• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

It’s generally believed that if Roski builds the stadium, he will want at least part ownership of a team. Fabiani says that pro sports owners through the years have sold stakes in their teams for various reasons. “So an owner would probably never rule out such a possibility — but as I’ve said, the Chargers’ search remains focused in San Diego County.”

But Henderson says the Chargers are looking at local sites only because they will have to prove to the NFL that they gave San Diego every chance. Also, if the Chargers wait until after the 2010 season to announce they are leaving, they will only be obligated to pay $25.8 million of the remaining debt from the 1998 remodel of the stadium. If they make the announcement this season, it will be more than double that.

For Chargers fans, this may be holey depressing.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

Ponzi Sept. 27, 2009 @ 8:10 a.m.

If the Chargers play in the super bowl this year, watch how fast Fabiani files papers for a special election with Spanos footing the entire bill.

They know the time to strike is when the team is thought of in high esteem and the euphoria that bleeds over even into the masses that don’t follow football.

That could have some interesting effects on this whole controversy and possibly force San Diego to actually have to make the Chargers stadium a priority over other civic needs.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 27, 2009 @ 5:15 p.m.

Response to post #80: IF the Chargers actually want to stay in San Diego, your scenario is a likely one. But I don't believe the team really wants to stay. There are too many bucks in LA. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 27, 2009 @ 8:34 p.m.

The Chargers are only interested in one thing- their bottom line, the more you can make it go up, the more they like you.

So if we gave them a football palace courtesey of the taxpayers they would love us-or anyone that is stupid enough to give away the store to them.....like Golding did .....and whoever was Mayor when the Padres palace was built.

And Ponzi is correct, if the Chargers make the Superbowl-win or lose- they will file a petition to get a sales tax increase or whatever else it takes to raise their corporate welfare.

The Chargers got the Murph expanded AFTER they went to the SB in 95, and the Padres got their Palace after they went to the World Series in 98.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 27, 2009 @ 9 p.m.

Response to post #82: Golding gave away the store on both the Chargers stadium scam and the ballpark bait and switch. In return, Spanos and Moores backed her mercifully-short-lasting campaign for senator. The ballpark, which was delayed by several things including the Moores/Stallings investigation, was actually given the go-ahead by Murphy, after he had promised in his campaign that he would make sure it wouldn't harm the city financially. As soon as he got into office, he did exactly what he said would not do: he said the ballpark should proceed. He had gotten support from the U-T; it now seems clear that there was a deal: he would waffle on the deal during the campaign, then go ahead with it the minute he was elected. Best, Don Bauder

0

sandiego67 Sept. 9, 2009 @ 1:18 p.m.

Can someone explain how Roski could have possibly dodged the worst real estate depression in memory without his personal finances being severely impacted?

Does anyone really think he has the guts or the financial wherewithal to break ground on a $1 billion dollar LifeStyle Center anytime soon?

0

David Dodd Sept. 9, 2009 @ 1:40 p.m.

Roski's net worth has certainly declined in the past 18 months. However, this is relative - his money isn't ALL tied up in real estate. And yes, Roski has many friends with lots of money, he won't break ground alone. He has the guts and the resources, and he already owns the land. The stadium will be built. The only question is which team will play there.

0

Visduh Sept. 9, 2009 @ 2:14 p.m.

I'm amazed that the Chargers are on the hook for any debt left over from that remodel. As I remember, they positioned that work as not being for them, but to entice the NFL to consider the place for more Super Bowls. Of course, that gave the Chargers more seats and boxes to sell, although they aren't doing so well with either.

Yet the local fans aren't happy when the stadium fails to sell out, and those who hoped to see the game on TV cannot. Seems that nobody is really happy with the current situation. But the die-hard Bolts fans will be most miserable when "their" team leaves here. When the Chargers leave, those fans will live lives in shades of gray.

Right now, no city in California can afford to build a stadium, regardless of borrowing authority. When that will ever improve is not clear. But somehow, some way, someone will get one built and "they (Chargers) will come."

0

marko Sept. 9, 2009 @ 2:36 p.m.

seriously, how dumb can you be? what if the city approved it in 1995? or in 2000? or in 2004? you can't tie this to today's environment.

let them build a new stadium, anyone that has been at the Q knows it sucks!

