• Scam Diego alerts

The Los Angeles Times has been reporting this week that the Chargers may be closer to a move to that area. First, the newspaper reported that the team has hired a sports promotion group to expand the team's marketing in the area. The newspaper pointed to real estate developer Ed Roski's proposal to build a stadium in the City of Industry. Roski could get the National Football League's go-ahead to approach a team this spring. He wants to own one. The Times says that one complication is that Roski owns a Vegas casino he would have to shed. That is a joke; from its earliest days, the NFL has been snug with the gambling profession. Cross-ownership, if concealed, is not a problem, and that's true of other pro sports as well. Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani came closer than he ever has to stating the Chargers are ready to leave: "We're definitely a lot closer to the end of this process than the beginning," Fabiani told the Times, claiming that the team had spent $10 million trying to find a San Diego location. "This is not a process that can go on forever." The Chargers have said they have been looking at Chula Vista. But that city is dead broke. The team also looked at Oceanside. It's not in great shape. Earlier in the decade, the Chargers slapped together a silly plan for Mission Valley that was laughable, points out former councilmember Bruce Henderson. "The Chargers may have spent $10 million paying Fabiani," says Henderson. "That pales by comparison with what they have extracted from the City -- $34 million from the seat guarantee and a $90 million reduction in rent until 2020." Under the contract wangled earlier, the team has a three-month window beginning Sunday to announce it has a new home. It reopens every year; the team has to pay a lease termination fee that decreases over the years.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

JohnnyVegas Jan. 27, 2009 @ 4:23 p.m.

They can't move because there is no capital for the funding of a billion dollar football stadium- even in the good times it would require a major financing miracle.

Just a Spanos bluff to con more money out of San Diego. I hope the sheep here don't fall for another Spanos scam.

0

TheGunny Jan. 27, 2009 @ 5:05 p.m.

See ya Chargers, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Spanos has soaked this city for too much, and 'ol Golding was dumb enough to believe the hype.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2009 @ 6:27 p.m.

Response to post #1: Roski claims he has financing. Maybe he thinks he can finance it himself. Obviously, his assertion is questionable. Another possible roadblock: there could be a NFL strike or lockout in 2011. If the Chargers were to leave, I doubt that it would be announced until Roski's stadium was almost finished. The Tennessee Titans moved from Houston. Until the Nashville stadium was finished, they played in Memphis. Citizens of that city did not turn out while the team played there. The same would be true in San Diego. If the team announced its intention to leave in 2011 or 2012, fans would desert the team. Another alternative would be the Chargers playing in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum while awaiting Roski's purported stadium to be completed. But Pasadena doesn't want pro football and the Coliseum has a lot of problems. Would the Chargers ownership prefer LA? Of course. Can the team get there? Yes. But not for several years, in my judgment. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2009 @ 6:52 p.m.

Response to post #2: Was Golding dumb? Remember, both Spanos and Moores poured money into her short-lived campaign for the US Senate. In fact, the pension fund was first drained to finance the 1996 Republican convention, which was designed to showcase Golding for the run. She gave the Chargers and Padres hundreds of millions of San Diego taxpayers' dollars for her own self-aggrandizement, and set the City on its way to the financial brink through the pension maneuver. It wasn't her own money. Her actions were ethically reprehensible, but not an example of stupidity. She knew the City was getting fleeced. Best, Don Bauder

0

JohnnyVegas Jan. 27, 2009 @ 7:33 p.m.

You nailed Golding to the T.

She colluded with Spanos. He funded her political ambitions and she gave away the taxpayer store.

Im begining to think this is/has been going on at every level of government since time began.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 27, 2009 @ 9:56 p.m.

Response to post #5: You're BEGINNING to think this has been going on at every level of government since time began? Come on, Johnny, you are an astute observer of the world around you. You certainly must have come to this realization before. Best, Don Bauder

0

inactive Jan. 27, 2009 @ 10:15 p.m.

Don, A couple corrections to your post. The 2011 completion date was contingent upon groundbreaking during Q4 of 2008. The bond vote was fot the infrastructure improvements was last Tuesday and the approval for the EIR supplement was last Friday. Roski's top aide has also said he wants a deal in place for a team first, before he starts construction. Apparently the idea is to aquire the team and move them into the Colisium or the Rose Bowl right way Roski still has a few obstacles to conquer.Obviously, coming up wuth 800 million is one of them; he claims to have it but who knows.

