Will San Diego vote for or against the Chargers getting a new stadium and staying there tomorrow? Just read on USA Today that the polls show its 45-55 against the locals paying for a new NFL stadium to keep the Chargers from moving to LA. With the NFL down this year in attendence and way down in television ratings this will be very interesting to watch...The greedy NFL owners days of having the tax payers pay everything for their stadiums instead of paying for it themselves may be numbered. Any thoughts?
Cheers!

I thought CA had a law barring the use of public funds for sports stadiums...
I know several years ago the AAA Tucson Toros were bought by the San Diego Padres and were going to move there but the law was past before a new AAA stadium was built so they were sold again and went to El Paso...

Personaly I dont think tax payer funds should ever go to pro sports as it is nothing more than stealing from the poor and giving to the rich...
Like the NFL NBA MLB needs anyones money??

It should be federal law that tax payer money cannot be used to pay for one use stadiums.

Just and FYI, the vote needs a super majority or 2/3 to pass. No way it passes and they will be lucky to get 50%.

(11-07-2016 10:40 PM)00yyz Wrote:  I thought CA had a law barring the use of public funds for sports stadiums...
I know several years ago the AAA Tucson Toros were bought by the San Diego Padres and were going to move there but the law was past before a new AAA stadium was built so they were sold again and went to El Paso...

Personaly I dont think tax payer funds should ever go to pro sports as it is nothing more than stealing from the poor and giving to the rich...
Like the NFL NBA MLB needs anyones money??

Oh I agree and I think it's the chicken coming home to roost for the NFL. Another factor that's hurting the NFL with Joe Fan besides the greed is the players that won't stand for the National Anthem. That is another awful image thing for the NFL. I believe in freedom of speech, don't get me wrong. As someone who's worn the uniform, I'm very big on freedom of expression. I don't respect the players for doing that though. That's my freedom of opinion. Imagine watching a Notre Dame vs Navy game and seeing players doing that?
Cheers!

(11-07-2016 10:47 PM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  Just and FYI, the vote needs a super majority or 2/3 to pass. No way it passes and they will be lucky to get 50%.

And to that I say Cheers! It would be great for you guys (SDSU) too....
Cheers!

(11-07-2016 10:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Will San Diego vote for or against the Chargers getting a new stadium and staying there tomorrow? Just read on USA Today that the polls show its 45-55 against the locals paying for a new NFL stadium to keep the Chargers from moving to LA. With the NFL down this year in attendence and way down in television ratings this will be very interesting to watch...The greedy NFL owners days of having the tax payers pay everything for their stadiums instead of paying for it themselves may be numbered. Any thoughts?
Cheers!

Can you blame the voters for voting not paying for a new stadium.

I'd love to for the government to buy my business a building.

(11-07-2016 10:46 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  It should be federal law that tax payer money cannot be used to pay for one use stadiums.

I'm okay with public funds being used for stadiums as long as the local taxpayers aren't fleeced (i.e. hotel, car rental and airport taxes).

(11-07-2016 11:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:46 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  It should be federal law that tax payer money cannot be used to pay for one use stadiums.

I'm okay with public funds being used for stadiums as long as the local taxpayers aren't fleeced (i.e. hotel, car rental and airport taxes).

I'm fine with it also. As long as its a multi use stadium.

(11-07-2016 11:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:46 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  It should be federal law that tax payer money cannot be used to pay for one use stadiums.

I'm okay with public funds being used for stadiums as long as the local taxpayers aren't fleeced (i.e. hotel, car rental and airport taxes).

Hey, taking public funds to clear the overhead for private enterprise is fleecing the public!!! It's the same whether Walmart gets to keep the state's % of the sales tax to pay for their building and grounds, or whether a sports franchise utilizes it to clear theirs. It's so sad there are some many dumber than dirt Americans that think paying the wealthy guy's overhead so a few people can work security, parking lot jobs and concessions is somehow a good thing.

If you own the team you should own the place you play in. I don't think cities should cover costs of pro stadiums. If you want to give a tax break or other incentives for a team to stay, sort of like a business in that regard, then so be it.

(11-07-2016 11:52 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  If you own the team you should own the place you play in. I don't think cities should cover costs of pro stadiums. If you want to give a tax break or other incentives for a team to stay, sort of like a business in that regard, then so be it.

I think the citizens of a city should buy shares, with no one person owning more than 10% with a mandatory 70% needed to relocate. They build their own stadium and hotels & Restaraunts buy in.

If a city can't afford a team they don't get a team.

(11-07-2016 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 11:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:46 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  It should be federal law that tax payer money cannot be used to pay for one use stadiums.

I'm okay with public funds being used for stadiums as long as the local taxpayers aren't fleeced (i.e. hotel, car rental and airport taxes).

Hey, taking public funds to clear the overhead for private enterprise is fleecing the public!!! It's the same whether Walmart gets to keep the state's % of the sales tax to pay for their building and grounds, or whether a sports franchise utilizes it to clear theirs. It's so sad there are some many dumber than dirt Americans that think paying the wealthy guy's overhead so a few people can work security, parking lot jobs and concessions is somehow a good thing.

