Blogs | Scam Diego
Fabiani Quote Suggests Chargers L.A. Move May Be Done Deal
By Don Bauder | Posted October 23, 2009, 10:52 a.m.
If another NFL team occupies a new stadium under consideration in City of Industry in the Los Angeles market, "It would be financially catastrophic for the Chargers," Mark Fabiani, the team's spokesman, told Gene Cubbison of KNSD-TV yesterday (Oct. 22). "We're in a bad financial situation now; we'd be in a much worse situation if there was a team in Los Angeles," Fabiani intoned. Of course, he was not telling the truth. The Chargers are not in a bad financial situation. They are making plenty of money at Qualcomm Stadium. It's just that they want to rake in more money. The Chargers deny it, but they want to occupy that City of Industry stadium, if it is ever built. The Chargers can never get the kind of money they want from luxury boxes, club seats, advertising, and sponsorships in San Diego. Teams get to keep such revenue -- not having to share it with other teams. Fabiani told Cubbison that the team gets 30% of such revenue from the L.A. market -- another dubious statement.
There are 17.1 million people in the L.A. market, compared with 3.1 million in San Diego. L.A. has many more companies and superrich families that would put bodies in the luxury boxes and seats. Fabiani's remark means that he is putting pressure on the league to let the Chargers move. Other teams, such as Jacksonville, Minnesota, and Oakland, covet L.A.
Fabiani's statement "makes the obvious obvious," says former Councilmember Bruce Henderson. "It's basically over with, although the team may not yet have made a deal with other owners." Other owners no doubt fear an uprising in San Diego, such as the one that mushroomed in Cleveland when the Browns left.
Why do the hard working taxpayers insist that this group of overpaid, non-winning losers stick around? If they want to go, let them go! In 50 years, the Chargeless have had only 2 successful seasons. 2!!!!!!!!!!!! And one of those was due to steroids.
By PistolPete 1:22 p.m., Nov 10, 2009 > Report it
Looks like the song and dance with the city of San Diego has commenced again: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/20...>
Watch this NFL season carefully.
By Ponzi 8:56 a.m., Nov 10, 2009 > Report it
As much as I'd like to see the Chargeless take one final s*** on their retarded bandwagon fans,it's been said that Mr.Roski wants full ownership of any team that moves to Industry. I've been telling my GF(Chargeless"die-hard"fan)that they're all but gone and that Escondido is just lipservice. She of course,denies that the Chargeless are moving. But That's a good question that needs to be answered. Is Spanos willing to sell the Los Angeles Chargeless to Mr.Roski? Is there going to be a backroom deal to share ownership of the most talented yet truly pathetic teams in NFL history? Will the Raiders finish the job they started? Will the Chargeless have to buttf*** their way into a wild-card spot? Enquiring minds want to know! :-D
Stay tuned boys and girls for the next episode of"When s***ty NFL teams move".
By PistolPete 11:13 a.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
i only have one thing to say as a San Diegon who's been watching them since the 70's
LET THEM GO
By nan 1:25 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
San Diego residents have no one to blame but themselves for this mess.
The Chargers saw the city -- which is in a severe financial bind -- lie prostrate for the Padres' outrageous stadium demands. They drew the obvious conclusion: Threats work.
When the Chargers cynically moved their training camp to Carson from U.C.S.D. in 2003, the city again went into a panic despite the obvious nature of the ploy. One of the smoggiest places in Southern California was never going to be a permanent venue for a serious NFL franchise.
Meanwhile there is no evidence that the City of Industry proposal will get any commercial financing, nor is it obvious how the Chargers plan to market their product in a city that failed to support two previous NFL teams and one AFL team -- the selfsame Los Angeles Chargers (a pass-happy team led by Sid Gillman in 1960).
One can argue that L.A. is just not a football town: Los Angeles's support for college teams has been lukewarm since the 1960s (Cal States Fullerton and CSU Long Beach finally dropped football altogether) and large crowds and souvenir marketing is generally limited to USC and UCLA.
Los Angeles politicians know that supporting football doesn't garner votes there, and even the City of Industry's mayor seems to be motivated by personal financial gain rather that vote-getting.
Let the Chargers depart the sixth-largest city in the United States. SD State could use Sundays to practice at The Q.
By ExDiegan 1:46 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
"We're in a bad financial situation now; we'd be in a much worse situation if there was a team in Los Angeles," Fabiani intoned
==========================
Mark's nose is once again growing at an exponential rate.
By SurfPuppy619 2:05 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
. Is Spanos willing to sell the Los Angeles Chargeless to Mr.Roski
====================
Spanos is NOT selling any portion of his team, and Roski is not building a stadium for someone else.
This is ALL a MOOT point though because Roski will NOT, mark my words, will NOT be able to secure funding for a football stadium, not for many many years. Capital markets are dry.
