Quantcast
4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs

City decks NFL proposal with lots of folly

Football league would bring in $187M for personal seat licenses?

The San Diego Chargers today (December 30) submitted its stadium subsidy plan to the National Football League. It is almost the same as the earlier plan put forward for a Mission Valley stadium.

The stadium's cost would be $1.1 billion. St. Louis, which yesterday (December 29) sent its plan to the NFL, wants to build a $1.1 billion stadium to keep the St. Louis Rams from moving. However, Stan Kroenke, owner of the Rams, has already broken ground on an Inglewood stadium that would cost close to $2 billion.

Kroenke, who with his wife is a double-digit billionaire, proposes a stadium with the bells and whistles that NFL stadiums now have. In recent years, pro football has become a game for the affluent.

According to the Chargers' proposal, the city would put in $200 million, the county $150 million, the NFL $200 million from its loan program and sale of personal seat licenses ($187 million), and the Chargers' $363 million (which could be partly if not wholly paid with sale of naming rights and corporate sponsorships.) To count on $187 million from personal seat licenses is folly.

The document stresses that the Chargers steadfastly refuse to work with San Diego. The proposal claims that the team is 22nd among 32 NFL teams in total revenue, 18th in annual ticket revenue, and 17th in average ticket price.

The document argues that the actual San Diego market is 6.5 million people, instead of half that, which is the official population of the San Diego metro area. To reach 6.5 million, the document adds in Imperial Valley and Baja California. But how many people from those areas will attend games if ticket prices are the 17th highest in the NFL? According to Team Marketing Report, the average Chargers ticket this year was $84.55, just below the league's average $85.83.

The document also claims that polling shows that the public is interested in going to a game in a new stadium. But these polls, done by phone and email by a consulting firm, have been questioned: other polls show that San Diegans do not have a favorable opinion of paying for such a stadium with their taxes.

Oakland, which wants to share a $1.7 billion L.A. stadium with the Chargers, has not submitted a plan for remaining in its home city. It still owes $100 million on the rehabilitation of its current stadium. St. Louis wants to get $400 million from city and state sources, $250 million from Kroenke, $300 million from an NFL loan, and $50 million from personal seat licenses. The situation in St. Louis is the same as it is in San Diego: the current owners of the teams do not want to stay.

Here's something you might be interested in.
Submit a free classified
or view all

Previous article

Unexpendable Rambo

The first and fourth foray

The San Diego Chargers today (December 30) submitted its stadium subsidy plan to the National Football League. It is almost the same as the earlier plan put forward for a Mission Valley stadium.

The stadium's cost would be $1.1 billion. St. Louis, which yesterday (December 29) sent its plan to the NFL, wants to build a $1.1 billion stadium to keep the St. Louis Rams from moving. However, Stan Kroenke, owner of the Rams, has already broken ground on an Inglewood stadium that would cost close to $2 billion.

Kroenke, who with his wife is a double-digit billionaire, proposes a stadium with the bells and whistles that NFL stadiums now have. In recent years, pro football has become a game for the affluent.

According to the Chargers' proposal, the city would put in $200 million, the county $150 million, the NFL $200 million from its loan program and sale of personal seat licenses ($187 million), and the Chargers' $363 million (which could be partly if not wholly paid with sale of naming rights and corporate sponsorships.) To count on $187 million from personal seat licenses is folly.

The document stresses that the Chargers steadfastly refuse to work with San Diego. The proposal claims that the team is 22nd among 32 NFL teams in total revenue, 18th in annual ticket revenue, and 17th in average ticket price.

The document argues that the actual San Diego market is 6.5 million people, instead of half that, which is the official population of the San Diego metro area. To reach 6.5 million, the document adds in Imperial Valley and Baja California. But how many people from those areas will attend games if ticket prices are the 17th highest in the NFL? According to Team Marketing Report, the average Chargers ticket this year was $84.55, just below the league's average $85.83.

The document also claims that polling shows that the public is interested in going to a game in a new stadium. But these polls, done by phone and email by a consulting firm, have been questioned: other polls show that San Diegans do not have a favorable opinion of paying for such a stadium with their taxes.

Oakland, which wants to share a $1.7 billion L.A. stadium with the Chargers, has not submitted a plan for remaining in its home city. It still owes $100 million on the rehabilitation of its current stadium. St. Louis wants to get $400 million from city and state sources, $250 million from Kroenke, $300 million from an NFL loan, and $50 million from personal seat licenses. The situation in St. Louis is the same as it is in San Diego: the current owners of the teams do not want to stay.