0

marko Sept. 9, 2009 @ 2:39 p.m.

why doesn't the city of san diego, go bid on the next summer Olympics available, and get the super bowl played here again, and get a Laker game played outside (Blackhawks played outside in Chicago last winter)...all at the new stadium!

why can you people be smarter and think of all these POSITIVE things?

0

PistolPete Sept. 9, 2009 @ 2:26 p.m.

The Chargeless have two options-1)They actually win the Super Bowl or 2)build a stadium somewhere in bumblef*** back county. I've seen thousands of homes built in the 4 years I've lived here. Tell me some of that land found for those houses can't be used for a billion dollar Super Stadium for the Sandy Eggo Super Chokers......

0

Blueliner Sept. 9, 2009 @ 4:41 p.m.

I think one of the things that doesn't get mentioned enough is the impact that hosting Super Bowls will have on the city. If I can recall correctly, the NFL said that San Diego wouldn't even be considered until it got a new stadium, and that was said after the renovations to Qualcomm. Being haw favorable a place San Diego is to play, it would be safe to assume that they would be awarded, with one at least every 5 years or so. It seems that there's a lot of focus on the Chargers part of the stadium and not taking a hard enough look at the big picture.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2009 @ 8:58 p.m.

Response to post #1: Roski could conceivably get help from the NFL. He's supposedly a billionaire. He might put some of his bucks on the line. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2009 @ 8:59 p.m.

Response to post #2: If he goes ahead, the team occupying the City of Industry stadium will probably be an existing team -- not an expansion one. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2009 @ 9:06 p.m.

Response to post #3: I have been writing for years -- perhaps a decade -- that the Chargers want out of San Diego. They can't make the kind of money they want from luxury suites, club seats, ad and sponsorship deals in San Diego. They would dearly love L.A. There are roadblocks, to be sure. One is the economic situation. Another is the NFL's hesitancy to face antitrust legislation. But don't be surprised if the L.A. move becomes a reality some day. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2009 @ 9:08 p.m.

Response to post #4: I haven't heard much talk about a stadium in the backcountry. Possible, but extremely doubtful. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2009 @ 9:11 p.m.

Response to post #5: Why can stadiums for large universities, such as the University of Michigan, last for a century (with improvements, of course), but a pro team has to have a new one every few years? They're only used 10 times a year for pro games. The San Diego climate is perfect; the Q doesn't have to be domed. The Q "sucks" in relation to what? Other subsidized pro palaces? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2009 @ 9:14 p.m.

Response to post #6: Why can't the City think of important things? Like streets, sewers, water, schools, library branches. That's what politicians are paid to provide -- or SHOULD be paid to provide. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2009 @ 9:16 p.m.

Response to post #7: Trouble is, the Super Bowl is a scam. The NFL claims it generates $250 million or so for a host city. Reputable economists say it's more like one-tenth that. One says that a city actually loses on a Super Bowl because of extra police, etc. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 9, 2009 @ 10:53 p.m.

“New stadiums generate revenue for teams that is unshared by the rest of the teams in the NFL,” says Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani. The new stadiums bring luxury and club seat sales, advertising rights, and sponsorship income that a team can keep for itself.

As if luxury suites are the silver bullet to making money, this is a completely fabricated scam to force taxpayers to build new palces fro the billionaire NFL owners.

The NFL ALLOWS the owners to KEEP the imcome from luxury suites-but they could change that to allow the teams to keep income in any number of ways-the NFL doesn't need to limit income to owners from just luxury suites.

The reason they allow the owners to keep income from the luxury suites is to con the taxpayers into building new palaces with these luxuries built into them-at taxpayers expense.

There is NO law against allowing NFL owners to split the stadium income pie ANYWAY they want to. The only reason the NFL limits it to luxury suites is to use it as a fabricated bargaining chip to demand upgraded/new stadiums.

It is all a big scam-and the part that pi$$es me off the most is that these NFL owners are for the most part BILLIONAIRES, ripping off the little guy making $40K per year.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 9, 2009 @ 11:02 p.m.

