New stadium in LA

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • KNSD
    Registered Charger Hater
    • Jun 2013
    • 2812
    • Send PM



    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.

    Comment

    • sandiego17
      Registered Charger Fan
      • Jun 2013
      • 4319
      • Send PM

      Originally posted by KNSD View Post
      The 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.
      So 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.

      Comment

      • KNSD
        Registered Charger Hater
        • Jun 2013
        • 2812
        • Send PM

        Originally posted by sandiego17 View Post
        So 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.
        It's all bull**** accounting. Let's give credit to who is really paying what.


        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.

        Comment

        • sandiego17
          Registered Charger Fan
          • Jun 2013
          • 4319
          • Send PM

          Originally posted by KNSD View Post
          It'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?
          I 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.

          Comment

          • KNSD
            Registered Charger Hater
            • Jun 2013
            • 2812
            • Send PM

            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.

            Comment

            • Den60
              Registered Charger Fan
              • Jun 2013
              • 2110
              • Send PM

              Originally posted by 6025 View Post
              No fucking way should San Diego stand pat and let the Chargers use that Murphy Canyon facility if they move to LA in 2016.
              If I recall correct, the city subsidizes the Chargers for that facility. I can't remember if it is something like the city picks up the property tax or something else.

              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.

              Comment

              • 6025
                fender57
                • Jun 2013
                • 9786
                • Send PM

                Originally posted by Boltaction View Post
                You'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.
                Combined leases? If so and they opt out, they (and the city) are not bound to the facility either. And to that I would say fuck them.

                Comment

                • Mister Hoarse
                  No Sir, I Dont Like It
                  • Jun 2013
                  • 10266
                  • Section 457
                  • Migrant Film Worker
                  • Send PM

                  100 pages and counting...
                  Dean Spanos Should Get Ass Cancer Of The Ass!
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • TABF
                    Por debajo del promedio
                    • Jun 2013
                    • 2627
                    • SoCal
                    • Send PM

                    Originally posted by sandiego17 View Post
                    I 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.
                    What is discounted in this argument is the upfront and yearly money (you say 900mm and others say 500mm) is that there is a huge gain that will take place over those 30 years... The Chargers will most likely double to triple their franchise worth from 1 billion to 2-3 billion... Those prices are conservative using the 1984 Spanos purchase of the Chargers as the gauge.

                    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.

                    Comment

                    • TTK
                      EX-Charger Fan
                      • Jun 2013
                      • 3508
                      • America's Finest City
                      • Send PM

                      Originally posted by sandiego17 View Post
                      I 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.
                      It's not going to look like this. CSAG was appointed by the mayor so it's going to be pro-city and you start negotiating high. The final deal will be much more in favor of the Chargers.

                      Comment

                      • Den60
                        Registered Charger Fan
                        • Jun 2013
                        • 2110
                        • Send PM

                        Originally posted by sandiego17 View Post
                        So 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.
                        Your 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.

                        Comment

                        • sandiego17
                          Registered Charger Fan
                          • Jun 2013
                          • 4319
                          • Send PM

                          Originally posted by Den60 View Post
                          Your 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.
                          Apparently CSAG pegged the stadium cost at $1.1BB, so even $840MM from the Chargers is closer to 75% of the cost of the stadium. Does anyone know who gets the additional $300MM they've called for? It more than covers teh $280MM you point out the city would need to come up with and may just eliminate that 2/3rds vote.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X