Then there's the casino in Vegas that he will have to sell all interest in before the NFL will even vote on his ownership. Then there are the lawsuits that Diamond Bar and Walnut have said they are going to file to prevent the construction. At this point it will be at least the 2012 season before the stadium would be ready, but I'm guessing more like 2013 at the earliest. And the Chargers aren't the only game in town. The Vikings want a new stadium or they are threatening to leave. And of course the NFL's favorite owner, AL Davis is whining about a new stadium. I read an article an a SFO paper a couple ofweeks ago in which the idea was floated for the Raiders to move to Santa Clara and share the 49er's new stadium sometime after the 2012 season. Big al apparently said he'd move the Raiders again before he'd share a stadium, which seemed to suit Santa Clara just fine.Something about the "rowdy behavior of Raiders Nation".

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2009 @ 7:14 a.m.

Response to post #7: Roski does want a team first. I think 2013 would be about right -- that is, if this deal goes through at all. Roski is a big talker. The situation is fluid; Roski may want a team to play in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum, but that doesn't guarantee it would happen. As I have mentioned in several posts, there are other teams such as the Vikings wanting this deal. (The Vikes are having a tough time with Minnesota voters, who are intelligent.) Al Davis, the master extorter, has his hand out. What gets me is that society spends so much time and money finding ways to subsidize billionaire bandits. Best, Don Bauder

0

Bruce_Henderson Jan. 28, 2009 @ 8:23 a.m.

The key date for the Chargers is 2011. Under the contract giving a notice of termination currently costs the team approximately $54 million. In 2011 that cost drops to $25.8 million (Thank you, Dick Murphy and Casey Gwinn.).

The current signs are that the NFL owners have already given the green light to the Chargers to make the move to LA with the timing left to the Chargers.

All of the bargaining by the Chargers with various folks in LA and with the NFL owners can be done in secret because the contract with San Diego has no requirement that the Chargers disclose to the City any negotiations or signed agreements to move the team. (Thank you, againk, Dick Murphy and Casey Gwinn.)

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2009 @ 8:56 a.m.

Response to post #9: Excellent points. The City under Murphy and Gwinn gave away the store to get rid of the seat guarantee, which only had a short time to run. I suspect you are right that the NFL has already given the green light to the Chargers to go to LA. To achieve that permission, the Chargers had to show the owners that the team was trying to get something done in San Diego County. Ergo, the silly so-called negotiations with Chula Vista and Oceanside, and the slapdash plan to do something in Mission Valley. But in giving the Chargers the nod, the owners are setting themselves up for trouble: a team will be deserting a city that is broke. As a market, San Diego is a good location for a team -- good, but not great like LA. For public relations/political reasons, the league put an expansion franchise in Cleveland after the Browns left. Cleveland was already a dying city, and no longer a good market for a team. So what happens when the league deserts a financially broke city that can't dole out a massive subsidy? The scam is exposed. There are other such cities: Oakland, e.g. Best, Don Bauder

0

valueinvestingisdead Jan. 28, 2009 @ 12:03 p.m.

Reply to #10 - How can you say Cleveland is a bad location for a team when they sell out every game?

0

JohnnyVegas Jan. 28, 2009 @ 12:51 p.m.

How can you say Cleveland is a bad location for a team when they sell out every game?

By valueinvestingisdead

Good call.

Im surprised they sell out too, they are #1in the NFL for attendance it appears (I bet Dallas will be #1 next year with their new stadium);

Support factors (NFL medians in parentheses) Overall support rank of 32 teams: 1 Average attendance: 72,868 (63,808) Percent of capacity: 99.8% (94.7%) Attendance fluctuation: 0.8 points (12.7 points) Difficulty factors (NFL medians in parentheses) Overall difficulty rank of 32 teams: 1 Winning percentage: .321 (.500) Market population: 4.7 million (4.5 million) Per capita income: $30,998 ($33,635) December high temperature: 38 degrees (52 degrees)

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/slideshow/13.html

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2009 @ 12:56 p.m.

Response to post #12: Because there is more to the economics of pro sports than attendance. There is the TV market, the sales of sport-related items, etc. Best, Don Bauder

0

inactive Jan. 28, 2009 @ 12:57 p.m.

10, Cleveland may have been a dying city but not as far as the Browns were concerned. My aunt & uncle, on my mothers side lived just outside Cleveland. As a kid, we made many trips back there in the fall before it got tooooo cold. My aunt and uncle were season ticket holders for many years, until my uncle passed away a few years ago. I have been there and I will tell you the Cleveland fans have always been rabid for the Browns. No matter how bad the team, no matter how bad the weather, they show up, unlike the sometimes fairweather fans out here in SD. The NFL was against the Browns leaving, but they didn't want a long drawn out court battle, probably because they usually lost.So they made a deal with the city of Cleveland and Art Modell, giving Cleveland a new Brown's team, along with the team's history and Modell could take his team to Baltimore and rename it.

