Skip to content

San Diego proposal hinges on June 2016 public vote

Chargers-Sean-Haffey-Getty-640x465 Getty Images

The three cities that face losing NFL teams have made their final offers aimed at persuading the league’s owners to prevent the teams from leaving town. In San Diego, the proposal is roughly the same as the one that the city made during 2015 negotiations.

PFT has obtained a copy of the document submitted by San Diego on December 30. It provides for $350 million in public funding that would be available only if a June 2016 election results in approval for the investment. The rest of the $1.1 billion would come from the NFL ($200 million), the Chargers ($363 million), and PSL sales ($187 million).

The proposal also relies on an aggressive approach under the California Environmental Quality Act; still, the project has qualified for a program that requires all litigation challenging it to be finalized within 270 days. This means that, even with a favorable vote in June, a final answer through the courts may not come until much later.

The downside to the proposal becomes obvious. If the vote fails or if a court decides the project doesn’t pass environmental muster, the Chargers could be shut out of L.A., assuming the Rams secure approval to move to the stadium owner Stan Kroenke wants to build in Inglewood.

That’s one of the big reasons Kroenke was believed to be pushing for a one-year delay in a final vote on Los Angeles. He thinks that the extra year will show that San Diego can get something done on a new stadium — and that St. Louis can’t.

Even if the Chargers secure approval to move on January 13, San Diego can still try to put in place a plan for building a new stadium in the hopes of luring a replacement team. Indeed, portions of the San Diego proposal seem aimed at conveying the broader message that San Diego is indeed an NFL city.

The problem for the Chargers is that San Diego needs more time to prove that it’s an NFL city (via the ballot box and the litigation process) than the Chargers are willing to invest, especially after 15 years of waiting for the local politicians to wake up. It’s possible that a departure of the Chargers will trigger a strong local incentive to regain NFL status, pushing the effort through and making San Diego a potential destination for another team that needs a new stadium but can’t work something out in its local market.

Which makes the possibility of the Raiders moving to San Diego not as far fetched as it would seem.

Permalink 35 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers
35 Responses to “San Diego proposal hinges on June 2016 public vote”
  1. screamingsheep69 says: Jan 2, 2016 6:11 AM

    That will teach you San Diego, drag your feet and you get Mark Davis.

  2. bearflagfan says: Jan 2, 2016 6:41 AM

    What a messed up world where the Raiders are forced to bypass LA and go to the one city in California that just hates them.

    If such an eventuality were to come about, it would make more sense for the owners to swap the teams – with the Spanos family taking over the Raiders and Mark Davis getting the Chargers. Then maybe the undercapitalized Davis could get a local minority investor to help bolster the team (paging billionaire and U-T owner Doug Manchester).

  3. bearflagfan says: Jan 2, 2016 6:45 AM

    The June 2016 election is the absolute worst for a stadium proposal. While a majority of San Diegans likely support stadium funding, the two party extremes hate it – Democrats because they think the money should go to more worthy causes than NFL team owners, Reoublicans because they don’t believe the government should go into further debt propping up already profitable private entities. But traditionally the vast middle voters skip the primaries while the party extremes turn out in droves. The stadium vote backers (and Chargers) know this so really the vote isn’t likely to take place until Nov 2016, putting off the litigation deadline to August 2017.

  4. ncphilliesguy says: Jan 2, 2016 7:47 AM

    I can’t stand these dirtball owners holding a city hostage. Yeah, the politicians should “wake up” and give billionaires hundreds of millions of dollars. Let’s have Goodell pay for the stadium, he could probably do it with his savings account.

  5. squidlips82 says: Jan 2, 2016 9:06 AM

    The San Diego Raiders Huh…..

    How about The San Diego Bendejos?

  6. squidlips82 says: Jan 2, 2016 9:51 AM

    ncphilliesguy says:
    Jan 2, 2016 7:47 AM
    I can’t stand these dirtball owners holding a city hostage. Yeah, the politicians should “wake up” and give billionaires hundreds of millions of dollars. Let’s have Goodell pay for the stadium, he could probably do it with his savings account.

    ppppppppppppppppppppppppp

    Exactly…. then rename the club San Diego Bendejos

  7. squidlips82 says: Jan 2, 2016 9:55 AM

    Nuggets for $1.49…. LOL….LOL…lol…lo

  8. bert1913 says: Jan 2, 2016 10:09 AM

    another billionaire owner blackmailing another city

  9. dontouchmyjunk says: Jan 2, 2016 10:12 AM

    Considering an environmental study to be a roadblock is BS. We all know they get passed on big projects like this. Speaking of environmental impact – the Carson site is a former toxic landfill.

    San Diego offered more than St Louis for a stadium. Throw in that extra 100 million the NFL was going to give to St Louis and San Diego has nearly half the financing already.

  10. usmutts says: Jan 2, 2016 10:20 AM

    … $350 million in public funding …

    What a crock. Why should taxpayers foot this bill? The NFL makes billions – every year. The NFL is comprised of billionaires making billions more every year.

    The NFL should build its own stadiums. Put them anywhere they want. Assign teams to any stadium they want in any city they want.

