Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Archives
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Legal Guide
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Citizens victors over NFL greed
Don: I am sure it wasn't the Chargers. As Mark Fabiani has said many times, "The Chargers are only a tenant in a city-owned facility."— November 27, 2016 6:05 p.m.
Citizens victors over NFL greed
Don: After going to the SDSU game last night, just having a stadium that had drains that were clear would be a major improvement. Some of the waterfalls cascading off the upper deck were majestic--and very annoying to the people that were sitting under them. If only someone would by the team and build a new stadium...I just don't think that will be happening.— November 27, 2016 6 p.m.
Citizens victors over NFL greed
And those weren't the only open areas. The best open areas really dig at the Spanos wallet, as many fans were disguised as empty seats in the Club Level on the visitors side of the field. And I am still wondering as to who paid for the upgrades to the boxes at the top of the Club Level in the last 2 seasons. Somehow, I doubt it was the Chargers.— November 23, 2016 11:54 a.m.
Citizens victors over NFL greed
Don: Despite what the NFL has said--including the so-called "deal" that Spanos has with Kroenke--I don't think the NFL wants the Chargers in LA either.— November 17, 2016 10:28 p.m.
Citizens victors over NFL greed
The next shoe drops--today, the Rams finally broke ground on their stadium in Inglewood. Will the Chargers be joining them???— November 17, 2016 6:34 p.m.
Is Faulconer heading for a Jacobs fail?
While Qualcomm Stadium was sponsored at a low price, no one was paying $18 million per year for stadium sponsorship deals in 1997. They were anywhere to $1 mil to $5 mil per year, but were escalating later in that same decade.— November 12, 2016 12:18 a.m.
Is Faulconer heading for a Jacobs fail?
I think the only reason Qualcomm got a great deal on stadium naming rights is that the city claimed they were $17 mil (I thought $18 mil) short in the expansion of what became Qualcomm Stadium. Qualcomm stepped forward with the money, and the city graciously accepted. Of course, not long after that, naming rights became a cash cow, but I think the deal for naming rights in San Diego was done before those naming rights fees really took off.— November 10, 2016 5:43 p.m.
Closed-door meetings with Chargers preceded mayor's stadium backing
This gets better and better. Now I see the San Diego Blood Bank is getting involved with the new proposed Chargers stadium. A bloodvadium?— November 2, 2016 10:23 p.m.
Closed-door meetings with Chargers preceded mayor's stadium backing
If/when Measure C fails, look for the NFL to extend the deadline for the Chargers to decide whether to move to LA. Also, the Raiders are back in play for LA, as Adelson might just be getting cold feet in Las Vegas about contributing to a stadium for the Raiders there.— November 1, 2016 9:31 a.m.
Closed-door meetings with Chargers preceded mayor's stadium backing
I don't expect Measure C will pass with even a simple majority, let alone 2/3.— October 31, 2016 1:02 p.m.