By SurfPuppy619 2:08 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Fabiani told Cubbison that the team gets 30% of such revenue from the L.A. market -- another dubious statement.
=====================
Another whopper of a lie.
I doubt it is even 5%, but 30% would be almost 1 out of every 3 fans-that statement is so perposterous on it's face that it draws everything this clown says into question-as it should.
By SurfPuppy619 2:12 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
I'm patiently waiting for the people who told me I was nuts when I predicted this move. SurfPuppy, gardenparty, and so on...
By refriedgringo 2:21 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
The nearly unthinkable has already happened--Roski got the legislature (which seldom can agree on anything) to pass a bill that exempts his staduim-in-the-mind from most envrionmentsl controls, and he got the "green" governator to sign it. That would have been regarded by many as nearly unthinkable a few weeks ago. He might just have some rich Arab ready to provide the funds. Stranger things have happened.
When will the Chargers stop this drumbeat of complaints and threats? Only when it doesn't pay. They will keep things stirred up as a means of diverting attention from their true profitability, and keep the ball on the opponent's side of the field (football analogy) for years if necessary.
I do think that LA would "support" a team if it had a decent facility. The Coliseum is really antiquated, and not something that private investors would want to try to refurbish and expand. But, no, the city isn't interested in subsidizing a team, unlike San Diego. Does that mean Los Angeles, once described as a "great slobbering civic idiot" is smarter than San Diego? Sure looks that way.
By Visduh 2:24 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
There's something else to pay attention to in the current and comming days: Fabiani is already having meetings with the City of San Diego, they're pitching two potential sites: One is downtown, west of Petco, and the other is farther north. Fabiani is going to be acting like the Chargers aren't finished exploring San Diego for a privately built stadium on City land, but it's a smokescreen. It is vital that the Chargers keep their fan base intact until they actually make the move to City of Industry.
By refriedgringo 2:33 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
I'm patiently waiting for the people who told me I was nuts when I predicted this move. SurfPuppy, gardenparty, and so on...
By refriedgringo
==============================
Yes, you are nuts-there, I said it again.
Read my post #5 Gringo-there will be NO stadium built in LA, they have no financing and will NOT get any financing.
This is not the go-go 80's, or the go-go sub prime lend to anyone with a pulse 2000's, this is today-and reality has set in to the capital markets.
By SurfPuppy619 2:51 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Roski already has investors put together. The City of Industry knows it (along with the surrounding cities), the City of Los Angeles knows it, the State of California knows it, and Dean Spanos knows it. I don't expect there to be a press release from the Chargers until after the season is over.
By refriedgringo 2:57 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
To #8: Have you ever seen the City of Industry?
There's no environment to ruin. Just freeway interchanges and the concrete-lined San Gabriel River.
Not exactly the Everglades.
By ExDiegan 3:08 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Hate to disagree with you on this one SP but refried is right. It may or may not be the Chargeless moving to CoI but they're getting a stadium. I seriously doubt the Jaguars are going to move there. Minnesota is in the process of building the 'Queens a new stadium,San Francisco ain't going anywhere,neither are the Raiders and I forget who the sixth team is. That leaves the Chargeless.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/22/ca-nfl-los-angeles-102209/?&zIndex=187239
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/23/lawmaker-guest-spanos-football-box/?metro&zIndex=187661
By PistolPete 3:13 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Actually, #12, it's the concrete-lined San Jose Creek near the stadium site, it runs east-west between the Southern Pacific and Northern Pacific rails. While you're essentially correct about the land, Environmental Impact Reports have a wider scope than the name implies. Visduh is correct about it being a big deal in getting a flyer from the State Governor. It speaks volumes of Roski's clout and proves he has investors ready.
By refriedgringo 3:18 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
The teams in contention are:Buffalo,St.Louis,Minnesota(Minneapolis),San Diego,Oakland,San Fransisco and Jacksonville. Buffalo,St.Louis and Jacksonville are all bottom of the league teams. Oakland has moved before but I see the old man dying before this place gets built. San Fransisco wouldn't screw their loyal fans like that. Minnesota(Minneapolis)is in the process of working out a deal to keep the 'Queens there. Again,that leaves the Chargeless.
By PistolPete 3:21 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
The 6th team is the Rams (Buffalo has also been mentioned but they aren't going anywhere). In order of most likely to move to Los Angeles first, Chargers, Rams, Jaguars, Raiders. In time, two teams might share that stadium. If that happens, then my guess would be Chargers and Rams.
By refriedgringo 3:21 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
A Chargeless/Lambs stadium would be interesting to see...
By PistolPete 3:23 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Another way to look at who might come to Los Angeles:
Conference Division alignment.
Chargers are AFC West, Rams are NFC West.
Forget about Buffalo and Jacksonville and Minnesota.