    I suggest that anytime a governmental entity collects money from taxpayers to raise a stadium for the NFL, the profits from the team playing in that stadium should be shared with the taxpayers. The taxpayers are investing in an enterprise run for profit. Part of those profits should be returned to the investors.

  11. squidlips82 says: Jan 2, 2016 10:22 AM

    11/2/1965
    Construction of a $27 million San Diego Stadium is authorized by a 73 percent “yes” vote by San Diego citizens.

  12. str82dvd says: Jan 2, 2016 10:27 AM

    I sense a lot of jealousy in the these comments. Your jealousy and Communist leanings won’t keep a team in your city. Desirable, scarce products fetch high prices. So, asking the city to pony up a 3rd of the cash to build a stadium is pretty reasonable.

    Most of you leftist whiners are cool with government spending many trillions of our tax dollars on handouts for the lazy. Why not spend tax money on something that’s useful for a change? Something for the average, hardworking guy?

  13. alonestartexan says: Jan 2, 2016 10:34 AM

    What I don’t get about the whole situation is how the Rams can refer to St. Louis as a dead market.

    When Georgia Frontiere couldn’t get enough votes to move the Rams to St. Louis and couldn’t afford to move them, she found a local Missouri investor (Kroenke) to buy into the team to move them FROM Los Angeles to St. Louis.

    When the team moved to St. Louis in 1995, the St. Louis region had a population of roughly 2.5 million. The region had 10 Fortune 500 companies, and the media market was ranked 2oth.

    Currently, the St. Louis region has a population of roughly 2.9 million. The region has 10 Fortune 500 companies, and the media market ranks 21st.

    What’s the problem? St. Louis Rams fans went through a decade of the worst football in NFL history (from a record standpoint) and they STILL sell 60k tickets to each game (even if they don’t actually show up to games) The population has grown (even if marginally) the corporate presence remains the same, and the media market has dropped by 1 slot to a market that doesn’t even have an NFL franchise.

    Granted, the Edward Jones Dome needs to be replaced as it’s a dank, dark, dungeon of a football stadium, but it’s not even close to being as bad as Qualcomm and O.Co.

    I’m not a Rams fan, I’m not from St. Louis, but if the Rams are allowed to leave St. Louis, I may stop watching the NFL. The Rams left Los Angeles for a reason and since leaving have had very good support, was given a new stadium (which is STILL newer than the LA Coliseum and Anaheim Stadium) and even won a Super Bowl.

    The people of St. Louis have been bent over backwards by the NFL, the NFL Cardinals left St. Louis because they couldn’t get a new stadium. They move to Arizona and play in an absolute DUMP at Sun Devil Stadium and do so for 19 years before getting a new stadium. The Cardinals could have been the team that was awarded the Edward Jones Dome.

    Despite the crime and the Ferguson b.s., St. Louis doesn’t deserve to lose a 2nd team in 30 years. The Raiders play in a stadium that has overflowing raw sewage! Let the Raiders move to LA.

  14. koufaxmitzvah says: Jan 2, 2016 10:35 AM

    Kroenke should be able to control the destiny of his own team. That way, his business decisions will affect only his team. The Rams are a better shot to bring football back to LA than the Chargers are. Period.

    By messing this up– and you know, they will– the NFL gambles against the house on not one but four cities. Which is great because these guys in their expensive suits really know what goes on with loyal fandom.

  15. squidlips82 says: Jan 2, 2016 11:08 AM

    usmutts says:
    Jan 2, 2016 10:20 AM
    … $350 million in public funding …

    What a crock. Why should taxpayers foot this bill? The NFL makes billions – every year. The NFL is comprised of billionaires making billions more every year.

    ============================

    …..don’t forget about the $187 Million in PSL sales.

  16. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 2, 2016 11:13 AM

    I hope the taxpayers aren’t stupid enough to give these disgustingly greedy billionaires a single stinking dime.

    San Diego like many American cities is still in financial crisis mode. Even if they could create some new tax every penny is desperately needed to stop cuts in police, fire, emts, teachers etc far more than these scumbag nfl billionaires need it.

    Just say no San Diego !!!

  17. 8oneanddones says: Jan 2, 2016 11:15 AM

    If private funding for a football stadium was a good investment, Donald Trump or Warren Buffet would have their hands in every last one.

  18. skinnylegspeytonmanning says: Jan 2, 2016 11:22 AM

    Good luck with the city of Diego ponying up. San Diego is not a pro sports town. Never has been.

  19. JSpicoli says: Jan 2, 2016 11:24 AM

    NFL crapping on the golden eggs.

  20. immafubared says: Jan 2, 2016 11:25 AM

    If I had to guess I would not be shocked to see the owners go for a multi purpose stadium with the Raiders and Chargers.
    1. Huge market that needs to be tapped in the LA area.
    2. Two teams in different divisions so sharing one stadium is viable.
    3. The owners only have to pony up 200 million for one stadium not twice for two stadiums.
    4. St Loius is staying put. Nothing to be gained making the middle of the country TV market barren. The rams stay put.

