Skip to content

Goodell reminds San Diego that $300 million is available for stadium

Zz0zNmUzZTExY2M3MTA5Yzc2OGJmM2Q1ZDY3MDA3MmFiOQ== AP

As the Chargers execute a win-win, guilt-cleansing strategy aimed at getting them the stadium they want in San Diego or Los Angeles, the NFL has reminded the powers-that-be in San Diego of the contribution the NFL is willing to make to get a stadium built in the team’s home since 1961.

“We are very supportive of the decision by Dean Spanos to continue his efforts in San Diego and work with local leaders to develop a permanent stadium solution,” Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement posted at the team’s official website. “NFL ownership has committed $300 million to assist in the cost of building a new stadium in San Diego. I have pledged the league’s full support in helping Dean to fulfill his goal.”

On top of the $300 million is the $550 million relocation fee the Chargers would avoid if they don’t move. Which would go a long way toward building a stadium, if Spanos would be willing to divert that money to building his own place.

But Spanos apparently isn’t inclined to spend all of the money he’d spend on a relocation on a stadium in San Diego. The question then is whether San Diego can move quickly enough to get a stadium deal in place before January 15, 2017. Last month, San Diego made a proposal that, if approved by voters and if successfully defended against any legal challenges, would add $350 million to the pot.

In the past, the Chargers have taken the position that all legal and political hurdles can’t be cleared so quickly, which makes this look a lot more like an effort to ensure that, if the Chargers move, the Chargers will be able to shift the blame away from themselves.

Permalink 80 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
80 Responses to “Goodell reminds San Diego that $300 million is available for stadium”
  1. ctbarryjr says: Jan 29, 2016 9:32 PM

    Thats 1.1b. Build it now

  2. thesmartest1 says: Jan 29, 2016 9:32 PM

    They would be foolish to move. More expensive and more risk. Whatever Spanos’ doctor has him on he should reduce the dosage.

  3. bengalsofthenorth says: Jan 29, 2016 9:33 PM

    I am one of the few people who think its ok for cities to give hundreds of millions to pro teams for stadiums.

    It’s the cities money to do with what they want. It’s when the entire state is shook down for money(like Wisconsin was for the Milwaukee Bucks stadium).

    If the people of the cities do not want to spend that kind of money, elect the people who will not pay it to the teams and be prepared to accept your team will likely leave your city.

  4. bubbybrisket says: Jan 29, 2016 9:34 PM

    Didn’t the league make $9 billion in 2014? Surely they could up that amount to $700 million because we all know Deano can’t afford to finance a stadium on his own.

  5. pemory says: Jan 29, 2016 9:35 PM

    What a disaster. This whole shuffle by Spanos and Goodell is ugly, ugly business. San Diego and Chargers fans deserve so much better.

  6. mrneto72 says: Jan 29, 2016 9:40 PM

    Los Angeles does not want you Dean, you have nothing here, stay in beautiful San Diego where u have your fans, don’t be greedy, LA is not for you, you will have no support from football fans here, stay out of Los Angeles

  7. goodguyattorney says: Jan 29, 2016 9:47 PM

    Did every other team just hear that there’s $300M available for their new stadium?

  8. motleytrap says: Jan 29, 2016 9:48 PM

    300 million they wouldn’t give to St. Louis.

  9. staffordsyear says: Jan 29, 2016 9:48 PM

    Crook.

  10. groleo45 says: Jan 29, 2016 9:49 PM

    What a world where $850,000,000 isn’t enough to build a suitable football stadium

  11. Hitdog18 says: Jan 29, 2016 9:49 PM

    No WAY that proposal passes

  12. bolted4life says: Jan 29, 2016 9:58 PM

    Lets get this deal done and keep the San Diego in the San Diego Chargers!!!

    BOLT UP!!!

  13. streetyson says: Jan 29, 2016 10:00 PM

    The poor Spanos family just need to make a tad more than the $65M profits of last year for their little $1.52BN business (bought in 1984 for $70M). Is that too much to ask? The guy is so desperate to feed his family that he’s prepared to abandon thousands of loyal fans and blame the city for not prostrating itself enough or paying enough protection money, so bend over further San Diego and empty your pockets if you want to keep the franchise you helped make rich, because the guy hasn’t got all day.

  14. sariff420 says: Jan 29, 2016 10:02 PM

    Chargers are not LA. The Raiders are

  15. sdcharger123 says: Jan 29, 2016 10:09 PM

    Even if Spanos threw in another 150 (from relocation fee funds) on top of his 200 million to match the city/county contribution of 350 million that would go a long way to winning voter approval. Oh, and firing Fabiani, screw that guy.

