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
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
don bauder Last summer, Brown into affect a law that cheerleaders must be classified as employees, ensuring that cheerleaders in California will get paid at least minimum wage.— January 19, 2016 12:54 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
don bauder I’ll just add my 2 cents worth to this and then let the subject of the Chargers fade away. It was in 1984 when the stadium was expanded to nearly 61,000 seats and 50 suites were added at cost of $9.1 million, raising capacity to 61,000 for football. In 1997, the seating in the stadium was expanded again, adding 10,500 seats, 34 suites, 4 Club Lounges, upgraded food service and two video boards. The total cost was $78 million, which also included a new practice facility for the Chargers. I believe the money came from a bond issuance, which hasn’t been paid off yet. After the 1997 renovation, Qualcomm agreed to pay the city $18 million to complete the expansion project, in return the name change to Qualcomm Stadium, a deal which expires in 2017. I don’t recall work on the stadium ever being referred to as anything but an expansion, and never a conversion. I can recall reading the city council minutes many years ago and it was always called an expansion. In fact, the city fiscal budget report refers to Qualcomm as an outdoor multi-purpose stadium. I am sure that you will continue to refer to it as a football only stadium. But in this case, the evidence clearly shows that not to be the case.— January 18, 2016 9:51 a.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
don bauder I am not quite sure where your thought is coming from. Perhaps my comment above was a little convoluted. Let me try again. In relation to rumor no. 1, what I have read is that the resolution that the owners agreed to by the 30-2 vote barred the Rams from selling personal seat licenses, suites or naming rights until February 2017 unless another NFL team joins them before then or both teams decline to accept the offer, in which case the Rams would be able to proceed.— January 18, 2016 9:05 a.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
don bauder Well, not quite. If both the Chargers and the Raiders both decline to move to Los Angeles, at that point Kroenke is free to proceed. Also, if first the Chargers and then the Raiders use the entire 12 months allotted to them to make their decisions, Kroenke would have to wait as well.— January 17, 2016 8:20 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
don bauder, What I have read is that Kroenke can't do anything about those thing until it's been decided whether or not another team is moving in. The reason is obvious. The negotiations between the Rams and any other team will be on how much revenue another team would be entitled to from suites, psl's, general ticket sales, naming rights and whatever other stadium-related products are available as either as a partner or a tenant.. But once that has been decided, or both the Raiders and Chargers decline the option to move, the Kroenke is free to move ahead, whether that is next week or 2 years from now. And I have heard multiple sources report that more than one team owners has told them that the league will be involved with the negotiations.— January 17, 2016 12:33 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
MLB mandates that each club retain a 60:40 ratio of assets to liabilities at the close of its fiscal year. That was McCourts downfall and is why the Dodgers were going to be taken away from him.— January 17, 2016 12:17 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
don bauder Yes, the relocation fee is split among the owners, as I noted above earlier today. Considering that Kreonke was give the option on how to pay the relocation fee, it stands to reason the Rams and/or Raiders would be given the same option. The Chargers were give framework of the agreement to move to Inglewood Monday night.— January 17, 2016 12:11 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
imjustabill The amount of the relocation fee is decided by the other league owners. I am sure that the fee has already decided upon. However, the league has a formula they use and two of the items they consider are the increase in revenue streams in the new location and the relative increase in valuation of the team in the new location as opposed to the old location. While both revenue and team valuation undoubtedly will increase for whichever team, if any, ends up in Los Angeles, the increase would be substantially less if a team relocates as a tenant as opposed to an equity partner. Logic would seem to dictate that the relocation fee would therefore also be smaller.— January 17, 2016 12:02 p.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
don bauder I believe the NFL constitution and bylaws place severe restrictions on borrowing against the value of the team. I don't believe that actually using the team itself, or a portion of it, as collateral to be forfeited in the event of a default, is permitted. I would imagine that all of those particulars have already been sussed out. The Spanos is meeting with Kreonke tomorrow in Los Angeles tomorrow, so the Chargers move may already be fait accompli, with only the details left to be worked out. My own guess is that if they have someplace to play in Los Angeles next year, San Diego has seen the last of the Chargers.— January 17, 2016 8:28 a.m.
An option: Chargers stay, Qualcomm gets facelift
imjustabill The relocation fee doesn't go to Kroenke, it goes to the league: " The transfer fee will compensate other member clubs of the League for the loss of the opportunity appropriated by the relocating club and/or the enhancement (if any) in the value of the franchise resulting from the move" There is also no guarantee that the Chargers, or the Raider for that matter, would pay the same relocation fee as the Rams.— January 17, 2016 8:23 a.m.