And by the way, if you compare attendance figures, I believe you'll find more fans show up to watch the Brown's than do for the Chargers. No reason to bag on Cleveland. As a San Diego native, I hate to say it but they are more supportive of their team than San Diego is.

0

inactive Jan. 28, 2009 @ 12:59 p.m.

looks like johnnyvegas has taken to cut and paste.

0

inactive Jan. 28, 2009 @ 1:10 p.m.

AND actually jv, Cleveland is not number 1 in attendance; that would be Washington with an average attendance of 77,308 vs Clevelands 66,221. Read a little more carefully. What you were looking at was Overall fan support rankings averaged over 10 yrs(95-05), which Cleveland ranks #1. San Diego ranks # 26, by the way

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2009 @ 1:15 p.m.

Response to post #s 11 and 12: It looks like I'm wrong on this one, as an ex-Clevelander who perhaps views the city too cynically. You should have heard the owner (or front for the owners) Art Modell whine about Cleveland before he moved the team to Baltimore. The team played in an old stadium, although attendance was still good. But the market area was in decline, the industrial base was eroding alarmingly, the real estate industry was coming down, the fan base had a receding income level. After the NFL gave the city a new franchise, a new stadium was built with public funds. It's possible that the glow of that new stadium continues to affect the fan support. Note that per capita income is quite low by comparison with other markets. New subsidized facilities for the Indians and Cavaliers have also boosted fan support (for the Cavaliers, a player named LeBron James helps, too.) When I lived there (1966-1973), the pride of the city was the Cleveland Orchestra. It was then probably the best in the U.S. and one of the best in the world. It is still quite good, probably in top five, but is often playing to a half-filled house and is considering playing half its season in Miami. Cleveland real estate is a real disaster and the industrial base has completely collapsed. As time wears on, these factors, if they continue, will negatively affect the pro sports teams, although Ohio is a football-mad state. Best, Don Bauder

0

valueinvestingisdead Jan. 28, 2009 @ 2:38 p.m.

Reply to #13 - The Browns actually rank high in sports products sold (team gear etc). They are always in the top 5. Cleveland is a dying city but it's support for the Football team is incredibly high given how bad they have been. It is a great place to have a franchise.

0

JohnnyVegas Jan. 28, 2009 @ 6:19 p.m.

looks like johnnyvegas has taken to cut and paste.

By brianwilson

Yeah, I learned it from you Brian.

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2009 @ 7:03 p.m.

Responsive to post #14: I have already eaten humble pie on this one. I was wrong about Cleveland as a football town, even though I lived there seven years. (I went to 3/4 of 1 Browns game in 7 years in Cleveland and one Chargers game in 30 years in San Diego. But I watched both on TV.) I will say this, however: if I were still a Clevelander, I would not be proud that the fans support their team more rabidly than San Diegans support their team. That's hardly anything to be proud of. As I said, the Cleveland Orchestra, one of the finest in the world, is suffering grievously in attendance. Now THAT is something to be ashamed of. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2009 @ 7:06 p.m.

Response to post #16: San Diego had a lousy team for some of those years -- in fact, was fleecing the City through the seat guarantee. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2009 @ 7:08 p.m.

Response to post #18: Maybe that's a reason WHY it is a dying city. It only gives a damn for football. Best, Don Bauder

0

inactive Jan. 28, 2009 @ 7:17 p.m.

looks like johnnyvegas has taken to cut and paste.

By brianwilson

Yeah, I learned it from you Brian.

By JohnnyVegas 6:19 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it

I'm sure you did vegas. And with the lack of accuracy in your posts, it appears you still have much to learn.

0

JohnnyVegas Jan. 28, 2009 @ 9:28 p.m.

I'm sure you did vegas. And with the lack of accuracy in your posts, it appears you still have much to learn.

By brianwilson

Yes, it is so hard to google everything I write (like you do), and then point out small item that has no bearing on the issue (and of which you have no personal knoweldge-just google knowledge).

You go Brian, you are one smart cookie!

0

Don Bauder Jan. 28, 2009 @ 9:49 p.m.

Response to posts #23 and 24: Vituperation. That's what blogs are all about. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Jan. 29, 2009 @ 2:54 p.m.

NOTE; I just saw on Margo Schwab's website that Mark Fabiani and his family have joined the La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club. She suggests this may mean the Chargers are staying. I respect her opinion and inside sources, but I doubt that. The Chargers are only one of his clients. (I do think it likely that the Chargers won't leave before 2011, although anything can happen. They want to go to L.A., and the so-called efforts to stay in San Diego are just charades, but there are several roadblocks to L.A.) Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close