Sponsored
Here's something you might be interested in.
Submit a free classified
or view all
Previous article

Audit hits lack of athletic admissions integrity at UC San Diego

"The board member used me to get his family friend's kid in UCSD"
Next Article

Protestors accuse Trump Boat Parade of trading in racist stereotypes

White Suprema-sea?
Comments
46

So they want to put public funds into the pocket of a billionaire. Disgusting.

I can't afford to go to a Chargers game, why should my tax money go to subsidize this part time entertainment for the well to do?

Dec. 30, 2015

MichaelValentine: You have just described one of the most revolting aspects of the billionaire stadium scam. The people who can't afford to attend games pay taxes to build a posh stadium that serves, mainly, the well-to-do or the very rich. Attending pro football games now appeals greatly to the affluent. But the little folks shell out tax money for a luxury-appointed stadium that they cannot afford to go to. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 30, 2015

And the gullible rabble of suckers will vote for it, their social instincts appropriated by The Great Manipulators to convince them that a bunch of billionaires and multimillionaires are "home teams." They will suck the rest of us into this black hole and banish us from the paradise of "America's Finest City" to slabs on the desert and other places more befitting our economic status.

Dec. 30, 2015

Flapper: This is a big problem. Those who want a tax-supported stadium will outspend the opposition by 100 to 1 or more. It's hard to win an election when outspent like that. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 30, 2015

don bauder But who is it that wants the stadium?? Who is it that is going to fork out all that money?? The Chargers don't want the stadium, so it won't come from them. Are you suggesting that the business community and the local fans will spend it? Perhaps the city will spend even more taxpayer dollars promoting it and getting it's lesser informed citizens to vote for it? Seriously, I am curious as to where you think the money will come from that will be used to buy the vote.

Dec. 31, 2015

danfogel: I can think of a number of scenarios: 1. The Chargers get shut out in L.A. and figure that they won't be able to wait a couple of years and get it. They are stuck in San Diego. The establishment will want to build the team's billionaire owners a stadium.

  1. The Chargers move to L.A. The Raiders, getting no help from Oakland, have to choose between St. Louis and San Diego. They choose San Diego. The establishment cons the public again.

  2. No L.A. scenario gathers the necessary votes of owners, who are hopelessly split. The Chargers, tail wagging between their legs, return to San Diego, hat in hand. The establishment decides that building a stadium is more important than repairing the infrastructure.

  3. The Rams move to L.A. and Kroenke chooses the Raiders as tenants. The Chargers diddle with the idea of moving to San Antonio or London, but decide to stay in San Diego after the establishment assures them that they can screw the public into building the team a new stadium.

  4. The owners vote for the Carson location. The Raiders and Chargers plan their move. But the financing breaks down on a half-built stadium, and while the teams sue Goldman Sachs (a six-year process), either the Chargers or Raiders decide on one going to San Diego and another going to St. Louis. Whoever comes to San Diego gets a stadium built with taxpayer money.

  5. The Chargers move to L.A. Lawsuits against the move pile up. Lawyers go to Congress, asking that the NFL's antitrust exemption be removed. The league owners vote to put an expansion team in San Diego. The establishment cons the public into building a stadium for the team.

Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

or maybe the fans ( and taxpayers) wise up, and they stick it to the chargers ( Spanos)

Dec. 31, 2015

In which case, Spanos sells the team and reaps a billion dollar profit.

Dec. 31, 2015

JustWondering: I think the Spanos family might sell the team even before there is a move to L.A. or somewhere else. Alex (now non compos mentis) has several children and grandchildren. Not all are involved with Chargers.

The major source of the family's money is the Chargers team. To get to L.A., it may take a new owner or owner of 49.9 percent to provide more financial heft. Alex Spanos's wife may be holding things up now. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

As I recall, the kids own 15% each and the old folks own 36%. NFL ownership rules require a majority owner or group to hold at least 30 % of the team. If the kids wanted out, they could sell their stakes and regardless of what the old ones want, someone else would be in control.

Dec. 31, 2015

danfogel: I wouldn't swear by it, but I think a 15-36 split is about right. I guess it is possible that such family differences could lead to different majority ownership. I am not sure it is likely. I suspect Alex Spanos's widow has a big role to play. The Chargers assets are the family's main holding, but there are other assets. I wonder if Alex's children and grandchildren would dare cause a family rift over the Chargers when they could be cut out of the other assets.

