Interesting. Built in leverage.
New stadium in LA
Collapse
X
-
Interesting. Built in leverage.Prediction:
Correct: Chargers CI fails miserably.
Fail: Team stays in San Diego until their lease runs out in 2020. (without getting new deal done by then) .
Sig Bet WIN: The Chargers will file for relocation on January 15.
- Top
- Bottom
-
-
Originally posted by KNSD View PostThe direct public subsidy is 121*2 (city, county) + 225 (real estate sold) = $467 mil. You can then add in infrastructure costs, etc... if you want to increase the totals a bit.
What the Chargers get in the end is $25 million/year plus potential profits (and risks) from PSL sales above 60 mil and potential profits from naming rights, advertisement.
For $933MM, the Chargers could own 50% of a stadium in LA or rent in SD, that's the choice? I get it that many think LA isn't real, but, personally, I don't agree with that, I think its definitely a threat either with Carson or as a partner in Inglewood.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by sandiego17 View PostSo of the 1.4 billion, the City puts in $467MM and the Chargers $933MM of the 1.4BB to finance a 1.1BB stadium. Who get the change?
For $933MM, the Chargers could own 50% of a stadium in LA or rent in SD, that's the choice? I get it that many think LA isn't real, but, personally, I don't agree with that, I think its definitely a threat either with Carson or as a partner in Inglewood.
Rent: 173 mil - Fans.
Land 225 mil : Some developer, but loss in asset to City.
PSL: 120 million - fans.
$5 ticket surcharge (85 mil) - Fans
$2 parking surcharge 26 mil - Fans
Chargers 300 mil minus 60 mil (PSL), minus naming rights 190 mil. PLUS 200 mil (NFL) minus 50 mil (NFL forgiveness)
City 121 mil
County 121 mil.
SDSU 21.6
Bowl Games 21.6
------------------------------------------------
Net Cost:
Advertiser(Naming Rights): 190 mil
Chargers: 200 mil
NFL: 50 mil.
City: 121 mil + loss of 225 mil in land.
County: 121 mil
SDSU: 21.6 mil
Bowl Games: 21.6 mil.
Fans: 404 mil
Other* (can't be arsed to sort through last 50 mil): 50 mil
Return on Investment:
Advertiser - Name recognition.
Chargers - 25 mil/year
NFL - Increased revenue from luxury seats, etc..
City/County: Increase in property taxes on whatever is built on sold land. Ability to host more monster truck events.
SDSU - A place to play games and make some money, hopefully more than their rent.
Bowl Games - Place to host event that brings tourists to town.
Fans: Get to watch game in person.
Other* Who the heck knows?Last edited by KNSD; 05-21-2015, 12:58 PM.Prediction:
Correct: Chargers CI fails miserably.
Fail: Team stays in San Diego until their lease runs out in 2020. (without getting new deal done by then) .
Sig Bet WIN: The Chargers will file for relocation on January 15.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by KNSD View PostIt's all bull**** accounting. Let's give credit to who is really paying what.
Land 225 mil : Some developer, but loss in asset to City.
PSL: 120 million - fans.
$5 ticket surcharge (85 mil) - Fans
$2 parking surcharge 26 mil - Fans
Chargers 300 mil minus 60 mil (PSL), minus naming rights 190 mil. PLUS 200 mil (NFL) minus 50 mil (NFL forgiveness)
City 121 mil
County 121 mil.
SDSU 21.6
Bowl Games 21.6
------------------------------------------------
Net Payout:
Chargers: 200 mil
NFL: 50 mil.
City: 121 mil + loss of 225 mil in land.
County: 121 mil
SDSU/Bowl: Games: 43.2 mil.
Fans: 231 mil
Other* (can't be arsed to sort through last 50 mil): 50 mil
Return on Investment:
Chargers - 25 mil/year
NFL - Increased revenue from luxury seats, etc..
City/County: Increase in property taxes on whatever is built on sold land.
SDSU/Bowls - A place to play games and make some money, hopefully more than their rent.
Fans: Get to watch game in person.
Other* Who the heck knows?
The end result of this proposal $467-$500MM from the city/county/aztec/bowls and $900MM from the NFL/Chargers . There is a reason Faulconer is excited about this proposal. From the city perspective, no brainer. Hopefully it leads to negotiation. If we get a final agreement, doubt it looks like this.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
If you're going to say the the Chargers/NFL are paying up to 900 mil, then you need to add more to their Return on Investment to account for the increased revenue - which now become about 650 million total + another 25 mil/year. Still a pretty sweet deal.
The reality is that they are a pass-through entity for much of the costs of the stadium for who is really paying - the fans.