Chargers and Raiders won't share a stadium, not in the same division. San Francisco is looking at building a new stadium near San Jose.
By refriedgringo 3:26 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Hate to disagree with you on this one SP but refried is right. It may or may not be the Chargeless moving to CoI but they're getting a stadium.
By PistolPete
=====================
Money talks, BS walks.
I have C-note that says NO stdium breaks gound within the next 3 years-that would be until October 23, 2012.
Now, you want to put you money where your mouth is?
By SurfPuppy619 3:35 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Some of you here sip the kool aid too easily and forget that we are in the downturn of a lifetime, something none of us have ever witnessed first hand before.
And it is going to get worse before it gets better.
Hence no money, no stadium.
Someone mentioned middle east money.
The two wealthiest oil nations in the middle east, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are BOTH in the middle of an economic meltdown. They have their OWN construction projects at a stand still-including the tallest building in the world (UAE)-where construction has flat out stopped because of cash flow problems. No financing will be coming from the middle east.
By SurfPuppy619 3:43 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
SurfPuppy, a few points:
1. Yes, the economy tanked. However, it's debatable that it has probably hit bottom. The markets have been stable for a while, home prices seem to be stablizing as well. It's arguable, but let's presume that the economic indicators are actually somewhat correct. I realize that this doesn't mean that everything's rosy, but stable is better than crashing.
2. Money doesn't disappear. There is no black hole sucking it into nothingness, it's still out there. Granted, the value of that money is less than it was a couple of years ago, but it's there. The financing will not be an issue in Roski's circle.
3. Interest rates are LOW! They are going to have no choice than to go up at some point, once inflation hits (and it will, the money supply demands it will happen because the dollar will be worth less). If you're going to build a stadium, now is going to be a much better time than in ten or twenty years.
4. The NFL wants a team in Los Angeles and would love to see two. The potential revenue stream is too tempting for the NFL not to do everything in its power to see this happen. The Chargers will sell out every game - they'll take half of their current fan base with them (two hours is not much of a drive), and a new fan base will embrace them.
5. The St' Louis Rams are for sale, don't pay attention to any rumors that they aren't - and the new owners will move them to Los Angeles. Filling that stadium for sixteen Sundays out of the year, plus all preseason and any play-off games, not to mention other possibilities (like a soccer team, concerts, and so on), would be far too attractive to prohibit the move. The wheels are greased, and are about to go in motion.
By refriedgringo 4:08 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #1: The last I heard, Roski was talking about having at least part ownership of a team. (If he owned a team or part of one, he would have to sell his casinos in Vegas.) There is also talk that he might try to bring two teams to LA. They would share the new stadium, if it gets built. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:22 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #2: They certainly aren't going anywhere on the field -- although they often get off to slow starts. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:25 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #3: I don't think SD is sixth largest city anymore, and if it were, it wouldn't have relevance to this discussion. San Diego is the nation's 17th largest market. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:28 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #4: His nose can't get much longer than it is now. Even Pinocchio had limits. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:30 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #5: City of Industry plans to sell bonds. It could pull that off, depending on the amount. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:31 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #6: Yes, 30% sounds extremely high. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:33 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #7: I was saying the Chargers coveted LA about ten years ago, when I was a columnist for the U-T. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:34 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #8: Yes, LA won't subsidize a team. It stood up to corporate welfarists when Staples was being financed, and it worked. When owners find out that a city won't capitulate, they will finance it themselves. Most are better off financially than the cities in which they reside. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:38 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #9: I think the Chargers are going down two tracks. They want LA and Roski probably wants them. But if the NFL owners think it would be a bad legal and PR move, the Chargers want to have another location to take their tin cup. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:42 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #10: Don't be so sure Roski won't get financing. Bonds are one method. And he has connections. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:43 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #11: I can't imagine the team will make any moves until after the season is over. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:45 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #12: Good point: what's to be protected environmentally in City of Industry? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:47 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #13: The sixth team supposedly in the running is the St. Louis Rams. They moved from LA not that long ago, and they got an outrageous welfare deal. The NFL might be afraid to move that team now. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:50 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #14: This deal also speaks volumes on Schwarzenegger. He could have said that an EIR bypass was OK if no California teams were recruited to play in the stadium. He didn't do so. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:52 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #15: San Francisco is trying to get a subsidized stadium in Silicon Valley. It's probably using the Roski possibility as a threat. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:56 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #17: They are two different animals -- that's for sure. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:58 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #18: Why are you counting out Buffalo and Jacksonville? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #19: There is another factor here: the possibility of a strike in 2011. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:02 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #20: Remember, Roski is a casino owner in Vegas. Some of that dirty Vegas money could be used --maybe skimmed and/or laundered bucks. After all, mob and gambling money has financed the NFL, and other pro sports leagues, from the beginning. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:10 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
I too thought about the EIR being bypassed in favor of a Californian team. Afterall,politics and football go hand in hand together.