If you want to be the boss you have to pay the cost. A place like LA, New York or San Francisco shouldn't pay for this corporate welfare but for cities trying to establish themselves and garner more publicity, it could be a sound investment. It's like MLPSBison's commentary on a city adding something non-essential like a bike trail. It's a luxury that draws people to cities and arguably raises their quality of life. It's like a bachelor paying for a car and nice clothes to attract a beautiful woman. You can say it's not fair he has to do that and that she isn't worth it but that's another thread discussion, that's just what you have to do to raise your status.

I'm not talking about raising taxes on the single mother already struggling to survive. We're talking about people who mostly will only spend a few days in a city if not a couple hours. If they get their panties in a wad over a relative few pennies added to their trip when they go to places and do stuff like hang out at bars, restaurants and the local tourist trap, then they shouldn't leave home in the first place. They can just cut back on the extra nic-nac things. I don't mind paying a little extra when I travel, it just means a little less tourist crap and spending a little less at a restaurant.

(11-07-2016 10:52 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 10:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Will San Diego vote for or against the Chargers getting a new stadium and staying there tomorrow? Just read on USA Today that the polls show its 45-55 against the locals paying for a new NFL stadium to keep the Chargers from moving to LA. With the NFL down this year in attendence and way down in television ratings this will be very interesting to watch...The greedy NFL owners days of having the tax payers pay everything for their stadiums instead of paying for it themselves may be numbered. Any thoughts?
Cheers!

Can you blame the voters for voting not paying for a new stadium.

No. I hope that vote against it.
Cheers!

The stadium vote will fail. Will the Chargers now move to LA, or figure out a way to rationalize staying in Qualcomm? Or move somewhere else?

(11-08-2016 10:10 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The stadium vote will fail. Will the Chargers now move to LA, or figure out a way to rationalize staying in Qualcomm? Or move somewhere else?

I believe they have no choice but to take deal in Los Angeles. Then the question becomes what do they do while they wait for the new stadium to be built in Inglewood. My guess is they will stay in Qualcom in 2017 and 2018, meaning the Rams will have a 3 year head start in the LA market.

It will take time, but the chargers will eventually build their own brand in LA. They will always be 2nd to the Rams, but 2nd place could still be worth $2.8 billion market value for the team.

(11-08-2016 11:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 10:10 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The stadium vote will fail. Will the Chargers now move to LA, or figure out a way to rationalize staying in Qualcomm? Or move somewhere else?

I believe they have no choice but to take deal in Los Angeles. Then the question becomes what do they do while they wait for the new stadium to be built in Inglewood. My guess is they will stay in Qualcom in 2017 and 2018, meaning the Rams will have a 3 year head start in the LA market.

It will take time, but the chargers will eventually build their own brand in LA. They will always be 2nd to the Rams, but 2nd place could still be worth $2.8 billion market value for the team.

That's betting a lot of money on the Come. In the mean time he's got to figure out how to pay the 1/2 billion dollar relocation fee on top of whatever else Kroenke is gonna charge him. He's going to have to leverage it which might make things pretty tight until he gets to that magical multi billion dollar valuation.

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing plays out with the Chargers staying in San Diego.

(11-08-2016 01:10 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If you want to be the boss you have to pay the cost. A place like LA, New York or San Francisco shouldn't pay for this corporate welfare but for cities trying to establish themselves and garner more publicity, it could be a sound investment. It's like MLPSBison's commentary on a city adding something non-essential like a bike trail. It's a luxury that draws people to cities and arguably raises their quality of life. It's like a bachelor paying for a car and nice clothes to attract a beautiful woman. You can say it's not fair he has to do that and that she isn't worth it but that's another thread discussion, that's just what you have to do to raise your status.

I'm not talking about raising taxes on the single mother already struggling to survive. We're talking about people who mostly will only spend a few days in a city if not a couple hours. If they get their panties in a wad over a relative few pennies added to their trip when they go to places and do stuff like hang out at bars, restaurants and the local tourist trap, then they shouldn't leave home in the first place. They can just cut back on the extra nic-nac things. I don't mind paying a little extra when I travel, it just means a little less tourist crap and spending a little less at a restaurant.

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.

(11-08-2016 12:17 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 11:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 10:10 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The stadium vote will fail. Will the Chargers now move to LA, or figure out a way to rationalize staying in Qualcomm? Or move somewhere else?

I believe they have no choice but to take deal in Los Angeles. Then the question becomes what do they do while they wait for the new stadium to be built in Inglewood. My guess is they will stay in Qualcom in 2017 and 2018, meaning the Rams will have a 3 year head start in the LA market.

It will take time, but the chargers will eventually build their own brand in LA. They will always be 2nd to the Rams, but 2nd place could still be worth $2.8 billion market value for the team.

That's betting a lot of money on the Come. In the mean time he's got to figure out how to pay the 1/2 billion dollar relocation fee on top of whatever else Kroenke is gonna charge him. He's going to have to leverage it which might make things pretty tight until he gets to that magical multi billion dollar valuation.

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing plays out with the Chargers staying in San Diego.

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.)