  21. THX 138 says: Jan 2, 2016 11:46 AM

    Voters will never approve it. That being said! they did vote fot the “Bullit Train” that is going to cost 500 Billion and take at least 30 years to build.

  22. packerfaninsandiego says: Jan 2, 2016 11:47 AM

    There are too many non-football fans here to vote for a new stadium. This is not a football city and I’ve been here for 18 years.

  23. brettfavreisapacker4ever says: Jan 2, 2016 12:43 PM

    What would it take to renovate Qualcomm Stadium ?
    $300 million , $400 million ? That might be tempting to Mark Davis and the NFL.
    15 years ago we renovated Lambeau inside and outside for $295 million. Since then the Packers stuck another $200 million of their own money into Lambeau by adding 7500 seats, updating the 120 Luxury boxes, and remodeled the main Atrium entrance and the restaurants / shops in the atrium.
    It could be done in San Diego too. And for a helluva a lot less money than $1.2 billion.

    Even though Lambeau is almost 60 years old, it’s a wonderful facility with all the best amenities for fans. It’s also the main base for all the Packers offices and training facilities. One of the best facilities in all of NFL Football.

  24. dumbaseinstien says: Jan 2, 2016 12:59 PM

    LA isn’t going to get a team. The Raiders will stay in Oakland, the Chargers will remain in San Diego & the Rams will remain in St. Louis. LA & NY are the armpits of the western world.

  25. mark0226 says: Jan 2, 2016 1:00 PM

    “It’s possible that a departure of the Chargers will trigger a strong local incentive to regain NFL status…”

    Yeah, like when the Raiders and Rams left LA triggered a strong local incentive, hahahaha.

  26. balaspackfan says: Jan 2, 2016 1:02 PM

    Mission Valley becomes ghetto enough when the Raiders are the visiting team. No way way in hell the proposed redevelopment of the area works if the Raiders become the home team. SD would be better of without a team if the Raiders become the only option.

  27. justanotherfan101 says: Jan 2, 2016 1:48 PM

    If Kroenke gets voted down it doesn’t matter. The stadium in Inglewood probably needs a couple of years to complete, and he can just keep the team in St Louis until it’s finished, or not.

  28. rootpain says: Jan 2, 2016 2:46 PM

    Has anyone heard when the owners are going to fire Goodell the Narcissist?

  29. Frazier28/7 says: Jan 2, 2016 3:54 PM

    I love how the proposals all use psl sales as a separate source from the owners contribution. All teams use psl sales in their contribution, not the other way around!

  30. squidlips82 says: Jan 2, 2016 5:24 PM

    Frazier28/7 says:
    Jan 2, 2016 3:54 PM
    I love how the proposals all use psl sales as a separate source from the owners contribution. All teams use psl sales in their contribution, not the other way around!

    0 0
    hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    .
    Don’t you think they should be separate? The fan pays for those PSL’s. That is a public expense.

  31. DesertEagle76 says: Jan 2, 2016 8:05 PM

    I’ll watch Mexican soccer full time if the Raiders go to San Diego.

  32. fabreps says: Jan 2, 2016 9:02 PM

    NO TAXPAYER MONEY FOR ANY PRO SPORTS STADIA OR ARENAS!

  33. davidu9 says: Jan 3, 2016 11:12 AM

    The City wanted to vote on this December 2015. That was last month. There would have been near certainty whether San Diego was going to build a stadium by now had the Chargers not walked away from the negotiating table.

    And make no mistake, they have not been trying for 14 years. The Chargers have presented zero formal proposals to the City. A City who just 18 years ago added 11,000 seats in an expansion/renovation for the Chargers and the NFL to host Super Bowls.

    I would say the Chargers have negotiated in bad faith, had they negotiated at all. And the Chargers PR man – who they’ve been paying for 14 years (thats apparently trying) has done nothing but extend the middle finger and firebomb the City with a slanted and half truth narrative to an all too willing National Media.

    San Diego has been home to the Chargers for 55 years. The City has always supported the NFL and the Chargers never having dropped into the bottom third of any meaningful metric. Even this year, with the Chargers doing everything they can to get out of town, attendance was middle of the pack in the NFL. Oakland and St. Louis were 4th from last and dead last. But they don’t deserve to have their team ripped from them either.

    Here is the bottom line. Los Angeles doesn’t even care if they have the NFL. They definitely don’t want the Chargers. If anyone is going to work it would be the Rams. But if the NFL wants to go back to LA and stop using it as leverage, they need to expand into LA with another franchise. Its the only way its going to work – with a brand new team they can call their own and support.

  34. padvcd080974yahoocom says: Jan 3, 2016 12:40 PM

    The City of San Diego does NOT hate the Raiders. Have you ever been to a Chargers/Raiders game in the last ten years or more? There are far more Raider fans in the stadium than Charger fans. They wouldn’t have to worry about selling out the stadium as Raiders’ fans support their team and not just with lip service!

  35. natepickering says: Jan 3, 2016 12:46 PM

    “The problem for the Chargers is that San Diego needs more time to prove that it’s an NFL city”

    If the NFL feels we haven’t done that over the course of the last 54 years, then screw the NFL.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!