  16. proc2000 says: Jan 29, 2016 10:25 PM

    So the extortion money will be paid. San Diego Super Chargers…sing it everybody! Give Oakland that scratch too!

  17. rlpftt says: Jan 29, 2016 10:28 PM

    How stupid, bring two teams to the most overcrowded, heavily polluted, non sports city in the US. LA is for celebrities and weak people that relocate there because they can’t handle snow and cold weather. The beaches suck there, the water is freezing, everything is ridiculously expensive and the people there are all loons that can’t drive.

    What a terrible decision this is the NFL repeatedly fails in that dump city of LA and they are bringing two teams there now, insanity!

  18. orivar says: Jan 29, 2016 10:35 PM

    Spanos wants it free though. Sorry buddy, got to spend money to make it. He wants to be a high roller like his cohort s he’sgot to play ball

  19. tommykramer9 says: Jan 29, 2016 10:36 PM

    If you have to be reminded that there’s $300 million available for you, you probably shouldn’t be running a business…..

  20. kerrchris65 says: Jan 29, 2016 10:40 PM

    Did St Louis receive the same $300 million pledge from the NFL?

  21. balaspackfan says: Jan 29, 2016 10:50 PM

    Get it to a vote!!

  22. balaspackfan says: Jan 29, 2016 10:54 PM

    The politicians need to push this through so the people can vote on it. If it doesn’t pass the SD doesn’t deserve a stadium.

  23. shcedstaff says: Jan 29, 2016 10:56 PM

    Give me 100 million and the Chargers can play in my backyard. Charger games don’t sell out anyway. The 67 Charger fans will have plenty of space.

  24. joebaronich says: Jan 29, 2016 11:00 PM

    Who needs schools and hospitals. Infrastructure is so overrated.

  25. whodatnhollywood says: Jan 29, 2016 11:01 PM

    I’m happy to hear the Chargers are not rushing to the gas chamber here in LA, but will try to work out a deal with San Diego. If they came here, especially this year, they would be smothered by the Rams and Raiders supporters.

    With $300m coming from the NFL and a savings of $550m by not relocating, not to mention the cost of setting up shop here in the LA/OC area with practice fields, corporate offices, employee and player relocation expenses and more, the Chargers are better off building their own palace rather than renting a room in Kroenkeworld.

    THIS is Rams territory. San Diego belongs to the Chargers. With potential Super Bowls and other potential moneymakers, I hope both sides finally see the light and make something happen. I rejoice with the rest of the San Diego fans.

    In the lyrics of Ice Cube, “Today was a good day.”

  26. mullman76 says: Jan 29, 2016 11:06 PM

    Spanos is a crook.

    Removing the chargers from san diego would be like moving the Raiders to san antonio.

    Totally unnecessary.

    Go Raiders

    Oakland Raiders, that is.

  27. Patch24680 says: Jan 29, 2016 11:12 PM

    NFL…..loan sharking??

  28. justanotherfan101 says: Jan 29, 2016 11:13 PM

    A $300 million loan from the NFL, repayable at 7-9% interest, and maybe $350 million kicked in by taxpayers of San Diego, which would leave maybe $550 million or more to be paid by the Chargers. Could work, if the citizens of San Diego are willing.

  29. ontboltfan says: Jan 29, 2016 11:29 PM

    This issue isn’t as simple as just the upfront purchase price.

    Yes they can save $500M in relocation – $300 of which the NFL kicks in regardless of what they do making it almost negligible over the long term.

    The real question is the increase in future revenues and cash flows in LA. Obviously naming rights, luxury suite sales, sponsorship etc are much greater in LA than SD currently

    The current value of the team is only ~ $1.5B in their present digs , roughly around 22nd in the league No doubt the value in the LA market will be much higher.

  30. iseek11 says: Jan 29, 2016 11:29 PM

    How is this possible? Suddenly there’s so much money to build stadiums. Anywhere. Even the places there was mo money to build a stadium a couple months ago. I think I feel sorry for the fans buying tickets to these stadiums. Got a feeling the licensing fees and ticket prices are gonna be outrageous.

  31. barkster52 says: Jan 29, 2016 11:34 PM

    Can you say shakedown people of San Diego?

