Dean Spanos, San Diego mayor meet

Getty Images

Last week, San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer offered to meet with Chargers owner Dean Spanos.  Spanos apparently accepted; the two men met on Sunday.

“We are pleased that the Task Force decided on Friday to accelerate its work and deliver a report within the next three months,” the Chargers said in a statement issued Sunday following the meeting.  “This is good news for the process, and Dean joined the Mayor in supporting this expedited schedule.  We pledged to continue to work cooperatively with the Task Force.  Dean emphasized that we remain committed to finding a publicly acceptable stadium solution here in San Diego, but Dean also explained in detail to the Mayor the reasons that the franchise must create other options for itself in the event that an agreement is not reached.  We now look forward to moving ahead with the Mayor and the Task Force.”

That’s a far different tone than recent statements from the team, which perhaps means that the Chargers believe they have gotten the attention of the powers-that-be, and that the folks in San Diego finally realize that, after 14 years of trying, the time for action has arrived.

It doesn’t mean a stadium will be built in San Diego.  It means that one final effort will be made.

31 responses to “Dean Spanos, San Diego mayor meet

  1. Imagine the joy of being a multi-billionaire and requesting that the government builds a new state of the art stadium or else he will move his team.
    Steve Ross is spending $400M upgrading the Dolphins stadium. Robert Kraft paid for the Patriots stadium at Foxboro, but Dean Spanos insists on the taxpayers paying for his new stadium.
    This is an old fashioned shakedown. Where does our esteemed Commissioner stand on this? As the protector of the shield, does he support the blatant shakedown?

  2. Maybe it also means that Los Angeles is getting too crowded as most of the other 31 teams are strangely at least thinking about moving there as well.

  3. After a 15+ year odyssey the finish line is now in sight. That doesn’t mean San Diego suddenly has the means to do what they should have done long ago, well before they found themselves in this position.

  4. The mayor should say the following:

    “If you win three playoff games over the next three seasons, we’ll pay for the entire stadium. If not, you pay for it yourself”. That’s a fair deal, right? No risk to the taxpayer whatsoever.

  5. If a stadium is built with tax payers money, who get the money from the naming rights, parking, other non football events, etc? The city that built it or the team that plays there?

  6. Good I’m glad, now they can discuss a super awesome state of the art all bells and whistles stadium that they’d like and then everyone pays at least half because… Well I’m not sure, tax payers don’t own it or benefit financially like owners and politicians do. At least give taxpayers cheaper tickets or maybe at least a half off beer that still costs $9.

  7. “We pledged to continue to work cooperatively with the Task Force.”

    IE; “We pledge to continue trying to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from the San Diego taxpayers that we know very well they will never make back 10 cents on the dollar from stadium and associated revenues. If we can ever get the city to buy this, we’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.”

  8. Glad the city is getting off their butts with this issue. They really have used the stadium issue as a political football for 14 years. Enough is enough. Build the stadium in Mission Valley where Qualcomm is and give up the pipe dream of a downtown stadium. There are just way too many hurdles with this accelerated time line to make that possible. Have SDSU pitch in 50-100mill, they’ll be using that stadium too.

  9. With the city of San Diego, now looking down the barrel a loaded (los angeles serious step closer to returning to the NFL), because of the pace of a stadium being built, has finally got the attention, of the Mayor to make the building of a new football stadium being build, a reality, in San Diego. The Rams/Raiders, moving to Walmart Stadium in Los Angeles by 2018.

  10. Once again, the Chargers beat the Raiders… This time it’s getting a new stadium, to go along with our 19-4 record against them since 2003.

    The best part?

    Leaving them and Carson high-and-dry while the Raiders tuck tail and try to start a new conversation with Oakland, after obliterating the Raiders’ only leverage.

    Did you see Carson city officials singing and high-giving eachother when they thought their worthless city nabbed two NFL teams? Haha, keep dreaming. The Raiders are burning bridges left and right; first San Antonio, then Carson…

  11. Let me translate:

    We are keeping our options open because we have no intention of staying. So go waste 3 months on your study and we are still leaving.

    Id tell Spanos see ya. Or tell him ok we will pay for 50 percent of the Stadium as long as our tax payers get 50 percent of their tickets, food, beer and every item at your team shop. Sound fair Spanos?

  12. the owners and NFL need to pony up more$$$ to build new stadiums. In San Diego, the Spanos family will put in 200 mil and borrow another 200 mil from Roger. That leaves the taxpayers on the hook for more that half the estimated cost of a new stadium. The people will not approve that here. The Chargers and San Diego had a chance to get a deal done 4 or 5 years ago on blew it over 60 acres of land. I cannot see a tax payer funded stadium being built in San Diego.

  13. Where else can you have a Super Bowl in great weather conditions in February, ( without playing in a dome) ?? The NFL needs the Chargers to stay in the most southern part of So Cal. Pony up more money “Duke”.

  14. I haven’t been a fan of the Chargers since they started this nonsense 14+ years ago. The Spanos Family doesn’t care about San Diego and they have been trying to bolt ( no pun intended) for over a decade plus. They’ll take and take and take and leave because they don’t have any love for SD. you should let them leave and then bring in a new team where the owners want to be there.

  15. San Diego either wants the team and is willing to pay, or they can keep complaining about how much it’s going to cost, corporate welfare, and the greed of the Spanos family.

    But none of that matters. You’re willing to pay, or not. The NFL isn’t going to let you keep a franchise if you don’t shell out of it. Some owners have so much money, they don’t need to shake down the city. That’s far from the case with the Spanos family. They couldn’t build this if they liquidated everything.

    So either the city and the team work together, or the Chargers will play for LA where nobody will like them for 30 years like the Clippers until they stop being terrible. Then everybody comes out of the woodwork like they were fans all along.

    Just understand this San Diego, if you don’t want to pay for the Chargers to stay, you’ll never get a team again. Period.

  16. I wonder if All the people who complain about the use of any tax payers money for this have looked to see what the actual tax cost will be and where it comes from. If we put a small tax on a per night which is minimal ( like a couple dollars a night ) on the hotels. It will be the the people who visit San Diego paying for any of the public money used. The city and the residence of SD will come out ahead. This will be a huge economic boom for the city and the residence. It’s odd that most people who complain about any taxes being used on this project (which will have a ROI) are the same people who are ok with subsidized health care or seem to always want to raise taxes on anyone who is working.

    Build the stadium expand the convention center and a new sports arena. Then sell the existing stadium and sports arena sites. Let’s get local employees to work on the stadium , plus all of the re development in the area will be huge on its own it’s a win win for all of us. And don’t get me wrong I am not normally for raising taxes, but in this case it make sense to do it.

  17. There are 32 NFL teams. There are more than 32 cities that want an NFL team. Those that offer the best 32 deals for the 32 teams will likely get the 32 teams. It is that simple. If Los Angeles wants to offer a ton of money to an owner that they are not getting elsewhere, why would they not take it?

    I don’t buy the argument that the NFL doesn’t want a team in L. A. because they would lose their leverage. The NFL offered L. A. an expansion team if they could just get a stadium deal together. They couldn’t, so the franchise was awarded to Houston.

    Right now L. A., San Antonio and even London are places that could be used as leverage. If an existing team moves then the vacated city would then become a leverage city. St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland and Houston have all replaced lost franchises. They learned the hard way.

  18. Then in addition to a taxpayer financed stadium, there will probably be the exclusive personal seat licenses that will put millions into the owner’s pocket! LA is a pot of gold for some team willing to move there if a new stadium is built.

Leave a Reply

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