(11-08-2016 12:19 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The difference is in that scenario, the bike path isn't a revenue generator nor a for profit enterprise. Pro Sports are for profit enterprises like most businesses. If you want to tax credit them for being a business so be it. But to pay for their own place of business isn't right.

While a valid point, don't overlook my point. Some places are looking to raise their status and to keep/attract major events aside from year round pro sports, such as concerts, political events (i.e. conventions, debates, etc...), touring shows and any event that requires a large state-of-the-art stadium or arena.

Like museums, exhibition halls and any number of amenities, cities look to try and attract young professionals, tourists and business travelers. A few cities don't need to shell out public funds to build things to attract people but some places, while I can't say *need* to do that, certainly know the best way of going about doing that is shelling out public tax dollars to get things built that they couldn't get from the private sector. And in recent years, its been discovered that they don't even have raise normal taxes on the average citizen but instead tax visitors a relative few pennies to get what they want built and done.

(11-08-2016 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yeah, I think Spanos will either just take the best deal he can get at the Qualcomm Stadium site, or move to Inglewood and soon thereafter cash in on the LA franchise valuation by selling to someone with enough cash flow to comfortably pay all the costs associated with the move to LA.

If he does the latter, that is Spanos' "win" over Mark Davis. Selling the 2nd LA franchise will net a lot more money than selling a Las Vegas franchise. Just compare the valuation of the Angels to the valuation of the Reds or Royals, or the valuation of the Jets to that of the Chiefs or Bengals. (KC and Cincinnati markets are about the size of the Vegas market.)

The best example is the Clippers, one of the worst franchises in the history of major North American pro sports and a team always in the Lakers shadow. Despite their history, Donald Sterling made a killing when he sold the team to Steve Ballmer and they are more valuable than a number of franchises with more success.

(11-08-2016 01:31 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 12:19 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The difference is in that scenario, the bike path isn't a revenue generator nor a for profit enterprise. Pro Sports are for profit enterprises like most businesses. If you want to tax credit them for being a business so be it. But to pay for their own place of business isn't right.

While a valid point, don't overlook my point. Some places are looking to raise their status and to keep/attract major events aside from year round pro sports, such as concerts, political events (i.e. conventions, debates, etc...), touring shows and any event that requires a large state-of-the-art stadium or arena.

Like museums, exhibition halls and any number of amenities, cities look to try and attract young professionals, tourists and business travelers. A few cities don't need to shell out public funds to build things to attract people but some places, while I can't say *need* to do that, certainly know the best way of going about doing that is shelling out public tax dollars to get things built that they couldn't get from the private sector. And in recent years, its been discovered that they don't even have raise normal taxes on the average citizen but instead tax visitors a relative few pennies to get what they want built and done.

Civic jewelry doesn't attract young professionals, its simply edification of political egos. I'm in ATL and two teams are replacing 20 year old facilities for no reason other than GP. While the Q probably does need to be replaced from a structural standpoint, Spanos lacks the funds to even contribution to a 1/10th the cost for a new facility. In that regard, it would be charity.

You're wrong, you're totally wrong. It's not the only thing they like but young professionals with disposable income to burn like having options such as pro sporting events to attend. It's one of the reasons they like living in the city in their 20's before they get older and get bogged down with a family.

Live events, like live music and concerts, pro sports, bars and nightclubs, beautiful and rich people to chase around, and the ability to either be in a place with plenty of action, such as New York City or where they can have great quality of life options and live reasonably cheap.

If you don't have pro sports, you better have a particularly large and prominent major university to compensate like UT-Austin or Ohio State because fair or not, sports is a prominent part of our culture, otherwise Louisville wouldn't build a huge NBA level arena for UL basketball. Sports teams also provide invaluable publicity.

Here's an article backing up my claim for new markets, though OKC's bond was from sales tax:

http://www.geographyjobs.com/articles/pr..._city.html

Quote:The success of the team on the court has led to increased media coverage, and in turn this has helped to raise the profile of the City both around the US and abroad.

Quote:Recognizing that the Thunder has heightened Oklahoma City’s profile, the Chamber has used the team as a focal point in their marketing materials. The Chamber has developed a website, http://www.greaterokc.tv that has hundreds of videos marketing nearly every aspect one could think about when trying to attract both companies and talented professionals to a city.