  32. rectumdamnnearkilledem says: Jan 29, 2016 11:42 PM

    No way Spanos pays a $550 million relocation fee. This is a ploy for the Chargers to try to get more money from the City of San Diego, plain and simple. Coupled with the $300 million from the NFL, that is an $850 million swing. Chargers are staying put, but they are hoping another year of chicken sweetens the pot even more. Enough is enough

  33. claritysolution says: Jan 29, 2016 11:43 PM

    I honestly doubt San Diego voters would support public money for a new stadium. Probably wouldn’t even be close.

  34. drew2k2 says: Jan 29, 2016 11:44 PM

    $350 + $300 + $ 550 = a pretty decent stadium. Someone has an issue besides just the money..

  35. sdchicken says: Jan 29, 2016 11:44 PM

    Chargers need to stay in San Diego. Dean should sell the Chargers to a real owner who has money he actually wants to commit to his team. Get Zuckerburg

  36. jagsfanugh says: Jan 29, 2016 11:56 PM

    Just goes to show no loyalty. Fans need to understand that.

  37. ebhaynz says: Jan 30, 2016 12:16 AM

    Does Spanos even have the 550 million dollars for the relocation fee to L.A.?

  38. codiablo says: Jan 30, 2016 12:24 AM

    stay in san diego or move to london – LA doesn’t want 2 teams.

  39. Florio_Jr. says: Jan 30, 2016 12:28 AM

    But when St. Louis needed $100M…

  40. bam5239 says: Jan 30, 2016 12:48 AM

    800 million sounds like enough to build a nice stadium, 1.1 billion with the city’s offer or even PSLs and he could build his own version of Jerry world . Sharing a LA just doesn’t seem to be worth as much as owning San Diego. Especially when the price of admission is greater than the 500 million (loss of money as either a partner is a tenet) I suggested he invest.

  41. axx1 says: Jan 30, 2016 1:07 AM

    Do the tax payers who have to pay for the rest of the stadium get a say?

    Its not like the NFL doesnt make enough money.

  42. linvillegorge says: Jan 30, 2016 1:38 AM

    LA couldn’t support one team in the past. Not sure why everyone seems to think it can support two now.

  43. adoombray says: Jan 30, 2016 2:00 AM

    As a former Los Angeles resident, I can say that, the Chargers have been shoved down the throat of the local fanbase for so long that I think most Angelinos are sick of them. When I first moved to LA I was so happy that there wasn’t a bad local team to be forced into watching, but the reality is that LA has watched the chargers long enough and Dean Spanos has to understand that if his team was going to latch on there it would have done so already.

    The best move for the LA fanbase is to bring back the Raiders, who still have a devoted local population, and would keep the loyal fans in Oakland from completely abandoning the (pirate) ship. I have to believe that Spanos understands his best move is to stay put, and he’s just leveraging this as much as possible.

    I also have to believe that the league understands the Raiders need Los Angeles much more than the Chargers do. That’s a pretty core franchise to the league and they aren’t getting money out of Oakland, no matter what.

  44. DesertEagle76 says: Jan 30, 2016 2:39 AM

    CenturyLink Field in Seattle costs $430 Million to build in 2002 ($566M in 2016)

    NRG stadium in Houston cost $352M to build in 2002 ($464M in 2016).

    The University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona costs $455M in 2006 ($534M in 2016).

    I presume the money is there to get *a* stadium done and constructed in San Diego without the exorbitant financial risk from the taxpayers.

    With all of this said, would one rather build a perfectly adequate stadium like the ones mentioned above in exchange for complete control and direction over the vicinity, or take a few hundred more million with strings attached?

  45. pone27 says: Jan 30, 2016 2:52 AM

    Goodell has been awfully qwiet todway…..

  46. chrisdacommish says: Jan 30, 2016 3:03 AM

    You know what they say…..

  47. daytontriangles says: Jan 30, 2016 3:28 AM

    Have you ever stopped to think that all of this is just an effort on the part of Spanos to sandbag the Raiders?

    1: The Raiders do not have a lease in Oakland and need to find a new home quickly.

    2: Spanos does not want to compete with the Raiders in SoCal.

    3: If the Chargers got a deal done quickly in San Diego, the Raiders could immediately move to Inglewood.

    4: If the Chargers moved to L.A. next season, Oakland could immediately take steps to move to San Diego to fill the void, where they would be welcomed by the SoCal fans.