By PistolPete 5:14 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #21: You have inadvertently put your finger on the U.S.'s problem. Interest rates are ridiculously low, thanks to the Fed's hyper-easy monetary policy. Banks are borrowing money from the Fed for almost zero interest rates, but are not lending it out to worthy customers such as small business. The banks are gambling with it -- stocks, commodities, bonds -- knowing that if the gambles fail the damned fools in Washington will bail them out. Also, some of that money is going to non-productive and counter-productive speculation, such as leveraged buyouts, some of which are scams that should be illegal. Building a stadium fits into that category: a non-productive or counter-productive investment. These are reasons why Wall Street is feeding off Main Street's miseries. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:18 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Can't speak of J'ville, but the owner of the Buffalo Bills, Ralph Wilson has publicly stated that he will not sell the team nor will he move it. I can't find the link now, but quite awhile ago I read an interview where he stated that he has made arrangements for his estate to sell the Bills after his death. Best bet right now is they are sold to a consortium who will move them to Toronto, where they already have an agreement to play 8 games over a 5 year period.
By gardenparty 5:18 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
To #18:
Buffalo is in the AFC East. They have historic rivalries within their division. The NFL wants to keep those rivalries alive. Each team plays six games within its own division, home and away against the other three. The travel back and forth would increase expenses for all four teams in Buffalo's division, which isn't popular. Plus, as gardenparty pointed out, the owner doesn't want to move the team, even if it means more revenue (a rarity in the NFL owner's ranks).
Minnesota is in the NFC North, and there is no possible way that the NFL is going to break up the "Black and Blue" division. Plus, there is the extra travel, plus, I believe that Minnesota is close to getting a stadium deal in place (subsidized).
Jacksonville is a new enough franchise not to have an issue with a long time set of rivalries, but the travel issue would take them out of their division and the League/Conferences would have to move someone else into their spot in the division, a re-alignment. Owners hate being moved (Seattle, for example, did not appreciate moving into the NFC).
As you mentioned, San Francisco is probably going to get their stadium. That leaves the Chargers, the Rams, and the Raiders as the three candidates. Even though Roski is going up to meet with the Raiders in a week or two, I do not believe that he would seriously entertain doing business with Al Davis. Those who have, have regretted it.
By refriedgringo 5:40 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Out of the remaining six teams(I do believe gardenparty is correct),only two are talented enough to draw fans from the LA/SD market-The Chargeless and the 'Queens. The 'Queens,as stated earlier are in talks to keep them there. L.A. already stole their basketball team team. I don't see them stealing the football team as well. Maybe the Detroit Tabby Cats will be up to moving their miserable brand of football to the L.A. area...
Also,the ONLY reason that the Whale's Vagina is America's sixth largest city is because of the sheer size of the city limits and the size of the county. I live in Carmel Mountain. I'm a taxpayer and citizen of Sandy Eggo. That's not right. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with it per se,but it's just not right. I live about the same distance and drive time from CMR to SD as I did growing up in a Chicago suburb that was located one county north.
By PistolPete 5:40 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Pete: San Diego is the 8th largest city in the U.S., no longer 6th.
By refriedgringo 6:04 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Maybe the 'Queens aren't off the table yet afterall...
http://www.startribune.com/local/65697472.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiacyKUUs
By PistolPete 6:10 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Also, regarding Jacksonville: If Jacksonville isn't a viable location for the franchise, the city of San Antonio, Texas, has been looking for a franchise. The NFL likes it, too. San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the U.S., and the AFC South division would then be Tennessee, Indianapolis, Houston, and San Antonio, which makes it regionally even a better fit than it is at the moment.
By refriedgringo 6:11 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Thanks refried. It should actually be around #20 or so.
http://www.city-data.com/top1.html
By PistolPete 6:12 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
"A team does not have to necessarily come from a California city," he said. "It can come from somewhere else, or it could be a new team that is created."
Translation: We already have a good idea of the team(s) that are going to move to Los Angeles, but don't let your franchise miss out on using it as leverage to get your own stadium built!
The Vikings owners have pledged 1/4 billion dollars against a stadium costing about a billion. They are actively pressing the issue in Minneapolis. They have suggested gaming as a source of revenue in order for the city and State to come up with the revenue.