The Chargers will not be moving within the enxt 5-10 years-because that is hwo long our economy is going to be in the gutter.

The Chargers could get a new stadium right now in San Diego-they would just have to pay for it themselves.

And they could.

The Chargers could borrow the $500 million to build their new palace from the NFL and builf a new stadium next to Jack Murphy, just like the Broncos did when they built their new stadium.

The fact is Jack Murphy is one of the best places to play football in America, and the Chargers and NFL know that-or they would not have renovated in 1998 and signed a long term (supposedly) lease.

0

Brian_T_Peterson_DVM Sept. 10, 2009 @ 8:08 a.m.

The City of Industry is notorious among redevelopment abuse activists. It is the only city wherein it is all a redevelopment project area. This means that all property tax collected there is tax increment. 67% of it may stay in Industry to promote more development. This is how they will finance a stadium for the Chargers. Currently, lobbyists for Industry in Sacramento are trying to promote legislation to extend the lifespan of their “redevelopment project,” specifically to finance the stadium for the Chargers, and in exchange for giving a cut of the tax increment back to the state. The Chargers will be going there sooner, rather than later. For you die-hard Chargers fans, it’s still driving distance.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2009 @ 8:16 a.m.

Response to post #15: Agreed. It is a scam perpetrated by the National Football League. There are other ways this league blackmails taxpayers into subsidizing billionaire team owners. Hanging the possibility of Super Bowl host is another. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2009 @ 8:21 a.m.

Response to post #167: Good point. When the stadium was converted to football-only in the late 1990s, the ability to host the Super Bowl was one of the reasons given the public. But only a few years later, the head of the NFL was saying that there would be no more Super Bowls in San Diego unless a new stadium were built. It was blatant blackmail -- something the NFL specializes in. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2009 @ 8:24 a.m.

Response to post #17: Yes, Industry (sometimes called City of Industry) is a scam itself. Best, Don Bauder

0

SanDiegoParrothead Sept. 10, 2009 @ 12:49 p.m.

Marko - Is that you Fabiani ??? It certainly smells like you.


Blueliner - Use your head !!!!

Of course the NFL says no more SuperBowls. THey're in partneship with the Chargers. NFL insiders love coming to San Diego for the SB - predictable nice weather for Feb, lots of golf courses, etc. The NFL is trying to extort a new stadium for one of its members - from us.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2009 @ 2:39 p.m.

Response t post #21: The NFL is clearly trying extortion to get a new stadium for the Chargers. But where will that stadium be located? Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 10, 2009 @ 4:13 p.m.

Response to #22: 23.5 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

0

wammer Sept. 10, 2009 @ 6:02 p.m.

In regards to the Chargers making a move to the Los Angeles area, it seems everyone is ignoring one huge element in the equation for that to happen. That element would be the NFL franchise fee that a new team in LA would generate. The last team to pay the fee was the Houston Texans. They paid 700 million for the rights inn 2002. LA would generate a least 900 million given that it would be in the 2nd largest market in the country. I can't see the NFL allowing an existing team to move into that region and take that much money off the table. Remember, these are people who are experts in getting free money (subsidies)out of suckers. The move just doesn't make financial sense. I have always felt the Chargers were using the LA relocation as leverage to see if the existing San Diego City Councel members were bigger rubes than in previous years.

0

David Dodd Sept. 10, 2009 @ 6:13 p.m.

wammer: Your point would make sense except adding only ONE expansion franchise would leave the league entirely unbalanced. Not taking advantage of the untapped revenue in Los Angeles wouldn't be worth waiting many years (perhaps a decade?) for the league to expand in a balanced manner.

0

gardenparty Sept. 10, 2009 @ 7:55 p.m.

There will be no expansion team, in L.A. or any place else. During the NFL owners spring meeting, several owners and teams polled about expansion had a simple response. The answer was "no." There is no sentiment to expand. Owners scratch their heads when asked if they can even think of a fellow owner who embraces the idea of expansion to accommodate the Los Angeles market. "Expansion does not make sense for the NFL at this juncture," Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said. "We don't improve anything by expanding. We water it down." Colts general manager Bill Polian, a member of the competition committee, worries about the quality of the product by adding more teams. He said it's not as simple as finding 53 players for an expansion team. Teams need eight-man practice squads. Teams build up injury lists. Most teams go under the assumption that they have to have 64 players to get through a season. "There are not enough football players now," Polian said. "To take 64 players out of the current pool would make it even tougher.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2009 @ 9:06 p.m.