    So, by having an agreement in principle with Kroneke, while staying in San Diego another year, Spanos can put off making a decision until 2017. Maybe even 2018. This effectively locks the Raiders out of both the Los Angeles and San Diego markets and likely forces them to plot an alternate course for their future (Oakland, San Antonio, Las Vegas).

    Pretty smart on the part of Spanos.

  48. dynastyposeiden says: Jan 30, 2016 4:54 AM

    so dear taxpayers of san diego you build the house and we will handle the landscaping and put up the mailbox

  49. typicalnipple says: Jan 30, 2016 5:36 AM

    The commissioner also reminded San Diego that at some point they could obtain Big John Football and significantly increase revenue.

  50. brewster1 says: Jan 30, 2016 7:06 AM

    I vote for the San Diego Raiders! There would have to be some therapy sessions along the way for fans, but I think this could be kinda cool in a strange sort of way.

  51. mt10425 says: Jan 30, 2016 7:30 AM

    What efforts by the Chargers?

  52. rportkid says: Jan 30, 2016 8:00 AM

    Hey San Diego… Remember that Goodell is a serial liar. Don’t believe anything he says or trust anyone in his office.

  53. nhstateline says: Jan 30, 2016 8:11 AM

    or as Rog probably also puts around the office “$300 million is available for a new stadium and that’s just a little less than we’ve spent trying to disprove the ideal gas law in consultants and court fees over the last year or so.”

  54. rgorr44 says: Jan 30, 2016 8:22 AM

    About 1/2 of what Roger you can believe.

  55. skoobyfl says: Jan 30, 2016 8:32 AM

    $300 Million here / $500 Million there, at some point we’re going to be talking about a lot of money.

  56. haughville says: Jan 30, 2016 8:41 AM

    Wow, this game of tax payer subsidies has taken a new low. San Diego has one more chance to succumb to build a stadium but Spanos isn’t willing to spend all his relocation money on a stadium? I do feel sorry for the actual SD fans that love the game and relate to the Chargers over the years. You do deserve better!

  57. tccoats says: Jan 30, 2016 9:10 AM

    Pass a tax on rental cars and hotel rooms…make the tourists pay for the stadium…

  58. buffedman says: Jan 30, 2016 10:07 AM

    How stupid, bring two teams to the most overcrowded, heavily polluted, non sports city in the US. LA is for celebrities and weak people that relocate there because they can’t handle snow and cold weather. The beaches suck there, the water is freezing, everything is ridiculously expensive and the people there are all loons that can’t drive.

    What a terrible decision this is the NFL repeatedly fails in that dump city of LA and they are bringing two teams there now, insanity!

    —————————————————————–

    U mad bro ?

  59. ricknorris2014 says: Jan 30, 2016 10:19 AM

    Ever go to a raider game there? Who is the home team?

  60. weepingjebus says: Jan 30, 2016 10:54 AM

    Why does Goodell still have a job? This is a guy who suddenly can track individual concussion metrics league wide and report them immediately, but still hasn’t released any psi measurements. I wouldn’t trust him to change the wiper blades on my car, let alone negotiate a two or three way team move and stadium build. The bonfire is going to be epic.

  61. rootpain says: Jan 30, 2016 10:59 AM

    Well you know if Goodell is involved, its got to be a good deal. Hell I’d even drag out the deal just so that I have the opportunity to be close to the commissioner for a longer period of time. He seems to be sustainably have a nice person.

  62. cafetero1075 says: Jan 30, 2016 11:41 AM

    That’s $10M per owner, that’s pocket change for each owner. They give that money to lame duck coaches so their feelings don’t get hurt. NFL pay for your own stadium.

  63. boltdaddy says: Jan 30, 2016 11:51 AM

    The Raiders were offered a $100 million to work a stadium deal with Oaktown, which will not happen since Mark will be happy to slide into L.A. and dominate the entire So.Cal market, but I digress.

    The point is the $100 million for the Raiders/Oakland stadium, project now no longer needed ought to be thrown into the SD Stadium pot, no sense in letting a $100 million go to waste is there? The NFL contribution would become $400 million add Dean’s $350 (about 18 mil from Kronke as the dividend for Kronke’s move costing him $55o) and we’re up to $750 from the combined NFL/Chargers side of the deal.

    The voters ought to see the wisdom of retaining the NFL in a new stadium as a benefit to visitors and conventions for the city, that’s my take.

  64. R.J. says: Jan 30, 2016 11:59 AM

    “We are very supportive of the decision by Dean Spanos to continue his efforts in San Diego and work with local leaders to develop a permanent stadium solution,”

    Shouldn’t that read “shake down” instead of “work with”?