On the other hand, pro sports teams are going for such ridiculous prices that the children and grandchildren may not care about those other assets. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

don bauder I wasn't aware that Alex Spanos had died.. As far as I am aware, although he is mentally incapacitated, he is still alive. Being that the Chargers are at least 90% of the Spanos family wealth, it the kids wanted to sell their shares, at the right price, they wouldn't be losing much. And that is if, and a big if, mama Spanos could get the old dudes's estate plan changed. Seeing that he's still alive, if the plans have already been made, with him be mentally incompetent, would mama be able to cut the kids out? I don't know if she could or not. But as greedy as the Spanos family is, it would be one hell of a fight.

Jan. 1, 2016

danfogel: Alex Spanos is not dead and I should not have called his wife his widow. However, he is in his 90s, and I was thinking ahead. Still I was wrong.

I don't know whether the senior Mrs. Spanos could make changes. It depends on contingencies in the will, I suspect. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 2, 2016

Murphyjunk: That would be wonderful. And it could happen. I sense that San Diego public opinion is running against the Chargers -- and against the billionaire subsidy scam -- now. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

At least John Moores was smart enough to pour in some cash and reach the World Series before getting the taxpayers to fund the Padres' new ballpark.

Dec. 31, 2015

JustWondering: Oh yes. Moores rented a team for the year of the vote. The Padres got to the World Series, and although the team was creamed by the Yankees, enthusiasm was on steroids in San Diego. The ballpark got around 60 percent of the vote. Once he got his ballpark, Moores dumped the players who had gotten the team to the Series. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

don bauder All well and good. But my question was pretty straight forward. Specifically, where do you think the money will come from that will be used to buy the vote. Exactly who is going to foot the bill to outspend those opposing a new stadium by at least a 100 to 1 margin? Who are those individuals or organizations willing to do that. Be specific. Name names. Who do you think they are??

Dec. 31, 2015

danfogel: I thought I named them. They could be the Chargers returning after being rebuked in L.A. It could be an expansion team. It could be the Raiders, who choose San Diego as home after the Chargers join with Kroenke in Inglewood. There could be other permutations. The NFL would be helping out, under the table in this case. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

Since it's seems to be pretty clear the Chargers want to leave for "Los Angeles", I'm just wondering how much is left to pay on the 1997 bonds use to pay for the expansion of our existing stadium? If I remember correctly the Chargers are "responsible" for that debt if they left before 2020.

I also see the City's NFL submission: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/documents/2015/dec/30/san-diegos-letter-nfl/ is real fluff propoganda. While touting all of San Diego's amenities, it overlooks all the basic infastructure and services which are falling apart or non existent.

Dec. 31, 2015

JustWondering: I believe it is in the range of $25 million depending on when they would leave. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

JustWondering: The San Diego submission to the NFL is a joke. In one section, the report says that more than 90 percent of San Diegans, according to polls, say they would like to see a game in a new stadium. Huh? If a pollster called ME and asked if I would like to see a game in a new stadium, I would say yes. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

90 percent polled at a sports bar during happy hour ( on one of those rare occasions when the chargers were ahead.

Dec. 31, 2015

Murphyjunk: That would be one way to fix a poll. There are many other techniques. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

don bauder But everyone knows that's a lie. You watch football on television, but you don't attend games.

Dec. 31, 2015

danfogel: I have gone to one Chargers game at Qualcomm. I went to one Bears game in Wrigley Field roughly 55 ago. I went to one Cleveland Browns game in the seven years I was there.

However, I have gone to a number of Holiday Bowls. I watched yesterday's on TV and approved of the outcome. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

Me too! It would be a hellacious commute for you to see a game in a new San Diego stadium.

Dec. 31, 2015

JustWondering: But coming back for an opera would not be hallacious. I know. I have done it several times. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

So I guess those trips to Sante Fe and San Diego for an opera would qualify you as an opera fanatic, much like those football fanatics you often talk about.

Jan. 1, 2016

danfogel: Opera fanatics travel all over the world to see operas. I have only seen operas overseas a handful of times. Besides, I don't favor government support of opera.

At one point, San Diego Opera wanted to build a new house that would require the City to donate valuable land. I was an advisory director at the time and did not favor the idea. Arts groups in San Diego now get money from the transit occupancy tax. Since substantially every arts group gets some, and it is not a large portion of San Diego Opera's pie, I never opposed that. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 2, 2016

Mike Murphy: Billionaire owners and millionaire players being subsidized by the poor and middle class. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

Fred Jacobsen: Agreed: giving the MV land to SDSU would be better than developing it or using it as a location for a highly subsidized stadium owned by billionaires. Best, Don Bauder

Dec. 31, 2015

With the underlying (pun intended) contamination issues, would the city even be able to anything with the land, with out first remediating the contamination?