By refriedgringo 6:16 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #43: Buffalo is only the nation's 47th largest market. Among larger markets that don't have NFL teams, from smaller to larger, are Hartford, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Memphis, Milwaukee, Providence, Austin, Virginia Beach, Columbus (Ohio), Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sacramento, Portland (Oregon). Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:29 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #44: Roski and Al Davis: two peas in a pod. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:32 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #45: Yes, the fact that SD is the 8th largest city is meaningless in most contexts. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:34 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #46: Yes -- but again, mostly meaningless. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:36 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #47: Minnesota has held off for a long time against the welfare queen sports team owners. Best, Don bauder
By dbauder 6:37 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #48: San Antonio has been wooing the Chargers. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:39 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
I think the Chargers are going down two tracks. They want LA and Roski probably wants them. But if the NFL owners think it would be a bad legal and PR move, the Chargers want to have another location to take their tin cup. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder
=============================
Don, the Chargers need no ones permission to move to LA- the NFL's or anyone else. Al Davis proved that loud and clear in court 26 years ago.
If the Chargers want to move it is 100% the teams choice. Would Spanos tell the other owners to pound sand if the others didn't want them in LA??? Who knows, but the NFL told Al Davis he could not move to LA in 1981, Davis told the NFl to pound sand, sued them, won, collected a huge check and in addition a SuperBowl victory too (in 1983).
I say good riddens, that shyster Spanos is a slimeball who reneged on a fair and square deal (lets also thank the Padres for scamming Petco which put Spanos and a stadium in play in the first place).
By SurfPuppy619 6:47 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #49: Repeat: 17th largest market. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:48 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
OH BTW-who is going to wager $100 that no NFL stadium gets built before October 23, 2012??? I want some action on that!
Don, there is NO way the City of Industry can float a billion dollars in bonds-no one who has that KIND of cash flow for what would be a miniscule ROI with interest rates at close to zero.
The WS investment banks could underwrite the bond issue, but there would be no takers, not even the IB themselves would go for muni bonds when there are low ball prices up the wazoo on real etsate and other financial instruments that could have potential returns of 20% and more.
OK Dreamers, I'm done ranting. Chargers are going no where for the next 5 years, you can take that to the bank- and tell them SurfPuppy619 sent you.
By SurfPuppy619 6:53 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
SurfPuppy, this stadium will pretty much be privately financed. As to your date, I couldn't say, and I have no idea where you're comming up with it. It would be in the best interest of the Roski clan to get it going as soon as possible. These guys aren't idiots, they know that now is the best time to do this.
The ROI with two NFL teams using the stadium would be a great return in this economy.
By refriedgringo 7 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
#54
even more meaningless, # 9 actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
By gardenparty 7:21 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Football is for morons, idiots, and the lumpen proletariat. I say good riddance to the Chargers. If I were running San Diego I would refuse to extend the agreement that permits the Chargers to use Qualcomm. Someone needs to pry the Spanos family's mouth off the government tit before it runs dry.
By Burwell 7:59 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
I'm with B 100%^ ^^^^^^ Get Spanos hands out of our pockets.
By SurfPuppy619 9:33 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
I came across this a few weeks ago, and knew it would ocme in handy sometime down the road, and that time is now;
NFL Team Valuations
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html
By SurfPuppy619 9:35 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #57: Al Davis won a lawsuit but made himself a pariah among NFL owners. I doubt the Spanos family wants to be an outcast. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:56 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #59: Chargers fans will love you for your view. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:59 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #60: SurfPuppy had Chargers fans doing cartwheels, and now you spoil their party. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:02 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #61: SD Sinking. Environmentalists should be happy. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:04 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #62: It's not just the Spanos family working away on those teats. It's the entire NFL and all pro sports. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:06 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Interesting graphic, Surfpup. Since the team values are sort of arbitrary, I think the thing to focus on is the Operating Income. Since OI is EBIT (and D & A), You could almost cut that number in half. If the figures are correct (and who really knows, but assuming they are), then the Spanos' made 97% of somewhere around 9 1/2 million dollars in 2007 from the Chargers.
This might sound goofy, but that doesn't seem overly profitable when you are taking it from a Revenue of 207 million. In fact, net profit is less than 5% of gross revenue. Remember, this is from 2007 when the Chargers went 14-2 and didn't suck and the economy hadn't tamked. A better graphic would show the same data over the last twenty years, along with a twenty year average.
By refriedgringo 10:06 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #63: Don't forget how John Moores milked SD, too. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:07 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #64: I believe I used a more recent Forbes valuation list in an earlier column. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:09 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #70: Is the focus on operating income the answer? Return on original investment should be considered, too. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:13 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
Well, Don, I knew if I researched enough I would arbitrarily run across one of your older articles:
http://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/documents/waystowin.shtml
There are various aspects when discussing Return On Original Investment. If you're buying stocks, or perhaps taking a position in a commodity trade, then the ROI becomes a critical measure of the transaction. In real estate, ROI depends on a number of factors, such as how quickly one wished to flip the property or what improvements can be made to increase the value beyond the investment. In business, where the buyer plans on holding the business for a long period of time, ROI often ceases to be a concern so long as growth objectives are met (it implies that growth makes the company worth more).