Response to post #23: Very possibly. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2009 @ 9:08 p.m.

Response to post #24: The NFL has been saying the owners don't want an expansion team. But they get a lot of money out of one. And their sole motivation is greed. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2009 @ 9:11 p.m.

Response to post #25: Teams can always be moved around from division to division or conference to conference to achieve balance. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2009 @ 9:12 p.m.

Response to post #26: When there is a showdown between sentiment and greed, the latter will win. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 10, 2009 @ 9:15 p.m.

gardenparty: The NFL will expand eventually, just not for a decade or perhaps more. Los Angeles can support two teams, (one being the Chargers, of course), Chicago has a large enough market for another team, and other cities such as San Antonio and Oklahoma City are viable NFL sites. Will the talent pool be watered down? Perhaps. But people will watch the games, regardless.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 10, 2009 @ 10 p.m.

In regards to the Chargers making a move to the Los Angeles area, it seems everyone is ignoring one huge element in the equation for that to happen. That element would be the NFL franchise fee that a new team in LA would generate. The last team to pay the fee was the Houston Texans. They paid 700 million for the rights inn 2002. LA would generate a least 900 million given that it would be in the 2nd largest market in the country. I can't see the NFL allowing an existing team to move into that region and take that much money off the table.

NO ONE is going to pay anything near $900 million for an NFL "franchising fee", in fact there is probably not a single person in America that could even afford to pay such a fee.

I have not looked into what Houston paid, but I will. I will be shocked if it is anythign enar the $700 million you have quaoted.

0

whyigotahaveid Sept. 10, 2009 @ 10:08 p.m.

it seems like yesterday that the TROLLY line was built to accomadate the dam stadium. why is san diego always A DAY LATE & A DOLLER SHORT ?

0

gardenparty Sept. 10, 2009 @ 11:13 p.m.

surfpuppy, It was indeed 700 million. Combine that with the cost of their stadium , which was about 350 million, and you have the first billion dollar franchise in pro sports. BTW, everything I've read in the couple of years or so points towards a franchise fee of 1 billion plus for the next franchise. Throw in 800 million for a new stadium and that's why there will be no expansion team in LA, or in the NFL in general, for a long, long time. And yes gringo, you and I have agreed to diagree previously.

0

David Dodd Sept. 10, 2009 @ 11:45 p.m.

gardenparty, economics change everything. Even the NFL has backed off a bit on its policy about not televising games that aren't sold out. Within a few years, you're going to see the number of games increase from 16 to maybe 17 or probably 18. I think that when the NFL expands it will be either two or more likely four more teams. One more in Los Angeles to share the stadium with the Chargers (similar to how the Jets and Giants work), another in Chicago in a new stadium, and two new cities. Obviously, this won't happen for at least a decade, but eventually I think it will.

The only team other than the Chargers that could move in the next few years is Jacksonville.

Anyway, the franchise fees might even be lowered, if it helps the NFL to gain revenue in the long run. I agree with you, it won't happen anytime too soon, but eventually, it will happen.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 8:14 a.m.

Response to post #31: Will the public respond? This year, the NFL is hardly sizzling. Note the blackouts, attendance. Of course, this is a deep recession marked by a sharp reduction in consumer discretionary purchases. But could the NFL be peaking? I doubt it, but you never know. Best, Don bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 8:20 a.m.

Response to post #32: I think you will find that the $700 million is in the ballpark. It would be easy to check. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 8:22 a.m.

Response to post #33: Make it two days late and several dollars short. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 8:23 a.m.

Response to post #34: Remember, a billion dollars isn't the big sum that it used to be. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 8:25 a.m.

Response to post #35: Expansion is certainly possible, if not probable, in the next several years, unless the economic megrims continue -- and that's possible. Best, Don Bauder

0

gardenparty Sept. 11, 2009 @ 12:03 p.m.

