In a surprising shift in the team’s stance regarding the financing for a new stadium, the San Diego Chargers have abandoned their position the venue can be built without public funding.
“It’s almost certainly going to involve some sort of taxpayer money,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said Thursday, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
“Now the question is: Can you say to the taxpayers you’re putting in
this, but here’s what you’re getting back? And you know, it’s possible
you can make that case.”
Sure, Mark, you can make that case. But if you’ve proceeded for seven years by not making that case, it’s a little bit harder to get folks to buy in.
Fabiani also said that the team has disregarded the idea of raising considerable money via nearby ancillary development — hotels, condominiums, and retail establishments. Given the economy, such sources of revenue might not pan out.
So if public money isn’t available for the construction of a stadium in San Diego, the Chargers could be moving back to the city where they played their first AFL season.
Unless the Vikings or the Jaguars get there first.
Florio knows nothing about San Diego. Glad you know how to copy and paste then make an ass out of yourself by acting like you know what your talking about.
Now we see why teams the Giants used PSL’s for their new stadium, to avoid using tax money.
The government doesn’t know what to do with money anyway, why not let them build a new stadium?
Well, if class was money this stadium would have been built a long time ago. Just ask LaT.
Los An-gel-es… Chargers! Los An-gel-es… Chargers! (as sung to the San Diego Chargers Team song).
California is broke so unless they mean going out and doing car washes to pay for it… I think they’ll be outta luck if they want the public to pay for anything.
The Chargers are playing their options wisely while the vikings are finding ways to more ways to screw up their situation up.
Of course they do. Just build it with less seating and you’ll take care of the blackout issues as well.
Come on San Diego, what’s the point in all the noise about the Chargers if you’re not willing to support them? They’re playing their hearts out for you, show them the money! lol
“Unless the Vikings or the Jaguars get their first.”
Unless the Vikings or the Jaguars get THERE first.
Other teams might want to take a look at the recent deal btw Louisiana and the Saints. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it offers a road map to the type of things that are going to become common in future stadium deals.
keep in mind that has to do with the stadium proposal to be built at that downtown location.
its only 11-12 acres and there is no extra land to use as addtional developement-that was given to the idiot Padres owner John Moores.
It doesnt apply to sites outside the city of San Diego proper that they have been looking at but that raises the cost of building it too.
The SDUT’s title and gist of the story is somewhat misleading and didnt do a decent job of clarifying that.
all in all its going to be a political bomb to get it even close to a ballot measure
Public money worked out great for the Padres. They got a new stadium and then proceeded to trade all of the good players. San Diego voters will never approve using public money, but I guess that may be why they are proposing it. Then they will have a built in excuse to leave San Diego. “Well, you didn’t support building a new stadium, so we have to leave.”
get *there first.
Dumbass.
San Diego might be broke, but billionairs live in La Jolla, and yet, cant get a decent invester. Redicules. Better make it happen!!!!
Wow this story is so ironic. I totally don’t mean to make this a cheap plug, but I actually interviewed Ralph Nader for my site/college the other day about this very topic! Glad you guys are bringing these kinds of stories to light.
Check out my interview w/ Ralph Nader and what he had to say on sports becoming too $$$ for fans:
http://thesportscourier.com/content/exclusive-ralph-nader-politics-tim-donaghy-and-sports-america
I hope one of these teams moves to Los Angeles…
“Florio knows nothing about San Diego. Glad you know how to copy and paste then make an ass out of yourself by acting like you know what your talking about.”
^^^^^
…says the guy with a screenname denegrating a city he’s probably never even set foot in. Irony?
BTW, I’ve been to just about every major city in the USA, and Boston happens to be one of the most beautiful cities in America.
I’d say check it out sometime,…but seeing your act, it’s probably best you just stick to whatever god forsaken hell hole you call home and STFU.
Anyhow, other than Jacksonville, there’s no city less deserving of a quality team than San Diego. The inability of this market to support one of the most winning team’s this decade is shameful.
Don’t even wait for a new L.A stadium, move to the Coliseum next year. New SD stadium is obviously not going to happen.
@Richard
Its SUPER Chargers, not Chargers.
__________________________
The Chargers had a golden opportunity to build a new stadium around 1998-2000 and the Spanos family pissed it away. Now the costs to build a new stadium have doubled, and that’s being generous.
