Article here about why San Diego politicos don't like the more expensive plan (probably $500 million more expensive) for a stadium in downtown SD: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/go...yor-hates/

Also, in the same article, the consultant the Chargers hired to help them negotiate a SD stadium proposal reportedly favors staying at the current site:

Quote:Chargers owner Dean Spanos has left open the possibility for a stadium either downtown or in Mission Valley. This week, the Chargers hired Fred Maas, an ex-downtown redevelopment official and former stadium adviser to Sanders to work with the city on a stadium plan. Maas has long eyed the proposed convadium site, which is now a large bus yard, so his shepherding a stadium there would make sense. If the team wants a stadium on the site, the pressure might force Faulconer to yield.

But JMI’s Peace told me that the hiring of Maas meant downtown was off the table because Maas had indicated a preference for the Qualcomm site already.

“Our read of this is they’re going to do Mission Valley,” Peace said.

The Chargers would not confirm that.

The idea there is to build a new stadium next to the current one and then tear down the old stadium to use that land for parking. That's what they did in Denver and what various people have been suggesting as a solution in San Diego and Oakland for years.

If that happens, then basically the Chargers are taking the same offer the city made to them last year, only now with $100 million more from the NFL, along with, I'm guessing, the Chargers asking voters to chip in $100-200 million more than the city offered last year.

Probably doesn't need its own thread, but I saw this morning that Raiders signed a 2016 agreement to play in Oakland, with options for 17 and 18.

Rams will be only LA team in 2016, for sure.

(02-12-2016 03:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The idea there is to build a new stadium next to the current one and then tear down the old stadium to use that land for parking. That's what they did in Denver and what various people have been suggesting as a solution in San Diego and Oakland for years.

If that happens, then basically the Chargers are taking the same offer the city made to them last year, only now with $100 million more from the NFL, along with, I'm guessing, the Chargers asking voters to chip in $100-200 million more than the city offered last year.

By and large, football stadiums (the non-domed variety) don't need to be built on expensive downtown land, because they don't generate enough non game events (where all of the money is going to the team) to justify the expense. Now the idea of a convention center with it is interesting, but I don't see it recouping the cost.

The funny thing about stadiums. When you sucker the public to pay for them, they have all of the bells and whistles, and are always located on prime land. When teams pay for them themselves, they are rather stripped down, and not built in downtown. Goes to show there is no true return on it, if so the owners who paid for them would have done so. Only Dallas, and now LA, have an owner who mostly paid for the stadiums themselves, and spared no expense, and even then, they still did not build in the main downtown (most expensive) area.

How did MLPSB get banned?

Anyways, I say the only time it makes sense to build a publicly funded arena, dome or even football stadium is when a place is looking for publicity. There are cities that people don't even realize exist like Grand Rapids or Greenville/Spartanburg, SC that people get shocked when I bring them up in conversations for major sports teams. People on here only know of Greensboro because of the ACC Tournament yet it is in a top 50 TV market.

Get a major pro sports team and have your hometown mentioned in the media for months on in.

(02-12-2016 03:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Article here about why San Diego politicos don't like the more expensive plan (probably $500 million more expensive) for a stadium in downtown SD: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/go...yor-hates/

Also, in the same article, the consultant the Chargers hired to help them negotiate a SD stadium proposal reportedly favors staying at the current site:

Quote:Chargers owner Dean Spanos has left open the possibility for a stadium either downtown or in Mission Valley. This week, the Chargers hired Fred Maas, an ex-downtown redevelopment official and former stadium adviser to Sanders to work with the city on a stadium plan. Maas has long eyed the proposed convadium site, which is now a large bus yard, so his shepherding a stadium there would make sense. If the team wants a stadium on the site, the pressure might force Faulconer to yield.

But JMI’s Peace told me that the hiring of Maas meant downtown was off the table because Maas had indicated a preference for the Qualcomm site already.

“Our read of this is they’re going to do Mission Valley,” Peace said.

The Chargers would not confirm that.

The idea there is to build a new stadium next to the current one and then tear down the old stadium to use that land for parking. That's what they did in Denver and what various people have been suggesting as a solution in San Diego and Oakland for years.

If that happens, then basically the Chargers are taking the same offer the city made to them last year, only now with $100 million more from the NFL, along with, I'm guessing, the Chargers asking voters to chip in $100-200 million more than the city offered last year.

It's very hard to imagine what Spanos would have to do to get the city to kick in that much more money. They weren't that happy about the give they already offered. And they hate Spanos even more now. I've been thinking the opposite: that Spanos is going to have to put more of his own money in.