Spanos bought the team and immediately tried to control everything by strong-arming the operation and he damned near ran it into the ground. He turned it over to his kid, and they seemed to let the people they hired do their jobs, and low and behold, except for a few very down years, they've made money and the team's value has increased dramatically.
According to your article, Spanos bought the Chargers for 72 million. If he wanted to sell it today, the ROI would be phenominal. However, it could be argued that, in business, the reward for only making 3 or 4 percent net profit against gross revenue for X amount of years, is, indeed that he would receive such a high ROI should he decide to sell.
And don't mistake this as sympathy for Spanos, I'd take 4 or 5 percent anytime. It's just that Spanos knows he can do better, and he probably will.
By refriedgringo 10:38 p.m., Oct 23, 2009 > Report it
64
try this years
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html
By or 2:01 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Surf, I'll have to take that bet. I hate to take your money, but at least it'll give me some consolation when I have to root for the Los Angeles Chargers. God, I just threw up a little.
By rickeysays 5 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Interesting graphic, Surfpup. Since the team values are sort of arbitrary, I think the thing to focus on is the Operating Income. Since OI is EBIT (and D & A), You could almost cut that number in half. If the figures are correct (and who really knows, but assuming they are), then the Spanos' made 97% of somewhere around 9 1/2 million dollars in 2007 from the Chargers.
By refriedgringo
=====================================
I agree, to get the TRUE value of a sports team it would be better to use the net operating income (cash on cash return), then capitalize that number using a cap rate of 7-8%.
By SurfPuppy619 6:44 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Surf, I'll have to take that bet. I hate to take your money, but ...
By rickeysays
==============
It's on then, of course you must hang out for the next 3 years, or until the Chargers move, whichever comes first.
Like taking candy from a baby.
By SurfPuppy619 6:48 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #74: One of the major points of that article I wrote for the U-T was that owners make oodles of money buying cheap and selling dear. Also, the owners have all kinds of ways to claim, falsely, that they are not making money. The leagues keep all this financial information completely secret. Of course. Revealing it would be an embarrassment of riches. How could you beg for welfare if the public knew how much money you were raking in? The information in that article about how many owners are in the Forbes 400 is very important. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:04 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #74: Spanos bought the team for $72 million and it is now worth $917 million. Pretty damned good return. The team has operating income of $41.6 million on revenue of $224 million -- not bad at all. Yet Fabiani claims the team is starving. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:10 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #76: This blog opposes gambling. Why don't you two leave the money off the table? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:13 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #77: Why argue the fine points? NFL owners are uniformly filthy rich -- likely to be members of the Forbes 400, living in the most posh homes in their area, having a number of homes and fancy cars, yet the public will build them stadiums when they claim poverty. Frankly, it's insane, and also crooked as hell. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:17 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #78: When extremely rich pro sports team owners get cities to subsidize their stadiums to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, THAT'S like taking candy from a baby. Best, Don bauder
By dbauder 8:20 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
The team has operating income of $41.6 million on revenue of $224 million -- not bad at all. Yet Fabiani claims the team is starving. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder
==========================
Using a 7.5% cap rate the value of the Chargers, just based on cirrent income and capitalization, is about $550 million.
I wonder what the NOI was when Spaons bought the Chargers-that would be very interesting.
Of course the value to the pro sports teams has all been attained during the last 20 years though corporate welfare-mostly free stadium deals. I think it is safe to say that the corporate welfare days are over, certainly for the foreseeable future.
So the appreciation of pro sports teams during the next 20 years will be, IMO, minimal at best, negative at worst.
By SurfPuppy619 8:27 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #84: I would love to say the pro sports corporate welfare days are over. After all, cities and states are broke. Unfortunately, I can't agree that those days are over. For that to be the case, the public would have to wise up to the scam. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:23 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Spanos could spend every single cent of that $917 million on players and coaches and they'd STILL not win a Lombardi. What's hilarious is that people around here think that the Chargeless have been God's gift to football for about 30 years. I remember not 10 years ago,the Chargeless were what the Rams,Raiders and Titans are today.
I love these videos because they are so true...:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ekWx0WwLA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwsF1Ub9AuI
By PistolPete 10:40 a.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Chargers are going no where for the next 5 years, you can take that to the bank- and tell them SurfPuppy619 sent you.
By SurfPuppy619 6:53 p.m., Oct 23, 2009
=====================
Poll asks: Will the Chargers bolt?
Despite the lure of a fast-moving stadium plan in the Los Angeles area, a majority of San Diegans believe the Chargers will still be playing their home games somewhere in San Diego County in five years, a new poll shows. The 56 percent of San Diego residents who expect the team to stay includes 18 percent who say Qualcomm Stadium will remain the team's home in 2014; 4 percent who say the Chargers will have a new home nearby in Mission Valley; and 34 percent who say the team will be elsewhere in the county. An additional 28 percent think the team will leave the county entirely.