Quote:[Local businessman Tom] Ward believed that the Thunder was the catalyst to open people’s eyes to Oklahoma City’s economic success. “It was a surprise to the media especially as they focus on New York or the East Coast and Los Angeles or the West Coast, that there was this city in the middle of the country that people hadn’t looked at so much that was actually doing a lot of good things, and starting with the Thunder. That team brought us to the national forefront as far as at least having an audience to say that there’s something going on here that appears to be different.”

Also:

Quote: In most cases, [long time local resident] fans are tied either to the Oklahoma Sooners or Oklahoma State Cowboys. However, due to the migrant nature of young professionals, not everyone that lives in Oklahoma would count themselves as a fan of either of these two major universities or their teams.

Quote:While difficult to measure, Williams believes that the Thunder help Oklahoma City in their effort to keep their talented young people working and living in the City rather than leaving for greener pastures elsewhere. He indicated that his organization is always worried about talent drain as there are 18 universities in the Greater Oklahoma City Area with approximately 120,000 students. The Chamber is constantly working with the local business community to encourage internships to develop connections with this constant flow of graduates that pour out into the workforce every year. Williams noted that the Thunder are not merely a point of pride as an organisation [sic] to this group of students, the players themselves have become a point of connection...And they love this kind of sports environment because these basketball players are their age...

(11-10-2016 12:37 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  You're wrong, you're totally wrong. It's not the only thing they like but young professionals with disposable income to burn like having options such as pro sporting events to attend. It's one of the reasons they like living in the city in their 20's before they get older and get bogged down with a family.

Live events, like live music and concerts, pro sports, bars and nightclubs, beautiful and rich people to chase around, and the ability to either be in a place with plenty of action, such as New York City or where they can have great quality of life options and live reasonably cheap.

If you don't have pro sports, you better have a particularly large and prominent major university to compensate like UT-Austin or Ohio State because fair or not, sports is a prominent part of our culture, otherwise Louisville wouldn't build a huge NBA level arena for UL basketball. Sports teams also provide invaluable publicity.

Here's an article backing up my claim for new markets, though OKC's bond was from sales tax:

http://www.geographyjobs.com/articles/pr..._city.html

Quote:The success of the team on the court has led to increased media coverage, and in turn this has helped to raise the profile of the City both around the US and abroad.

Quote:Recognizing that the Thunder has heightened Oklahoma City’s profile, the Chamber has used the team as a focal point in their marketing materials. The Chamber has developed a website, http://www.greaterokc.tv that has hundreds of videos marketing nearly every aspect one could think about when trying to attract both companies and talented professionals to a city.

Quote:[Local businessman Tom] Ward believed that the Thunder was the catalyst to open people’s eyes to Oklahoma City’s economic success. “It was a surprise to the media especially as they focus on New York or the East Coast and Los Angeles or the West Coast, that there was this city in the middle of the country that people hadn’t looked at so much that was actually doing a lot of good things, and starting with the Thunder. That team brought us to the national forefront as far as at least having an audience to say that there’s something going on here that appears to be different.”

And the Jags have done wonders for Jacksonville and Green Bay is the economic Hub of Wisconsin because of the Packers. Yes, cities need a hook to attract young people. Sometimes its colleges or the military or some other kind of economic engine. But sports entertainment are an ancillary driver, not a primary one. SanDog will still be a beautiful city no one can afford to live in, with or without the Chargers.

Green Bay is a leftover from a previous era and would never get a team today. The only reason they still have a team today is because the town owns the team in every sense of the phrase.

You're right about Jacksonville but they are surrounded by established fanbases in every direction except east, which is the ocean. And even still, the first time I ever heard of Jacksonville was when the NFL expanded there, so it still worked when it came to publicity.

I never said sports were a primary driver, it's just an amenity that young people are looking for when considering places to live.

Both measures for the Chargers failed:
Ballot C with only 43% and it needed 2/3 majority vote. Way short. Failed
Ballot D failed with 60% against. voting not to raise taxes but get money from hotel sales tax. Failed.
San Diego St will be sitting pretty if Chargers move to LA and they can take over the Q spot for themselves.
Cheers!

(11-11-2016 09:51 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Both measures for the Chargers failed:
Ballot C with only 43% and it needed 2/3 majority vote. Way short. Failed
Ballot D failed with 60% against. voting not to raise taxes but get money from hotel sales tax. Failed.
San Diego St will be sitting pretty if Chargers move to LA and they can take over the Q spot for themselves.
Cheers!