  65. ravforlife says: Jan 30, 2016 12:35 PM

    Play on the deck of an aircraft carrier, then they can go up and down the coast.

  66. rahavort says: Jan 30, 2016 12:40 PM

    …..shut up Goodell

  67. hereismyid says: Jan 30, 2016 12:57 PM

    If Spanos were to move to LA, what cut would the Charger’s receive of the stadium naming rights, sponsorships, monies from non NFL events, etc if the Chargers move in with the Rams. I would imagine the Rams would not be too interested in sharing those revenues.

    Not to mention the obvious – the Chargers would have to share a market with another team. He would have to compete with the Rams for tv viewers, media mindshare, NFL apparel, etc. Also factor in the Ram’s advantage because of a) they will be in LA at least a year earlier, and b) Rams used to play in LA before. Lastly, factor in that LA has plenty of entertainment options other than NFL. Its not a rosy picture.

    Being as moving to LA is not that rosy and there are no other big, untapped markets in the continental US, what options does Spanos have? San Diego is the least worst alternative. Therefore, what leverage does Spanos have over San Diego to demand a stadium? What is he going to do, leave for a lessor option?

  68. steelbreeze676 says: Jan 30, 2016 1:03 PM

    Kinda makes you wonder if the public money ploys aren’t part of a strategy to effectively extend the life of the league if CTE becomes too much of a problem. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they’ll want revenue.

  69. depotnator says: Jan 30, 2016 1:08 PM

    If we do the math, that’s $300M ( NFL) + $550M ( relocation fee saved) = $850M toward a new stadium before Spanos spends a dime. -How are San Diego taxpayers supposed to pay more before Spanos does?

  70. rcali says: Jan 30, 2016 1:50 PM

    A true gift from the gambling gods. I made a lot of money on the visiting teams getting points this year in San Diego . Sure, Vegas will adjust some but they also know the non-pros will still back the Orange County Chargers. Also, know the Rams won’t have home field advantage for years so get ready to back those visiting teams as well coming to the coliseum.

  71. baw409 says: Jan 30, 2016 2:33 PM

    Greedy Bastards, Just so 70,000 can enjoy a so so team. Figure that cost out per tax payer…. at least Kraft in New England spent his own money…

  72. csszrr says: Jan 30, 2016 3:56 PM

    extortion is what leads to teams in cities like San Antonio, OKC or Portland.

  73. hippieway says: Jan 30, 2016 5:02 PM

    Its starting to look like having only one LA team is the current thought. Makes sense, if the NFL could get SD (Team & City) to get something done, then that would only leave the Raiders who could become tenets at Circus Sheldon. Everybody’s happy, done.

  74. daramsman says: Jan 30, 2016 7:07 PM

    What another smack in the face to St. Louis. Wow.

  75. pcoisma says: Jan 30, 2016 7:28 PM

    San Antonio isn’t going to happen, Dallas and Houston won’t allow it. So hello Vegas.

  76. youknowiknowitall says: Jan 30, 2016 9:41 PM

    If only the NFL was about football.

  77. inmisawa says: Jan 31, 2016 8:14 PM

    These media outlets keep saying Spanos has $550M to put into a stadium because he doesn’t have to pay a relocation fee if he stays in San Diego. Reality check: Spanos doesn’t have $550M at all. He was going to use the new revenue streams from the larger market to pay the relocation over 10 years. Further, he was going to borrow money from Goldman Sachs, based on the new value of the team had he moved to LA, to pay for his share of Carson. Dean doesn’t have any money. That’s why he asked the other pauper NFL team owner, Mark Davis, to join him.

    Sorry, Dean Spanos doesn’t have $850M available to pay for a stadium.

  78. mdintino1420 says: Feb 2, 2016 11:04 PM

    Why can’t they find a corporation to sell the naming rights to for $$$ for the stadium? For example, Burger King would pay money for the Stadium to be named Burger King Field.

  79. mdintino1420 says: Feb 2, 2016 11:09 PM

    Super Bowl Prediction

    Panthers 27
    Broncos 13

    I am sure Charger fans will be rooting against Denver bigtime!!!!!!

  80. mdintino1420 says: Feb 3, 2016 7:49 PM

    Roger Goodell’s reminder of the NFL is giving $300 million toward the stadium is a polite way of saying:

    “San Diego it is time to get this thing done.”

Leave a Reply

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