Jan. 1, 2016

danfogel: There is still controversy on that plume. Some say the effects have been mitigated, others disagree. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 2, 2016

Not sure why the idea of giving the MV land to SDSU is a good idea. The city loses either way. A gift of public assets is illegal no matter who gets the land.

Jan. 1, 2016

Dennis: If what you say is true, most cities, including San Diego, are violating the law. Maybe if the land is turned over for a very low price, a city can get around such a law. Frankly, I am not aware of this restriction. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 2, 2016

Here's a link to an opinion by the Ca AG on public funds http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/05-309.pdf

Jan. 2, 2016

Dennis: Wow. A strict reading of this would have prevented the City giving Moores $300 million for the ballpark now named Petco. There must be a way the gift recipients (teams) get around this. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 2, 2016

Dennis: Here's an add: a strict reading of this would prevent the massive amount of corporate welfare in the form of subsidies for hotels, shopping centers, auto dealerships, big box retailers, pro sports team owners, ad nauseam, in California. There has to be wiggle room in there. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 2, 2016

I'm sure there are those that would try to parse the language to make it legal but I still don't know why anyone would want to give away an asset that not long ago was considered to be worth up to a billion dollars.

Jan. 3, 2016

Dennis: The land is given to a billionaire by a city council. The politicians on the council know that if they don't subsidize the billionaire owner, the team may leave and they may lose the next election. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 3, 2016

As I recall the Chargers want a stadium-by-the-bay and do not want to stay in Mission Valley. I believe that the decision to stay or go was made in the smokey back rooms long before the Mayor and the legions of stupid fans started whining about the Chargers leaving. If they go who cares and if they stay they will be bad neighbors as they don't want to stay unless the idiot voters and idiot politicians fund the stadium-by-the-bay. Happy New Year Don - Keep up the good work! Go San Diego Dischargers!

Jan. 1, 2016

AlexClarke: You mean the Dishonorable Dischargers? At one point the Chargers indicated that they could go for a downtown stadium. However, since then, they have made it clear that L.A. is their objective. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 1, 2016

I haven't seen anyone cover the scenario in which the Raiders and the Rams win the lottery and the Chargers have to come back to the bargaining table. I'm sure they'll use the current offer as a starting point, but would the local government team have the guts to play hardball? Take that offer off the table and start at zero public contribution?

Jan. 4, 2016

ronh: I have been writing about that possibility for some time. I think it is quite possible that the Chargers will not get to L.A., at least within the next couple of years. The Carson proposal is not credible. I suspect Kroenke will win and then pick between the Chargers and Raiders -- or maybe not choose either until he sees if the market develops as hoped.

San Diego will have to come back begging the city it spurned. Many think residents will forgive all those insults and lies hurled at San Diego, and come running back. Possible, but doubtful. Biggest problem: the Chargers may come back to San Diego, but still be trying to get to Los Angeles or some other market, such as London. I would think if San Diegans think the team is only a temporary resident, enthusiasm will wane fairly quickly. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 4, 2016

I was more interested in what the politicians' response would be. Given that the Chargers probably won't put all their cards on the table, their response is likely to be "nice offer" and negotiate upward. I think the government should take the offer off the table today and start with zero public contribution if the Chargers come back. But I don't expect a profile in courage given that it's OPM.

Jan. 4, 2016

ronh: Zero public contribution works in L.A., but weak-kneed San Diego politicians would never do it. Best, Don Bauder

Jan. 4, 2016

Sign in to comment

Sign in

Art Reviews — W.S. Di Piero's eye on exhibits Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed Best Buys — San Diego shopping Big Screen — Movie commentary Blurt — Music's inside track Booze News — San Diego spirits City Lights — News and politics Classical Music — Immortal beauty Classifieds — Free and easy Cover Stories — Front-page features Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts Famous Former Neighbors — Next-door celebs Feast! — Food & drink reviews Feature Stories — Local news & stories From the Archives — Spotlight on the past Golden Dreams — Talk of the town Here's the Deal — Chad Deal's watering holes Just Announced — The scoop on shows Letters — Our inbox [email protected] — Local movie buffs share favorites Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news News Ticker — News & politics Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated Of Note — Concert picks Out & About — What's Happening Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated Poetry — The old and the new Pour Over — Grab a cup Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers Reading — The hunt for intellectuals Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds SD on the QT — Almost factual news Set 'em Up Joe — Bartenders' drink recipes Sheep and Goats — Places of worship Special Issues — The best of Sports — Athletics without gush Street Style — San Diego streets have style Suit Up — Fashion tips for dudes Theater Reviews — Local productions Theater antireviews — Narrow your search Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads Waterfront — All things ocean Your Week — Daily event picks
4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs
Close