Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — 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
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
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
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
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
Your Week — Daily event picks
Spanos commits!
don bauder, again we disagree. the city should put NO money into rehabing the stadium, unless it is to resolve the many infrastructure issues it has. I believe those would be considered a problem that any property owner should be responsible for. But any other improvements, the city shouldn't spend a dime.— February 2, 2016 8:21 a.m.
Spanos commits!
Fernando Allen Sanchez III Apparently, you are somewhat misinformed. The NFL **was** a 501(c)(6), emphasis on the **was**. The league voluntarily rescinded its tax-exempt status last April and will begin filing taxes with the current tax year. In my opinion, this was done for 2 reasons. First is the public reason, as proffered by Bob McNair, who said "The owners have decided to eliminate the distraction associated with misunderstanding of the league office's status, so the league office will in the future file returns as a taxable entity," Several sources have estimated the tax savings for the NFL under 501(c)(6) as in the neighborhood of $10million, which is a rounding error for an enterprise the size of the NFL. The other reason that I beleive is that the NFL made the change is the same reason MLB voluntarily abandoned its tax-exempt status in 2007: as a non profit, your tax return is a public document, one that lists the compensation paid to the entity's top officers. But, despite your claims otherwise, the tax exempt status applied **only** to the league office in New York and **not** to the individual 32 teams. Those teams are required to pay taxes. Whether they do so properly is a completely different issue. Each team receives about 3.1 percent of the total revenue, with the remainder funding league operations. If you don't believe that, then simply look at the Green Bay Packers. They are a publicly owned team thus their financials are readily available.— February 2, 2016 8:15 a.m.
Spanos commits!
don bauder Well not exactly. If I remember correctly, the Coliseum Commission decided to spend somewhere between $15 and $20 million on the Coliseum renovation for 1993. The changes were supposed to be part of a of a multi-stage renovation to meet Al Davis' demands for improvements. The repairs to the Coliseum from the quake damage was initially about $35-million. I believe the end total was somewhere in the neighborhood of about $100 million. That money wasn't spent so much on cleaning up after an earthquake as it was repairing the stadium so that USC and the Raiders could continue playing there. But as I said, then the renovations demanded by the Raiders were put on hold indefinitely. At that point, Davis shifted focus to the proposed stadium at Hollywood Park, before eventually fleeing back to Oakland. Of the money that was spent repairing the Coliseum, I believe that at least 70 percent of it came from the federal government and the state, not the city of Los Angeles. An interesting aside is that the contract for the initial $15-20 million renovation actually had a clause that that no permanent seismic retrofit or seismic strengthening work was to be done.— February 1, 2016 7:29 p.m.
Spanos commits!
If the Chargers will not be exercising their lease termination clause this year, which I believe had to be done by close of business today, how could the city of San Diego be "openly offering the spot in Mission Valley to the Raiders"?— February 1, 2016 5:41 p.m.
Spanos commits!
Perhaps don bauder can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the city and the Chargers still have a contract, thru 2020 I believe, and that the Chargers have a window in each remaining year in which they can opt out of their lease. But as far as it has been reported, I don't believe that they have ever fulfilled the legal requirement of officially notifying the city. So there is really nothing to negotiate. As far as I am aware, the only thing that changes is that the buyout the Chargers would have to pay to leave decreases each additional year the Chargers remain in San Diego. As I said, I am sure don bauder can correct any inaccuracies.— February 1, 2016 3:50 p.m.
Spanos commits!
sportsfanooo, you're not quite correct in your assessment of why Davis left LA. Bud Adams didn't decide to move the Oilers to Nashville until a year after Davis moved the Raiders back to Oakland. In 1996, when the Browns moved to Baltimore, the NFL promised a team in Cleveland within 3 years. It was at that time the league considering adding an additional franchise to even out the league at 32 teams. Los Angeles, Houston and Toronto were all being considered. It was in March of 1999 that the NFL awarded Los Angeles the expansion franchise contingent upon an agreement between the city and league on issues that included the stadium site and an ownership group. When October 1999 rolled around and no agreement had been reached the NFL awarded the expansion team to Bob McNair and the Houston Texans were born. That was almost 5 years after the Raiders had gone back to Oakland. The move by the Raiders had nothing to do with the new franchise. In June of 1995, Davis had actually scheduled a news conference to announce the Raiders would play in a new stadium at Hollywood Park starting in 1997, but Davis could ever reach a final agreement with RD Hubbard, who owned Hollywood Park. Two weeks later, Davis accepted a deal with Oakland. A big part of the reason for leaving the Coliseum was that after the Coliseum Commission agreed in 1993 to spend money on improving the Coliseum for pro football, LA Sports Commission cancelled any further planned renovations to the Coliseum because of the repair costs due to the 1994 Northridge earthquake— February 1, 2016 3:41 p.m.
Spanos commits!
don bauder I disagree. The deal for San Diego as a tenant would mean paying $1 per year in rent and the team's $200-million loan from the NFL and the revenue from psl sales would go to Kreonke to be used to help offset construction costs for the stadium. There would be a relocation fee, but that fee would not be due until the team actually moves into the new stadium, so at least 2019, and would be payable over 10 years. Between now and 2022, when the current TV contracts expire,each teams share of TV revenue alone will be somewhere between $750 Million and $1 billion. Spanos could easily afford to move the team based on the upcoming revenue increases just from the NFL's TV contracts alone. The question is not whether Spanos can afford it, but rather will he look at the long term benefits of playing in a new, state of the art stadium, which he will never have in San Diego, or instead succumb to the inherent greed and take the money now and loose out in the long run. From my point of view, if Spanos has to shell out a few hundred million for a stadium in San Diego, he would be better off to shell out a few hundred million to play in what will undoubtedly be a better stadium in Los Angeles. But as past history has shown, the people of San Diego can be pretty dumb when it comes to giving away money. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the Chargers are a dead story until Spanos announces the final decision, so I will take a pass on further comments until then Just my opinion Opinions vary.— January 31, 2016 2:50 p.m.
Spanos commits!
don bauder So if I interpret you comment correctly, you are saying there is no option that puts the Chargers in Los Angeles? Is that a correct interpretation? No Chargers in Los Angeles? No way, no how? No chance, absolument pas, nada, nunca, zero, zip, zilch? i just want to make sure that I am absolutely clear on your position.— January 31, 2016 10:35 a.m.
Waves too small at Silicon Beach?
In 2012 the total VC invested in the US was about $27 billion. In 2015 that total exceeded $58 billion. And that total was an increase of 16 percent from the $50 billion in 2014. VC investing in just the first 3 quarters of 2015 was over $47 billion. That amount is higher than the full-year totals for 17 of the last 20 years. VC investing has increased nationwide since 2009, except for a slight drop in 2012, and especially so in the past 2 years.It seems that San Diego just got a smaller share of the pie. Of course, when a single Los Angeles company brings in $1 billion all by itself, its difficult for San Diego to keep pace.— January 30, 2016 8:47 a.m.
All is not lost, Chargers fan
So the Chargers now have reached an agreement in principle with the Rams to share the Rams stadium in Inglewood, but will play in San Diego in the 2016 season while attempting to extort money for a stadium in San Diego. Second verse, same as the first.— January 29, 2016 3:43 p.m.