Gringo, We both agree that an expansion franchise is not going to come Roski's way. ( There have been only 4 true expansion teams in the 39 years since the merger. The other 2 came about only because of the relocation of existing teams). Roski has said he wants ownership of the team and and has private money. It can't be all his because he doesn't have it. You have said "Roski has many friends with lots of money, he won't break ground alone. He has the guts and the resources, and he already owns the land". So where is it? Who are his "friends" Why hasn't he put it on the table, so to speak. The last serious effort to bring football back to L.A. was Michael Ovitz and Eli Broad when they were competing for the franchise that eventually went to Houston. The NFL wanted back in L.A. even then. They had all the players and the money out there for all to see (Ron Burkle, Magic Johnson, Jerry West, Tom Cruise, Kevin Costner to name a few). So why doesn't Roski, if he indeed does have it? Roski is on record as stating he wants ownership, so which franchises might be for sale? I have read that the Spanos family have said no to any possible sale or partial sale of the Chargers. Have you read something different or have you read anything from Roski altering his stance on ownership being a must? I haven't. Then of course there are Roski's boasts that he will get 2 teams for his stadium, playing in the Rose Bowl and Coliseum until his stadium is ready in 2011-2013(????): "They'll play in the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl for two years while we're under contruction,'' Roski envisions, "and we plan to open by 2013." And play host to a Super Bowl in Los Angeles in 2016. If Roski had his cards on the table as the others have had in the past, I might be more inclined to believe him. But thus far, all anyone has is Roski's own words that he can pull it off.I need something a little more substancial than that.

0

gardenparty Sept. 11, 2009 @ 12:08 p.m.

You know what Everett Dirksen said: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money”.

0

gardenparty Sept. 11, 2009 @ 1:48 p.m.

Gringo, Yeah I already saw this. This is just a bill easing the environmental and planning regulations for his project and has yet to be endorsed by the Governor, although he is on record supporting the NFL's return to L.A. Broad/Ovitz et al also had the support of the Governor's office during their effort. The friends I'm talking about, which I'm sure you're aware, are the "many friends with lots of money" that you refered to. So again I ask who are they? I'm not saying you know, what I'm saying is Roski hasn't said who they are and how much they are throwing in. How much is private investment and how much is going to be borrowed and does he actually have financing lined up. At least when the afore mentioned group made their bid, people knew who the investors were; they knew that for the franchise fee, Ovitz had $200 million in equity (his own cash and that of his partners), a $100 million loan from B of A and a promissory note promissory note for $200 million for the balance once he was awarded a franchise. For the stadium, they had a $400 million line of credit at B of A, about $200 million in committed public money and another $150 million the NFL was going to kick in. And it wasn't enough for the NFL. They didn't have enough up front money. Roski was involved in that attempt also, by the way. And the point man for the commissioner's office was non other than then NFL Executive Vice President Roger Goodell. To use the new buzzword, I'd just like to see a little "transparency" in his "plan before I actually believe it is a reality.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 2:12 p.m.

Response to post #41: You say that Roski's money "can't be all his because he doesn't have it." He is generally considered a billionaire. But even if he is not, money may be available. Read "Interference" by Dan E. Moldea for information on where the owners' money comes from.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 2:14 p.m.

Response to post #42: Ev Dirksen knew how to pile up money in his day. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 2:15 p.m.

Response to post #43: Roski has clout. Bucks. Chutzpah. That's what it takes. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 11, 2009 @ 2:18 p.m.

gardenparty: A good while back I remember reading a pair of articles about Roski's friends, if I can remember where I found it I'll pass it along. They could be some of the same people that partnered with him to build Staples Center, but I can't be sure. The point about the legislation is that it's a significant step in the process. When I lived in Los Sangeles there were various attempts at gaining support for a new stadium, but none have ever come this far.

Assuming that the stadium is a go, and assuming that the Chargers commit, even if the Spanos' don't sell a chunk of their team to Roski, it's still in Roski's favor to build the stadium. Eventually, it will house two teams, and Roski will by then have plenty of financial leverage to buy a stake in the second team.

Obviously, neither of us will know for sure until (or if) this happens.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 2:18 p.m.