Remember that the 25 mil is ABOVE what they are currently earning - net profit.Last edited by KNSD; 05-21-2015, 12:18 PM.Prediction:
Correct: Chargers CI fails miserably.
Fail: Team stays in San Diego until their lease runs out in 2020. (without getting new deal done by then) .
Sig Bet WIN: The Chargers will file for relocation on January 15.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by 6025 View PostNo fucking way should San Diego stand pat and let the Chargers use that Murphy Canyon facility if they move to LA in 2016.
If the Chargers were to move to LA it is unlikely that they would practice here. I would expect that the training fan would be a lightning rod for people to vent their ire at the club. If they move the team to LA everything moves, including the Spanos family members. The only people who would be happy to see the team leave are those that already hate the Spanos family. They would be making many new enemies in this town and pretty much be persona non-grata in the community.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Boltaction View PostYou're right, the Chargers have a lease on both the training facilities and to Play at the Q. They can stay as long as the Chargers are willing to continue their leases and pay the rent. Just about nothing the city can do about it legally.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by sandiego17 View PostI agree, its all bullshit, and the bullshit is all the labeling (cash is fungible, doesn't matter what we call where it comes from.) Where i disagree (and I'm sure the NFL/Chargers will disagree) is the part you labeled as 'Fans'. A ticket surcharge is basically revenue the team could earn going to the city for the stadium. Parking surcharge, same.
The end result of this proposal $467-$500MM from the city/county/aztec/bowls and $900MM from the NFL/Chargers . There is a reason Faulconer is excited about this proposal. From the city perspective, no brainer. Hopefully it leads to negotiation. If we get a final agreement, doubt it looks like this.
For those that don't know, Spanos purchased 60% of the Chargers in 1984 for roughly 48 million. He later bought another 37% which probably puts his total investment 31 years ago at 100 million. Over 31 years (14 of which were at horrible facility [says the Spani]), and the company has grown 1000%...
Nobody should feel sorry for the Chargers for having to pay 500 or 900 million for a potential 1000% return over 30 years. Sure, LA could make them more on their return, but that info can be applied to probably 80% of the NFL Teams wherein LA would provide a better financial opportunity over their current locale.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by sandiego17 View PostI agree, its all bullshit, and the bullshit is all the labeling (cash is fungible, doesn't matter what we call where it comes from.) Where i disagree (and I'm sure the NFL/Chargers will disagree) is the part you labeled as 'Fans'. A ticket surcharge is basically revenue the team could earn going to the city for the stadium. Parking surcharge, same.
The end result of this proposal $467-$500MM from the city/county/aztec/bowls and $900MM from the NFL/Chargers . There is a reason Faulconer is excited about this proposal. From the city perspective, no brainer. Hopefully it leads to negotiation. If we get a final agreement, doubt it looks like this.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by sandiego17 View PostSo the City puts in $467MM and the Chargers $933MM of the 1.4BB to finance a 1.1BB stadium. Who get the change?
For $933MM, the Chargers could own 50% of a stadium in LA or rent in SD, that's the choice? I get it that many think LA isn't real, but, personally, I don't agree with that, I think its definitely a threat either with Carson or as a partner in Inglewood.
So all the city and county "would have to do" is find another $280M to fund the stadium in this scenario. That would likely require new taxes which would trigger the 2/3rds majority vote for approval.
Also, I'm not sure SDSU can afford an extra $750K per year in rent. They are already struggling financially and I wouldn't be surprised if one day they consider dropping football. That puts some of the $21.6M budgeted using rent from SDSU at risk.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Den60 View PostYour numbers aren't completely accurate. CSAG has projected about $43M from SDSU and bowl games and another $50M from "additional funding sources" so the Chargers are being asked to pony up about $840M (60% of the cost). I don't think this would be acceptable and the Chargers would likely want the percentage flipped so that they pay no more than 40% ($560M). If you use the Chargers previous numbers of $200M from the team, $200M from the league, and $5M annually in rent over 20 years you get to $500M. Throw in half of the projected PSLs ($60M) you get to this number, but I expect the Chargers would want some concessions for that last $60M, such as getting more revenue from advertising and concessions which will impact SDSU.
So all the city and county "would have to do" is find another $280M to fund the stadium in this scenario. That would likely require new taxes which would trigger the 2/3rds majority vote for approval.
Also, I'm not sure SDSU can afford an extra $750K per year in rent. They are already struggling financially and I wouldn't be surprised if one day they consider dropping football. That puts some of the $21.6M budgeted using rent from SDSU at risk.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Comment