn't try to work harder than ever before to get the downtown SD stadium built. No relocation fee, lots of $$$ from NFL to help build new stadium. This is the best chance SD will ever get to build a new stadium.

Maybe he's hoping the past month is the "wake up call" that SD'ians needed to get their butts in gear.

The NFL is giving $100 million that doesn't have to be paid back plus a loan of $200 million if a new stadium is built in SD or Oakland. That still leaves a huge gap.

A new stadium next to the old one in SD is estimated at $1.1 billion. The Chargers don't want a new stadium there, they want one with a retractable roof in downtown SD that would probably cost almost $2 billion. Just as a guess, a $2 billion stadium would require at least a billion in public money, and SD has to put it on the ballot. I would be very surprised if "yes" wins that vote.

(01-30-2016 11:26 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Did y'all notice the LA Times article says the Chargers will be tenants under the deal with the Rams? $1/yr, and they have to share in some of the construction costs, but it solidifies their position as second fiddle and I assume it restricts their ability to share revnue. In that context it's not that surprising Spanos is grasping for straws to try to create an advantage somewhere.

$1/year in rent and the Chargers (or Raiders) will have to contribute the money from their sale of PSLs and their $200MM NFL stadium loan to the project.

(01-30-2016 12:37 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2016 11:26 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Did y'all notice the LA Times article says the Chargers will be tenants under the deal with the Rams? $1/yr, and they have to share in some of the construction costs, but it solidifies their position as second fiddle and I assume it restricts their ability to share revnue. In that context it's not that surprising Spanos is grasping for straws to try to create an advantage somewhere.

$1/year in rent and the Chargers (or Raiders) will have to contribute the money from their sale of PSLs and their $200MM NFL stadium loan to the project.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to as sharing construction costs. Kind of interesting for a tenant.

Well, kill the retractable roof. That's an unnecessary luxury. Maybe they'd still want a dome, like Mpls. So maybe that's $1.5B? If they can live with an outdoor stadium, though, $1B.

Yes, obviously Spanos can't afford what the Wilfs did. But like I said, this is SD's best chance to get a new NFL stadium and keep their team. Maybe the answer still is "fine if they stay, but we ain't paying for it". Or maybe they'll push it through.

(01-30-2016 12:45 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2016 12:37 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2016 11:26 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Did y'all notice the LA Times article says the Chargers will be tenants under the deal with the Rams? $1/yr, and they have to share in some of the construction costs, but it solidifies their position as second fiddle and I assume it restricts their ability to share revnue. In that context it's not that surprising Spanos is grasping for straws to try to create an advantage somewhere.

$1/year in rent and the Chargers (or Raiders) will have to contribute the money from their sale of PSLs and their $200MM NFL stadium loan to the project.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to as sharing construction costs. Kind of interesting for a tenant.

Plus the relocation fee. I read somewhere that either team relocating wouldn't have to pay $550 million up front, they could instead choose to pay $64 million/year for 10 years starting in the year the Inglewood stadium opens. Maybe better for Spanos (or Davis) than paying up front, but I have to think $64 million/year is a big addition to a team's annual expenses.

(01-30-2016 11:26 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Did y'all notice the LA Times article says the Chargers will be tenants under the deal with the Rams? $1/yr, and they have to share in some of the construction costs, but it solidifies their position as second fiddle and I assume it restricts their ability to share revnue. In that context it's not that surprising Spanos is grasping for straws to try to create an advantage somewhere.

Unless they paid for and built the stadium in San Diego, they likely would be just a tenant, in terms of sharing in revenue beyond game day, anyway so not sure that is necessarily worse than in San Diego, when you consider the possibility for more revenue in LA. If San Diego builds a new stadium, and pays for it with public money, they are going to keep any non-game review generated to help repay the debts to build it.

What's a simple millionaire to do? Not everyone can be a ga-jillionaire who pays for his own stadium.

Spanos has a long way to go with the voters if he's serious about putting a stadium proposal on the ballot and winning.

Check out the middle question in the attached graphic, from the poll results published here.

When asked how sincere Spanos is about wanting to keep the Chargers in San Diego, 54% of the poll respondents chose either "not very" or "not at all".

(01-31-2016 04:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2016 11:26 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Did y'all notice the LA Times article says the Chargers will be tenants under the deal with the Rams? $1/yr, and they have to share in some of the construction costs, but it solidifies their position as second fiddle and I assume it restricts their ability to share revnue. In that context it's not that surprising Spanos is grasping for straws to try to create an advantage somewhere.

Unless they paid for and built the stadium in San Diego, they likely would be just a tenant, in terms of sharing in revenue beyond game day, anyway so not sure that is necessarily worse than in San Diego, when you consider the possibility for more revenue in LA. If San Diego builds a new stadium, and pays for it with public money, they are going to keep any non-game review generated to help repay the debts to build it.