By SurfPuppy619 2:02 p.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #86: Sports fans have extremely short memories. You are correct. The Chargers were something of a joke for many years. They had a great passing offense when Fouts was quarterback, but they never went to the big dance. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:43 p.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #87: That poll was hilarious. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:45 p.m., Oct 24, 2009 > Report it
Yes. Yes it was. That poll has about as much relativity to the Chargeless as my left nut. All one has to do is read any Chargeless related comments on signonsandiego between last monday's game and the comments tomorrow after they beat the Queefs to see what kind of bandwagoners you're dealing with. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.
By PistolPete 1:17 a.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
Team
Don’t take my Raiders or Chargers.
It is our understanding that the National Football League has no intention of expanding, but they do want to be in Los Angeles. State-of-the-art stadiums are required for teams to stay competitive in today’s NFL. We do not control what team will play in the new Los Angeles Stadium, but we do know it will be an existing team that needs to move because they cannot build a new stadium or financially they are not successful in their current market. We can not disclose which teams we are talking with.
===========================
That is a quote from the Los Angeles Footbal Stadium website.
http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/faq#faq3
For what it's worth, they mentioned "Raiders and Chargers" so you can pick one or maybe both.
By Ponzi 7:16 a.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
The LA Football Stadium is so a reality, they even have a Job Fair event for recruiting stadium workers on January 15, 2010!
It's being held in the City of Industry from 9am to 5 pm.
It's your big chance surfpuppy! http://www.joejobsexpo.com/>
Gotta earn those "c notes" for the rest of us some how.
By Ponzi 7:26 a.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #90: In deciding what team or teams occupy the new stadium if it is ever built, the NFL owners would weigh this question: which city is likely to scream the least to Congress? Moving Minnesota would be dangerous, and that state is only using the Industry threat to get what it wants at home. Ditto San Francisco. Moving St. Louis would lead to a revolt; that city gave the Rams the world not long ago. Moving Buffalo would make economic sense, but also be dangerous; it's too close to the New York City power center. Moving Jacksonville might generate fewer screams; there is already a team in Florida, and Jacksonville is not drawing fans. Moving the Raiders would give writers like me a field day in tracing Al Davis's previous move-related scams. Moving San Diego would generate screams, but they would be drowned out by cheers in LA (maybe -- I'm not convinced that the broad LA audience cares that much about pro football.) I may be all wet on these analyses. best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:34 a.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #92: SurfPuppy is an attorney. Somehow, I don't see the NFL or one of its teams hiring him to do their dirty work, any more than they would hire me to do their public relations. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:37 a.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
It's being held in the City of Industry from 9am to 5 pm.
It's your big chance surfpuppy! http://www.joejobsexpo.com/>
Gotta earn those "c notes" for the rest of us some how.
By Ponzi
============================
Ponzi-are you not jumping the gun??... just a tiny little bit?
(not to mention "Joe", of the infamous "Joe's Job Expo" site).
But if the stadium does become a reality it will take me a LOT of hours working those stadium jobs, part and time-seasonal at minimum wage, tossing hotdogs and peanuts around to cover myself!
By SurfPuppy619 8:52 a.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
You're a lawyer,SP? FOR SHAME! I respected you too! ;-D
By PistolPete 10:22 a.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #95: Yeah, and they play only ten games in a pro football stadium. I don't think the commute to City of Industry would be worth it unless you are really outstanding at pitching hot dogs. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:53 p.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #96: His name should be SurfPuppy, Esq. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:54 p.m., Oct 25, 2009 > Report it
I spent 4 hours today toggling back and forth between windows to archive this. When your precious Chargeless leave the area,keep these records in mind....
Sandy Eggo Super Chargeless W/L/T Record Vs. the NFL
AFC WEST-
Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders 43-53-2 3xSB Champ
Dallas Texans/Kansas City Chiefs 47-50-1 1xSB Champ
Denver Broncos 44-53-1 2xSB Champ
AFC EAST-
Buffalo Bills 20-10-2 0xSB Champ
Miami Dolphins 12-13 2xSB Champ
New York Titans/Jets 18-11-1 1xSB Champ
Boston/New England Patriots 14-18-2 3xSB Champ
AFC NORTH-
Cincinnati Bengals 18-10 0xSB Champ
Baltimore Ravens 3-4 1xSB Champ
Cleveland Browns 13-7-1 0xSB Champs
Pittsburgh Steelers 7-20 6xSB Champ
AFC SOUTH-
Houston Texans 3-0 0xSB Champ
Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts 13-10 2xSB Champ
Jacksonville Jaguars 1-2 0xSB Champ
Houston/Tennessee Oilers/Tennessee Titans 22-13-1 0xSB Champ
NFC NORTH-
Green Bay Packers 1-8 3xSB Champ
Chicago Bears 5-5 1xSB Champ
Detroit Lions 6-3 0xSB Champ
Minnesota Vikings 5-5 0xSB Champ
NFC WEST-
St.Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals 8-3 0xSB Champ
San Francisco 49ers 5-7 5xSB Champ
Los Angeles/St.Louis Rams 4-5 1xSB Champ
Seattle Seahawks 22-25 0xSB Champ
NFC EAST-
Philadelphia Eagles 5-4 0xSB Champ
Washington Redskins 2-6 3xSB Champ
New York Giants 4-5 3xSB Champ
Dallas Cowboys 2-5 5xSB Champ
NFC SOUTH-
Atlanta Falcons 1-7 0xSB Champ
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 8-1 1xSB Champ
Carolina Panthers 1-3 0xSB Champ
New Orleans Saints 7-3 0xSB Champ
I'll break it down even further tomorrow.