So Mike Dickhead Florio, why aren’t the Jaguars tagged you goof. Always hatin’…
Unless the Vikings or the Jaguars get their first.
might want to check the class notes from english 101 buddy.
Vikes are not going anywhere either, so no need to worry, LA doesnt deserve a team.
Doc- Are you saying that his THERE is incorrect, and your THEIR is correct Or did he fix his already…
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_fHftxFXFhyYTM3OWNhMjgtYzNmYy00NTY2LWE3MzMtZDBjMDQ0NjcxMGY3&hl=en
Please read our report linked above that give the Chargers no public money and ties any NFL Stadium to resolve the homeless problem in the East Village, and 100 percent affordable housing in Mission Valley. We agree with Mr. Fabiani that the public should vote on any plan. The City Charter requires a public vote for any redevelopment of the Mission Valley site.
If SDG&E used collocation with their existing utility corridor the Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) instead of a new route of the Sunrise Powerlink through areas of very severe fire hazards, constuction could start on the Sunrise Powerlink and the South Bay Power Plant can be decommissioned. Since the South Bay Power Plant in Chula Vista is on publically owned Port of San Diego tidelands. The Chargers could use funds from redevelopment of the Chula Vista Bayfront to pay for the stadium in the East Village.
Taxpayers will still have to pay to mitigate the MTS bus station, and get rid of the public’s contaminated soils by building 2 levels of underground parking.
No problem. California is loaded.
The problem the NFL has, is that they know they can’t move any team to LA. If they do, they can’t hold the taxpayers feet to the fire with their “Build it, or we’ll move to LA” rant. If anyone goes there, it kills the chances for any other team to get a taxpayer funded stadium. I wouldn’t be suprised if Roski and Goodell are buddies.
the Dischargers can’t fill the stadium they got and now they want a new one? LMAO!
# The Real Shuxion says: December 10, 2009 9:56 PM
No problem. California is loaded.
===================================
lol, that’s right. Will an IOU suffice?
Maybe the State can write out some more IOU’s, I’m sure they’re good for it. Why in the hell would you bring in another Team when they can’t support the ones they have now ?
With all that’s going on it’s not really a good time to stick it to the taxpayers again. I hope more cities tell NFL Teams to get bent and pay for their own damn stadiums.
Vikes get there first. Talks have already started, shhhh. No one is supposed to know.
Here’s a quarter, call someone who cares !!
# Zaggs says: December 10, 2009 8:36 PM
Now we see why teams the Giants used PSL’s for their new stadium, to avoid using tax money.
—————————————–
Maybe I’m wrong, but I heard that sales of PSLs, across the board, have been pretty disappointing in Dallas and the Giants/Jets combined stadium…I could be wrong, but even if I had millions of dollars, I think PSLs are pretty ridiculous.
“Investment opportunity” my foot.
Like it or not, a move to L.A. makes perfect sense for the Chargers. They’ll keep most, if not all, of their fan base, and gain a new base in the 2nd largest market. Now that the City of Industry stadium has cleared all hurdles, you know the NFL wants 2 teams there before the next round of TV contract negotiations starts. And the Chargers and Jaguars make all the sense in the world. I am convinced they’ll be at least one team playing in The Rose Bowl or Anaheim next year waiting for the new stadium, and maybe two, because it is going to be a race.
HaywoodBostonisacraphole: I’ll let you in on a little secret. Boston is a crap hole. Why else would so many pasty-white, overweight natives move away from your beloved city!?!
Sincerely,
Your city sucks
As soon as California becomes the first state to make marijuana legal and therefore a taxable commodity they’ll be loaded. Until then I wouldn’t count on the state serving up a half-billion dollars to keep the Chargers in SD when they’ll probably just move a little north to LA anyway.
So let me get this straight. A team thats actually one of the top 5-7 performing franchises the past 5 years yet still has trouble selling out their games, wants taxpayer money to fund a new stadium in a state thats literally broke?