Response to post #44: You are not going to see transactional transparency in the National Football League. Forget about it. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 11, 2009 @ 4:24 p.m.

You are not going to see transactional transparency in the National Football League. Forget about it. Best, Don Bauder

By dbauder

If the public ever saw the NFL's cash flows they would be making the NFL pay for fans to attend the games.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 11, 2009 @ 4:27 p.m.

Roski has clout. Bucks. Chutzpah.....

By dbauder

Don't leave out "pipe dream", because that is all that will come of his City of Industry stadium fantasys.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 5:20 p.m.

Response to post #50: Operating an NFL team is a route to riches. And remember, too, that the owners have inside information when they gamble on games. And they do. See the book, "Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football," by Dan E. Moldea. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2009 @ 5:22 p.m.

Response to post #51: It's my understanding that he may have to do an EIR. He was trying to escape that requirement. If this is true, it would delay the stadium by another two years. A possible 2011 strike would also delay it. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 11, 2009 @ 10:28 p.m.

It's my understanding that he may have to do an EIR. He was trying to escape that requirement....

By dbauder

==================

Well, this settles it-Roski is SERIOUSLY connected....but with a project this big, CA regulations being the toughest in the Union and environmentalists who can go to the mat with deep pockets anyday of the week-his slimy butt won't wiggle out of this one;

Action on NFL stadium project waiver delayed September 11, 2009

Facing stiff resistance from environmentalists, state Senate leaders today sidelined plans to grease the skids for construction of a professional football stadium in the city of Industry that was being fast-tracked through the Legislature.

A day after the measure, ABX3 81, passed the Assembly, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said he wants to try, in the coming weeks, to mediate an agreement that addresses the environmental impact of the 75,000-seat stadium proposed by billionaire Ed Roski.

The legislation would have exempted the stadium project from environmental laws that are the basis of a pending lawsuit by the city of Walnut.

"Because I see the obvious merit in the proposed stadium development in the city of Industry — the creation of up to 18,000 jobs, the economic development for the area, and the tax revenue for the local and state governments — I am willing to use the full force of my office to commence negotiations in an attempt to settle the litigation in this matter," Steinberg wrote.

If negotiations fail, Steinberg said, he will allow the bill to be heard in a special legislative session before the end of this month.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/action-on-nfl-stadium-project-waiver-delayed.html

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2009 @ 7:22 a.m.

Response to post #54: It looks like this one will be back. This appears to be a temporary setback. LA legislators want to see that stadium built, and to hell with environmental laws. Best, Don Bauder

0

xing_xing Sept. 14, 2009 @ 11:13 a.m.

Response to post #3: Yes, the changes to the Stadium were supposed to be good enough to continue getting Super Bowls. And when Pete Rozelle was commissioner, it was good enough: he seemed so happy he looked like a kid in a candy store with the first one SD hosted. But then the NFL bait-and-switch began when Tagliabue came along: in contrast to Rozelle, he looked he'd just eaten a turd sandwich when he bagged on the stadium (during Super Bowl week), promising San Diego we'd never get Super Bowl without a new stadium.

So, anyone who thinks another dime of San Diego public money should go to support billionaire owners and the NFL is a fool. I will wave bye-bye when the Chargers pull up stakes for LA in a year or two - it will be sweet. Maybe the city can start using the savings to fix a road or two..

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 14, 2009 @ 12:05 p.m.

But then the NFL bait-and-switch began when Tagliabue came along: in contrast to Rozelle, he looked he'd just eaten a turd sandwich when he bagged on the stadium (during Super Bowl week), promising San Diego we'd never get Super Bowl without a new stadium.

It is all a scam.

Jack Murphy is a fantastic stadium, and could host ANY Superbowl with superior results.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 14, 2009 @ 12:27 p.m.

Response to post #56: Remember, Rozelle lived in Rancho Santa Fe, although I don't know that he did during the period you refer to. Yes, Tagliabue's statement during Super Bowl week was blatant extortion. And yes, you are right: not another dime should go into subsidizing billionaire sports owners -- even for infrastructure. It's a con game and San Diego, like most other cities, has been conned. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 14, 2009 @ 12:30 p.m.