(02-13-2016 12:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 03:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Article here about why San Diego politicos don't like the more expensive plan (probably $500 million more expensive) for a stadium in downtown SD: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/go...yor-hates/

Also, in the same article, the consultant the Chargers hired to help them negotiate a SD stadium proposal reportedly favors staying at the current site:

Quote:Chargers owner Dean Spanos has left open the possibility for a stadium either downtown or in Mission Valley. This week, the Chargers hired Fred Maas, an ex-downtown redevelopment official and former stadium adviser to Sanders to work with the city on a stadium plan. Maas has long eyed the proposed convadium site, which is now a large bus yard, so his shepherding a stadium there would make sense. If the team wants a stadium on the site, the pressure might force Faulconer to yield.

But JMI’s Peace told me that the hiring of Maas meant downtown was off the table because Maas had indicated a preference for the Qualcomm site already.

“Our read of this is they’re going to do Mission Valley,” Peace said.

The Chargers would not confirm that.

The idea there is to build a new stadium next to the current one and then tear down the old stadium to use that land for parking. That's what they did in Denver and what various people have been suggesting as a solution in San Diego and Oakland for years.

If that happens, then basically the Chargers are taking the same offer the city made to them last year, only now with $100 million more from the NFL, along with, I'm guessing, the Chargers asking voters to chip in $100-200 million more than the city offered last year.

It's very hard to imagine what Spanos would have to do to get the city to kick in that much more money. They weren't that happy about the give they already offered. And they hate Spanos even more now. I've been thinking the opposite: that Spanos is going to have to put more of his own money in.

We know he's going to fight that as long as he can. The only reason the Rams moved is because Kroenke is willing to use his own money to build a stadium. Too bad he couldn't do that in St. Louis, but I can't seem to find the tears to shed for the populace there.

(02-13-2016 01:47 PM)BlazerJoe Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 12:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 03:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Article here about why San Diego politicos don't like the more expensive plan (probably $500 million more expensive) for a stadium in downtown SD: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/go...yor-hates/

Also, in the same article, the consultant the Chargers hired to help them negotiate a SD stadium proposal reportedly favors staying at the current site:

Quote:Chargers owner Dean Spanos has left open the possibility for a stadium either downtown or in Mission Valley. This week, the Chargers hired Fred Maas, an ex-downtown redevelopment official and former stadium adviser to Sanders to work with the city on a stadium plan. Maas has long eyed the proposed convadium site, which is now a large bus yard, so his shepherding a stadium there would make sense. If the team wants a stadium on the site, the pressure might force Faulconer to yield.

But JMI’s Peace told me that the hiring of Maas meant downtown was off the table because Maas had indicated a preference for the Qualcomm site already.

“Our read of this is they’re going to do Mission Valley,” Peace said.

The Chargers would not confirm that.

The idea there is to build a new stadium next to the current one and then tear down the old stadium to use that land for parking. That's what they did in Denver and what various people have been suggesting as a solution in San Diego and Oakland for years.

If that happens, then basically the Chargers are taking the same offer the city made to them last year, only now with $100 million more from the NFL, along with, I'm guessing, the Chargers asking voters to chip in $100-200 million more than the city offered last year.

It's very hard to imagine what Spanos would have to do to get the city to kick in that much more money. They weren't that happy about the give they already offered. And they hate Spanos even more now. I've been thinking the opposite: that Spanos is going to have to put more of his own money in.

We know he's going to fight that as long as he can. The only reason the Rams moved is because Kroenke is willing to use his own money to build a stadium. Too bad he couldn't do that in St. Louis, but I can't seem to find the tears to shed for the populace there.

He could have done that in Saint Louis. There was nothing stopping Kroenke from using his own money to build a stadium in Saint Louis. The only reason he moved to Inglewood was $$$$$$$$$$$.

And why not. You could make more money as a third team in LA/Orange County than as the first team in St. Louis.

Yeah, the key words there, as far as Kroenke goes, are "his own money". In two ways:

He wants to spend or invest his own money where he decides to spend or invest it.

And, more importantly, the one and only reason a new football stadium is going to be built in LA is because he put together a viable plan to do it with his own money.

He should have built it in EStL, Illinois. It would have reignited their economy before the residents ignited the stadium.

(02-14-2016 12:10 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 01:47 PM)BlazerJoe Wrote:  We know he's going to fight that as long as he can. The only reason the Rams moved is because Kroenke is willing to use his own money to build a stadium. Too bad he couldn't do that in St. Louis, but I can't seem to find the tears to shed for the populace there.

He could have done that in Saint Louis. There was nothing stopping Kroenke from using his own money to build a stadium in Saint Louis. The only reason he moved to Inglewood was $$$$$$$$$$$.

It shows the flaws of public stadiums. He wouldn't build one in St. Louis, which could be built for less than half the cost, with his own money because unless the city was going to pay for it, it was a money losing proposition.

I'm glad St. Louis county and city did not pay for it either. They need to rebuild STL, it's seen much better days.