By PistolPete 3:05 a.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Pistol:
Just go here ...
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/
for all the FB stats you ever need.
By SanDiegoParrothead 12:30 p.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Thanks. That's where I got them. I still had to go season by season and write down all the wins and losses. Took me damn near forever. But hey! It's the work I'll go through to make fun of the Chargeless! ;-D No need to thank me...LMAO!
A little while ago I also tried breaking down the W/L percentages between each team,division and conference but the percentages I was coming up with didn't make a whole lot of sense so I scrapped it. I'm sure people can get a pretty good picture by looking at this handy-dandy reference chart. :-D
Overall,my problem isn't really with the team itself. The team is fine. It's a strugling ex-cellar dweller. Can't fault a team for tryin,right? My beef is with the fans. They all scream"The Gaydars,Queefs and Donkeys are our bitches!!!!!" Ummmm....no. No they're not. My stats prove it.
The only teams with a losing record Vs. the Chargeless are:
The Bills,the Jets,the Bengals,the Browns,the Texans,The Colts,the Titans,the Lions,the Cardinals,the Eagles,the Buccaneers and the Saints. That's 12 out of 30 teams and 2 of those teams are relatively new to the league.
By PistolPete 1:02 p.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #99: That's an impressive piece of research. Overall, the team has been mediocre over the years. The closer that a possible move appears, the more hysterical the establishment will become as they wail about the county losing its greatest asset. I still believe the Chargers want L.A. but neither the stadium nor a Chargers relocation is a sure thing. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:50 p.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #100: A source for all pro sports stats is www.rodneyfort.com. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:54 p.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #101: You are to be lauded for your painstaking exactitude. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:58 p.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
My GF says you were a beat writer for the Chargeless back in the day,am I corresponding with SD-UT royalty,Mr Bauder?
By PistolPete 10:05 p.m., Oct 29, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #105: It seems you are asking me if I had been the Chargers beat reporter for the U-T. Heavens, no. I never wrote sports for the U-T. During the stadium/ballpark scams, I was afraid to walk over there, fearing I would be bumped off. I was in finance/business all the time I was at the U-T, and also for the years before I got to the U-T. I was the sports editor of my high school newspaper, and was the sports editor of the University of Wisconsin paper, but then I moved on to managing editor and editor-in-chief, and that was the end of my sportswriting, other than opposing taxpayer-subsidized stadiums while at the U-T. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:38 a.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
I'll let her know. Thanks.
By PistolPete 1:07 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Note: CHARGERS EYE WONDER BREAD SITE. Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani told a Rotary Club meeting today (Oct. 30) that the team is looking at a site east of Petco Park -- in particular, the Wonder Bread building at 147 14th Street. This is according to the twitter account ScribePR, put out by Jan Percival. The Voice of San Diego also picked up the item. The team had earlier said it was looking at something downtown. The deal would apparently involve the city, county, and private money. It sounds like a big taxpayer subsidy is in the study stage. So do you Wonder where pro sports welfare queens get their Bread? (I still think the Chargers want L.A. first. A possible downtown site would be a backup plan.) Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:40 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
That's District 2, bordering on District 8. Lord God.
By CuddleFish 2:48 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #109: Do you fear that the mayor and council will capitulate and give a heavy subsidy to a billionaire team owner even though the city is broke? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:43 p.m., Oct 30, 2009 > Report it
I fear so many things if this were to happen, that is the least of my concerns. Pray God it doesn't. But it probably will.
:(
By CuddleFish 12:27 a.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #111: Prayers won't do any good. Go the other direction: raise hell. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:56 a.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
It won't do any good. Actually, this is brilliant on the part of the Chargers. They have found the point of least resistance. They just gotta buy the right people off, and it will happen.
By CuddleFish 9:39 a.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #113: You have used the words that apply to all pro sports corporate welfare: "gotta buy the right people off." What the hell, it's the taxpayers' money that gets spent. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:34 a.m., Oct 31, 2009 > Report it