There are still obstacles for SDSU at the Qualcomm site, even if the Chargers vacate it. SDSU wants the city to give them that land. The city says, haha no, raise some money and buy the land from us. And after that they would still need money to develop the land the way they envision, and for a new stadium, their idea is to share it with an MLS team and also share the cost of the stadium with the MLS team, but that would require MLS to award an expansion franchise to San Diego, an MLS team owner to buy that franchise and to pay the MLS team's share of the stadium cost. Many years of work ahead for SDSU even if Spanos takes the Chargers to Inglewood after the 2018 season.

And of course it's very possible that Spanos will make a deal for a new Chargers stadium at the site in order to avoid the $550 million relocation fee and the Inglewood stadium buy-in that he would have to pay if he moves north. A good guesstimate is that his total LA moving cost would be over $800 million and would have to be financed by selling all or a large portion of the franchise. The Chargers contribution to a new stadium on the Q site would likely be about $500 million and could be spread out over 30 years if they sell bonds to finance the stadium, and the Spanos family could retain 100% ownership.

If keeping the franchise in their family long-term is the top Spanos priority, then the Chargers will stay in SD. If they are ready to sell out and cash in within 5-10 years, then they will move the team to LA.

Or Plan B: just keep playing at Qualcomm and let the place go to s___. Give the middle finger to Chargers/football fans and dare them not to give him a new stadium.

You can't make him sell, if he won't build a new stadium. Run the franchise into the ground. That's his right.



Thing to keep in mind: there's a separate (unrelated to football) court case that's going to make it so that they'd only need 50% to get the hotel tax to fund the DT stadium.

When that is approved by the CA SC, then the real vote will be taken. Granted, it looks like they didn't even get 50% this time ... but when people actually know you only need 50.1% to win, they'll actually vote for it rather than sit on the sidelines.

(11-12-2016 09:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Or Plan B: just keep playing at Qualcomm and let the place go to s___. Give the middle finger to Chargers/football fans and dare them not to give him a new stadium.

You can't make him sell, if he won't build a new stadium. Run the franchise into the ground. That's his right.



Thing to keep in mind: there's a separate (unrelated to football) court case that's going to make it so that they'd only need 50% to get the hotel tax to fund the DT stadium.

When that is approved by the CA SC, then the real vote will be taken. Granted, it looks like they didn't even get 50% this time ... but when people actually know you only need 50.1% to win, they'll actually vote for it rather than sit on the sidelines.

I don't know about that since running the Chargers into the ground would mess with the other owner's pocketbook. Since they like the Spanos family, I think the league will work with them on whatever decision they make.

I'd probably try to trade the chargers for the clippers and some money right now. I'd rather own the 2nd NBA team in la than football and get some cash. Let mr Microsoft deal with moving the team

PREDICTION: Chargers Will Stay in San Diego

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/P...61235.html


With deadline looming, San Diego faces heavy lift to keep Chargers

http://www.espn.com/blog/san-diego-charg...-keep-team

There's NO WAY POSSIBLE THEY'LL STAY if they don't have an NFL caliber stadium to play in. I'm a proponent of not just laying waste to usable stadiums but the Murph (not the Q) is almost 50 years old. It'd almost be a better idea to be the second or (third tenant) in New York or Chicago than lose money and status with free agents and coaches by playing in a run down, outdated facility...oh and let's not forget LA is still open for a second team.

If I owned he chargers I wouldn't move to LA but if I owned the raiders I would move to LA. I just don't see the chargers workin in LA as team 2.

(01-08-2017 03:57 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  There's NO WAY POSSIBLE THEY'LL STAY if they don't have an NFL caliber stadium to play in. I'm a proponent of not just laying waste to usable stadiums but the Murph (not the Q) is almost 50 years old. It'd almost be a better idea to be the second or (third tenant) in New York or Chicago than lose money and status with free agents and coaches by playing in a run down, outdated facility...oh and let's not forget LA is still open for a second team.

The fact that the Murph is outdated is on Spanos and his relationship with SD. Lambeau and Soldier are older and were nicely renovated. He approved that awful additional to enclose the upper deck and refused to do anything to improve the lower bowl sight lines

(01-08-2017 02:21 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PREDICTION: Chargers Will Stay in San Diego

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/P...61235.html


With deadline looming, San Diego faces heavy lift to keep Chargers

http://www.espn.com/blog/san-diego-charg...-keep-team

I bet espn is rooting for them to stay. San Diego (the vote proves that) doesn't want the Chargers anymore. San Diego St certainly doesn't want the Chargers to stay.

Cheers!