On what planet are we on? There is just no way this will pass through vote. California has gotten hammered by the reccession. There would be no way to justify this especially in a city that doesnt really support this franchise to begin with. No team is moving to L.A. That city is just not a football town. These owners really are out of touch with reality
I am a die hard Super Charger fan. No way would I vote for a new stadium for them! It has nothing to do with the current team, but the teams ownership. Remember the ticket gaurantee deal they had with the city up to last year? Where the city of SD had to buy all the un-sold tickets? That little closed door deal soured me on the Chargers management. The Padres got there new stadium when they made it to the Series, Chargers have got to make it to the super bowl before it makes it on the ballot. I would love to see them make it that far, but still wouldn’t vote for a new stadium for them. The State is broke! We cannot even figure out how to pay for enforcement of new fish and game laws here let alone a new stadium for anyone, much less a bunch of greedy billionaires.
Go Chargers! I mean that, but buy your own damn stadium if you want one that bad.
the state of California is finacally strapped, but their supposed to come up with money for an NFL team to build a new stadium??? Un-F’in believable, instead of congress getting involved in wasting time talking about college football & a playoff system, they should investigate the NFL and these rather interesting business practices, their are cities cutting back on police & fireman because of there budget, but we’re supposed to come up with money for this nonsense???
Mike, this is Mark Fabiani, with the Chargers. Thanks for your interest in our stadium search.
Here is a brief summary of our situation:
➢ The Chargers’ previous attempts over the last seven years to privately finance a stadium all involved very large sites that could accommodate both a stadium and a related development project – the profits of which would help pay for the costs of the stadium.
➢ These large sites included, among others, the existing Qualcomm site (166 acres), the Chula Vista Bayfront site (130 acres), and the Oceanside drive-in and golf course sites (combined 165 acres).
➢ The downtown San Diego site now being considered is just over 10 acres – making it the smallest stadium site in the NFL. As a result, the site will accommodate, at most, the stadium, without any opportunity for the related development to help pay for the stadium.
➢ For that reason, the successful development of a stadium at the downtown site will require sources of funding other than what might come from a related development, in addition to a $250 – $300 million investment by the Chargers and the NFL.
➢ It is too soon to say what other funding sources may be available. That is the subject of a CCDC-sponsored study by stadium finance expert Mitchell Zeits.
➢ Nonetheless, we believe it is important for everyone to understand that the downtown site might require some sort of taxpayer subsidy.
➢ Such a subsidy would only be possible if voters agree that an investment downtown will result in significant returns for taxpayers elsewhere. For example:
o Would a taxpayer investment downtown result in the city of San Diego saving the $300 million or more that taxpayers will pay through 2020 to maintain the Qualcomm site?
o Would an investment downtown allow the city of San Diego to sell, lease or otherwise generate hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from the 166-acre Qualcomm site?
o Would a taxpayer investment downtown allow the city of San Diego to make better use of the 100 or so acres it owns in and around the Sports Arena site?
➢ These are all open questions, and ultimately voters will decide whether a public investment in this project makes sense.
➢ The Chargers believe that, at this early stage of the process, it makes sense to continue to explore these ideas to see where they might lead.
Again, thank you for your interest in our issue, and for the opportunity to comment.
Mark Fabiani.
Bob Nelson says:
December 10, 2009 8:41 PM
The Chargers are playing their options wisely while the vikings are finding ways to more ways to screw up their situation up.
———————————————-
This is why nothing you say is taken serious!
How about a proof read, moron!
After reading the comments on this story, one thing is for sure: No matter which way you come down on the question of taxpayer subsidies, this is not a debate between one side that is against taxpayer spending and one side that is for it.
o The people who say they are in favor of the status quo – the people who say that the Chargers should simply stay in Qualcomm Stadium and play out their lease until 2020 – are in fact advocating the spending of more than $300 million in taxpayer money between now and then just to keep the aging stadium operating. In short, by advocating inaction, proponents of the status quo are also advocating the expenditure of huge amounts of taxpayer money from now until 2020.
o Those in favor of the downtown site are arguing that there is a better use for the Qualcomm site (that could potentially both generate new revenue and community amenities such as a park), as well as a better use for the $15 million a year that the city spends on the existing stadium.
o As the debate goes on, voters will of course make up their own minds. But it would be a mistake for anyone to cast this as a debate between taxpayer money vs. no taxpayer money. Taxpayer money is going to be spent no matter what; the real question is how it can best be spent.
Bob Nelson says:
“The Chargers are playing their options wisely while the vikings are finding ways to more ways to screw up their situation up”
While you find ways more ways to look like a jackass.