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
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
Don Bauder, I guess then we'll just have to disagree. On one side you have the owners, you know, the ones with the organized crime/gambling connections, who outspend their opponents 1000 to 1 to influence voters in the media. They lavish gifts, in one form or another on corrupt public officials. They call in political favors in order to influence legislation/change laws/regulations in their favor. And they get the tax payers to fund hundreds of millions, now into the billions, to build them their new Taj Majal stadiums replete with luxury boxes to pad their bottom line AND they sell the naming rights of their stadiums for millions even though they didn't pay for the stadium. . In other words, just your typical major sports team owners. As much as he is hated here in Los Angeles for what he did to the Dodgers, I just don't think he fall into the same category. Using the team as his personal ATM, lavishing high paying and basically phony jobs on his friends and family, raising ticket and concession prices every year, even borrowing the team into bankruptcy are all bad things, to be sure. But those are minor league, pun intended, when compared what these other guys do. That's why I don't put him in their league. As I said, a weasel, but just minor league when compared with the majority of the owners in MLB, NFL,NBA. Just my opinion. Opinions vary.— March 20, 2013 5:28 p.m.
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
Dude, you can't have it both ways. You keep saying it will be settled quickly, that you think that they are probably negotiating as we speak, that this gets settled sooner rather than later, and that they will sit down and hammer out an agreement. Now you say the settlement will wind up in court which ever way it goes. Well, as I have said, the only way it goes to court is if MLB decides the won't abide by the agreement as written by the court. As for not having an opinion, how can you say that MLB wants a quick settlement and at the same time not have an idea of how it will end. The ONLY "quick" is if MLB let's the Dodgers keep what they already have, without a fight. Last words on the subject.— March 20, 2013 5:09 p.m.
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
Part of the reason they "overpaid" is that rather than assuming about $750 million in debt that McCourt got the Dodgers into, they chose to pay off those outstanding loans. The interest alone was equal to about 90% of ticket revenue. Makes perfect sense over the long run.— March 20, 2013 11:01 a.m.
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
Don Baider, First of all, let me make it clear that I can't stand McCourt. IMHO he is a weasel. I've met the man and even in a 2 or 3 minute convo having nothing to do with baseball, to me he still came across as a weasel. But that said, I question the accuracy of your comment that he he epitomizes sports team owners. According to you, owners have organized crime/gambling backgrounds, they fleece their communities, at city, county and in some cases state level to build them stadiums, pay for infrastructure improvements, give them tax breaks, low to zero interest loans, etc, etc, etc. I get that and I agree in most cases. But exactly how is it that McCourt epitomizes these sports team owners? I have never read of any hint of McCourt having ties to gambling/organized crime. He didn't demand a new stadium, threatening to move the Dodgers if he didn't get it. He didn't need concessions from LA on stadium rent, because he owned it. In fact, he used Dodger Stadium as collateral for a $250 million loan. He didn't fleece the taxpayers, unless you want to count fleecing his customers by raising ticket and concession prices every single year he owned the team. As I said, all he did was literally take almost every penney the Dodgers made and when that ran low, he borrowed against the future gate and finally took them into BK because their literally wasn't enough money to pay the bills. So I ask again. How exactly is it he epitomizes sports team owners when he displayed very few of the actions and attitudes typical to those other sports team owners you write about?— March 20, 2013 10:55 a.m.
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
AARDVARK, a couple of final thoughts. When you say "settled quickly", what exactly do you mean, in terms of both time frame and who gives? Let me point out these facts. Some two months after signing, the Dodgers have not even submitted the contract to MLB for approval. They are in no hurry as they have almost a year and can, both literally and figuratively, begin building SportsNet LA. MLB agreed to value the potential TV rights of any future deal at $84 million the first year, rising 4 percent every year thereafter. It was part of the BK. So do you think that the Dodgers are going to negotiate down from something that was signed by the Federal court, or do you think that MLB is going to "settle" and give up that extra $1billion. I don't think the Dodgers give away what they already have. I think the only "settlement" is if MLB concedes to the already agreed upon fair value of the Dodgers and OK's the deal as is. Be specific. Exactly HOW do you think it will be settled. Do the Dodgers give up what the court has already given them? Or does MLB concede defeat and sign off as is?— March 20, 2013 10:19 a.m.
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
Don Bauder, What exactly is "over the long run". Your comment is pretty vague. The Dodgers have already been here for 53 yrs, so exactly how much longer is the long run? The life of this contract, when it is finally approved, will be 25 yrs. Is 78 yrs the long run? It's not as if the Dodgers are going to leave Los Angeles. As I said above, I don't see MLB leaving $1 billion on the table without a fight. And aren't you the one who calls team owners and leagues greedy? Do you see them walking away from $1 billion without a fight, even if it is spread over 25 yrs? I don't.— March 20, 2013 9:58 a.m.
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
You have your opinion and I have mine. But the fact remains that when the Dodgers emerged from bankruptcy, their agreement stipulated that the club's fair-market TV value would be set at $84 million a year, with 4% increases each season. That was in a Federal bankruptcy court. MLB can't just unilaterally decide their value is different. The Dodger's would either have to agree to give up money or MLB would have to go back to BK court and convince the court to do it. I don't see the Dodgers giving up any of that money voluntarily and I don't see MLB just letting go. As I said, you have your opinion and I have mine. Time will tell.— March 19, 2013 9:37 p.m.
Del Taco out, In-N-Out in in Encinitas
I can remember when the closest In-N-Out to SD was in Capistrano, right off the 5, probably back in the early 80's. Every time we went down there to visit my wife's sister and family, we had to stop and pick up double doubles for everyone.— March 19, 2013 10:37 a.m.
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
Actually, the 2 figures I used are what they are arguing about. The Dodgers claim that the BK ruling limits the revenue sharing to $84million of the estimated $280 million contract per year (with a 4%increase per yr) and MLB claims the whole $280 million is subject to revenue sharing. That $1 billion or so they are "fighting" over is the how much revenue the Dodgers would keep, and MLB would not get, over the life of the 25yr contract. The way the league's revenue sharing rules are written, there really isn't much of a choice. A Federal court has made the ruling on the fair market value of the Dodgers. It's either one or the other, based on what I have read. I am not so sure that MLB will roll over and give away a potential $1billion without a fight— March 19, 2013 10:14 a.m.
Will Chargers leave for LA? Which newspaper d'ya read?
The Dodgers tv contract hasn't been approved by MLB yet, because the team hasn't even submitted it. There are concerns over the he revenue-sharing implications. MLB is claiming the standard 34% rate and the Dodgers are saying that the BK agreement stipulated that their fair-market TV value would be $84 million a year, with 4% increases each season. At this point, it looks as if it is going to end up in federal court.— March 18, 2013 3:18 p.m.