I would have thought it would depend on how much Spanos puts into the development. How common is it for a tenant to contribute a significant portion of the development cost? For Inglewood, it sounds like Spanos is supposed to contribute the $200MM NFL construction loan, plus PSL fees (which for Carson they were hoping for about $400MM). And if it's San Diego, they'll get $100MM from the NFL, plus the $200MM loan, plus who knows what else. We're certainly going well beyond tenant improvements here. It would be interesting to know how these kinds of deals are structured - what kind of revenue is a "tenant" entitled to for the money they put up?

(01-31-2016 07:39 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Spanos has a long way to go with the voters if he's serious about putting a stadium proposal on the ballot and winning.

Check out the middle question in the attached graphic, from the poll results published here.

When asked how sincere Spanos is about wanting to keep the Chargers in San Diego, 54% of the poll respondents chose either "not very" or "not at all".

I don't think he's getting another dime from SD - he's going to have to put in more of his own money (or the NFL's). Maybe he can negotiate a bigger piece of the revenue pie?

(01-31-2016 10:54 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-31-2016 04:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2016 11:26 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Did y'all notice the LA Times article says the Chargers will be tenants under the deal with the Rams? $1/yr, and they have to share in some of the construction costs, but it solidifies their position as second fiddle and I assume it restricts their ability to share revnue. In that context it's not that surprising Spanos is grasping for straws to try to create an advantage somewhere.

Unless they paid for and built the stadium in San Diego, they likely would be just a tenant, in terms of sharing in revenue beyond game day, anyway so not sure that is necessarily worse than in San Diego, when you consider the possibility for more revenue in LA. If San Diego builds a new stadium, and pays for it with public money, they are going to keep any non-game review generated to help repay the debts to build it.

I would have thought it would depend on how much Spanos puts into the development. How common is it for a tenant to contribute a significant portion of the development cost? For Inglewood, it sounds like Spanos is supposed to contribute the $200MM NFL construction loan, plus PSL fees (which for Carson they were hoping for about $400MM). And if it's San Diego, they'll get $100MM from the NFL, plus the $200MM loan, plus who knows what else. We're certainly going well beyond tenant improvements here. It would be interesting to know how these kinds of deals are structured - what kind of revenue is a "tenant" entitled to for the money they put up?

In La that would be $500 MM give or take for free tenant status in a $2 billion stadium. The development itself is another billion plus. Hats not enough to partake in the money making part, especially since none of it is really their own money. In SD same situation. In most cities, NFL teams don't partake in the profits of building or the area around it unless they own the stadium or contributed significantly towards it (domes are the most profitable), since they usually get the stadium for next to nothing, and pay that to use it. No reason for the cities to also give hem extra money they earned, as opposed to taking it bald to help pay for The free stadium the built.


It would be irresponsible to let already rich owners keep money from other events and other ancillary income from these events; and not use it to pay off the debt.

(02-01-2016 12:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-31-2016 10:54 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-31-2016 04:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2016 11:26 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Did y'all notice the LA Times article says the Chargers will be tenants under the deal with the Rams? $1/yr, and they have to share in some of the construction costs, but it solidifies their position as second fiddle and I assume it restricts their ability to share revnue. In that context it's not that surprising Spanos is grasping for straws to try to create an advantage somewhere.

Unless they paid for and built the stadium in San Diego, they likely would be just a tenant, in terms of sharing in revenue beyond game day, anyway so not sure that is necessarily worse than in San Diego, when you consider the possibility for more revenue in LA. If San Diego builds a new stadium, and pays for it with public money, they are going to keep any non-game review generated to help repay the debts to build it.

I would have thought it would depend on how much Spanos puts into the development. How common is it for a tenant to contribute a significant portion of the development cost? For Inglewood, it sounds like Spanos is supposed to contribute the $200MM NFL construction loan, plus PSL fees (which for Carson they were hoping for about $400MM). And if it's San Diego, they'll get $100MM from the NFL, plus the $200MM loan, plus who knows what else. We're certainly going well beyond tenant improvements here. It would be interesting to know how these kinds of deals are structured - what kind of revenue is a "tenant" entitled to for the money they put up?

In La that would be $500 MM give or take for free tenant status in a $2 billion stadium. The development itself is another billion plus. Hats not enough to partake in the money making part, especially since none of it is really their own money. In SD same situation. In most cities, NFL teams don't partake in the profits of building or the area around it unless they own the stadium or contributed significantly towards it (domes are the most profitable), since they usually get the stadium for next to nothing, and pay that to use it. No reason for the cities to also give hem extra money they earned, as opposed to taking it bald to help pay for The free stadium the built.


It would be irresponsible to let already rich owners keep money from other events and other ancillary income from these events; and not use it to pay off the debt.

So, the Chargers are basically pre-paying their rent. Except it's not entirely a pre-pay because some/ a lot of that will be financed. Sheesh. I'd love to see the pro forma for this deal because it's not making intuitive sense to me. Of course, maybe it's NOT a great deal and that's why SD is back on the table (impossible schedule and public vote nothwithstanding).