Response to post #57: The NFL's Super Bowl come-on -- build a stadium with taxpayer money and we will send you the Super Bowl -- is a blatant scam. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 14, 2009 @ 4:58 p.m.

Remember, Rozelle lived in Rancho Santa Fe, although I don't know that he did during the period you refer to.

Rozelle did own the home at the time of the first San Diego Super Bowl -1988?- the question of whether he "lived" there is open to debate-but I always assumed it was a second/vacation home.

0

whyigotahaveid Sept. 14, 2009 @ 8:06 p.m.

im sorry but ..... CHARGERS SUCK !!! somebody please come get these losers from MY city. just like a bad marriage , sometimes it aint gonna work and you gotta just let go.

0

PistolPete Sept. 14, 2009 @ 8:22 p.m.

Chargeless are getting OWNED just like I've been saying the past three weeks.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 14, 2009 @ 9:07 p.m.

Response to post #60: It would be difficult to commute from RSF to NY. I think he lived in RSF full time after his retirement. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 14, 2009 @ 9:08 p.m.

Response to post #61: Suck in what respect? On the field or in its financial manipulations? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 14, 2009 @ 9:10 p.m.

Response to post #62: You must refer to tonight's game. It's only halftime. Best, Don Bauder

0

PistolPete Sept. 14, 2009 @ 9:36 p.m.

Whether or not the Chargeless win,it doesn't matter. The Chargeless got OWNED by their bi**hes on national TV. Chargeless fans can no longer pound their chests when it comes to the Raiders.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 15, 2009 @ 7:35 a.m.

Response to post #66: Sportswriters seem to agree that the Chargers didn't look good in their opening win. Best, Don Bauder

0

Josh Board Sept. 15, 2009 @ 10:28 a.m.

Raiders got robbed on a TD that should've counted.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 15, 2009 @ 11:39 a.m.

Response to post #68: Agreed. The receiver got both feet down when he had control of the ball. He didn't seem to be dropping it as he went down. The ball bounced out when he hit the ground. I must admit, though, that there may be a rule that I am not aware of. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 15, 2009 @ 5:08 p.m.

This just in!!! NFL To Move All 32 Teams To Los Angeles

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/429...

By gardenparty

hahahahaa.....there is a movie by these guys called;

"The Onion Movie".

It is on the G4 network on cable TV every few weeks and it is just hilarious. All satire on the news. Funniest thing I have seen on some time;

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0392878/

0

Don Bauder Sept. 15, 2009 @ 5:47 p.m.

Response to post #70: Hilarious. The City of Angels finally deserves its moniker. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 15, 2009 @ 5:49 p.m.

Response to post #71: The political scene is so insane that satire isn't needed anymore. Best, Don Bauder

0

Josh Board Sept. 16, 2009 @ 1:59 a.m.

The funny thing is...EVEN THE ANNOUNCERS weren't familiar with the recent rule change, that took that TD away from the Raiders.

Response to beat: The Raiders owned the Chargers, just as the Bills owned the Pats the game before. It's unfortunate for both teams, that the scoreboard said otherwise.

0

David Dodd Sept. 16, 2009 @ 2:45 a.m.

Page 6. Rule 3. Section 2. Article 7. Note 1:

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."

The refs overruled properly. Case closed. But if the Chargers play the Ravens like they played the Raiders, they're going to get beaten.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 16, 2009 @ 6:15 a.m.

Response to post #74: I listened to the announcers. When they were wrong, I was wrong. Normally when I watch a game, I turn off the sound and have music playing. For some reason I listened to the sound this time, and got bad information. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 16, 2009 @ 6:17 a.m.

Response to post #75: I didn't know about this rule. Neither did the announcers. I agree: the Chargers didn't look good. Maybe they have been reading their own press clippings too much. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 22, 2009 @ 10:36 p.m.

The refs overruled properly. Case closed. But if the Chargers play the Ravens like they played the Raiders, they're going to get beaten.

By refriedgringo

Well, looks like you called that one right!!!!

0

Don Bauder Sept. 23, 2009 @ 6:25 a.m.

Response to post #78: I'll be durned: somebody got something right on this blog and got recognized for the achievement! Thanks, SurfPuppy. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment