New stadium in LA

[SDFan]

OK guys out of curiosity, how much increased NET revenue increase should the team be able to collect (on a per year basis) compared to today? What should the team/NFL net fixed cost investment be?

The task force has determined that 200 mil fixed cost and a 25 mil/year in increased revenue is "fair." What say you? (25 mil/year for 30 years = 750 million).

Not trying to be a jerk about this, just wondering. I think alot of people, announcers, talk show hosts, analysts, etc... are getting way too bogged down in the specifics of the deal instead of looking at the big picture. Big picture is fixed costs, and NET increase in revenue/year. Hell, you could say "The Chargers should receive 150 million and should be able to make an additional $50 mil/year". What do you think is reasonable?

this is the bottom line. All this talk about potential increase in VALUE of the team is just not relevant at all to getting a new stadium in San Diego. The team has made it very clear, never wavering once that they WILL NOT SELL- even a piece of the team. They consider it a family treasure and just reaffirmed that with the announcement of the 3rd generation (AG & John) now in charge. They don't realize a penny of any increased value UNLESS THEY SELL. So now you have to look at increased net revenue comparisons between what they make now vs. what they could make in a new SD stadium vs. LA. CSAG says $25 Mil more annually in San Diego. I don't see how they Break Even for many years in LA with paying a SD exit fee, NFL relocation fee, Goldman Sachs payback, higher stadium construction costs, and loss of a majority of the current fan base along with corresponding merchandise sales- all the while spending $ to build a brand nobody cares about in LA.

[Den60]

People need to stop treating the CSAG numbers as official numbers. Even Adam Day said they realize that's not going to be the final deal and it's just a framework to work off of. Of course, they were going to skew the numbers in the city's favor because it's going to be negotiated. The final deal probably won't look anything like the CSAG proposal.

Of course the initial proposal by CSAG isn't the final deal but how much do you expect the city and county should pay if the stadium is going to cost $1.15B? What if the Chargers say the stadium isn't quite good enough (not enough "bells and whistles" which is quite likely) and want some upgrades?

CSAG was limited by both the city and Chargers in what they could propose. It couldn't require a tax increase (city) and it couldn't rely on future development to fund it (Chargers). So CSAGs proposal followed those guidelines. The Chargers aren't going to want to pay as much as CSAG proposes so we are going to have to find more public money to do so. While the county does have cash to put in the deal (more than the city has) I really don't expect them to throw a lot more money at the problem, and there is some debate on whether they can do that without a public vote. If the county puts in more money they have to show that they can get both a return of their principal and a return on their investment to make that fly.

[Den60]

There's a lot of semantics going on. There are some things I don't really agree with, such as Grubman saying a surcharge on parking and tickets is considered a contribution of the team. It's a contribution from the fans, that was the whole point of adding it. The fans who use the stadium are the ones who should pay a little more for the stadium.

Rent is also considered a contribution from the team? That rent money could be going back into the city/county coffers but instead it's being used to help finance the stadium, which makes perfect sense.

But ultimately, the semantics won't matter and the percentage of who contributes what will close the deal. CSAG started the negotiations high, which is a good thing IMO. The mayor needs to know that he's going to have to come down from that percentage quite a bit though. The problem is, how is the public going to view that when it's time to go tot he polls?

Every dime the Chargers put in is going to come from the fans.

[TABF]

this is the bottom line. All this talk about potential increase in VALUE of the team is just not relevant at all to getting a new stadium in San Diego. The team has made it very clear, never wavering once that they WILL NOT SELL- even a piece of the team. They consider it a family treasure and just reaffirmed that with the announcement of the 3rd generation (AG & John) now in charge. They don't realize a penny of any increased value UNLESS THEY SELL. So now you have to look at increased net revenue comparisons between what they make now vs. what they could make in a new SD stadium vs. LA. CSAG says $25 Mil more annually in San Diego. I don't see how they Break Even for many years in LA with paying a SD exit fee, NFL relocation fee, Goldman Sachs payback, higher stadium construction costs, and loss of a majority of the current fan base along with corresponding merchandise sales- all the while spending $ to build a brand nobody cares about in LA.

To your first point, I think overall increase in team value and a new stadium are directly related and it's a very short sided business approach to think otherwise. There is zero indication that the Dallas owner wants to sell, and there (at the time) was zero indication that the Cowboy brand was struggling... why did Dallas build a new Stadium? Using your logic, there was essentially no reason for Dallas to do that as their year to year revenue was already top teir and there was no indication of realized value as the team wasn't for sell.

[sandiego17]

That's fans willing to pay the extra $5 to keep the team in town.

Personally, I could care less if the Chargers give the city $5, $10 or even 50% of ticket sales to get something done in San Diego. However, I do understand the Chargers/NFL's argument that they consider it a team contribution. When they are still charging that surcharge in year 29, it loses a bit of its 'keep the team' appeal and what about sales to opponents fans? I do view tickets prices as team revenue and not something that should come with a surcharge.

[sandiego17]

You wore him out!

Nah, I love his enthusiasm and I want the team to stay here more than he does. I did disagree about the importance of Dean's statement about reading CSAG's (really the city's) documetn. Ya, maybe he should have said, "I'm not going to comment right now" but since I don't care much about bs statements to appease people, his "I haven't read it yet" didn't bother me one bit (I also don't consider it thaaaat important, simply a check the box document....extra $100 mil here, a surcharge there, some land sale, boom, Stadium financed!)

[Boltaction]

The new stadium revenues will end up going mostly to the players. I remember when Dan Fouts held out and finally recieved a contract for three years at one million per year. At that time tickets went for twenty five dollars a seat per game average. Today seats go for an average of 100 dollars each, that is an increase of 4 times. At he same time Rivers will be recieving 20 million per year in his new contract. That is an increase of twenty times compared to Fouts era. The Team is a poor income team, and the Chargers try to explain they cant compete in the future for players unless they make more revenue. This money will go mostly to the costs of operations including players costs. Somehow this gets lost by most people, thinking the Spanoses are being greedy. You can't compete with other teams for players in todays world of free agency without the revenue stream. Otherwise the Chargers become a farm team to the bigger revenue teams like baseball.

[sandiego17]

The new stadium revenues will end up going mostly to the players. I remember when Dan Fouts held out and finally recieved a contract for three years at one million per year. At that time tickets went for twenty five dollars a seat per game average. Today seats go for an average of 100 dollars each, that is an increase of 4 times. At he same time Rivers will be recieving 20 million per year in his new contract. That is an increase of twenty times compared to Fouts era. The Team is a poor income team, and the Chargers try to explain they cant compete in the future for players unless they make more revenue. This money will go mostly to the costs of operations including players costs. Somehow this gets lost by most people, thinking the Spanoses are being greedy. You can't compete with other teams for players in todays world of free agency without the revenue stream. Otherwise the Chargers become a farm team to the bigger revenue teams like baseball.

The majority of the revenues will come from TV deals and the players get a set percentage of overall revenues. Unless the salary cap disappears, they will be able to compete for players. But, the Chargers aren't going to be content staying in San Diego and being a bottom third revenue team playing in a 50+ year old decaying stadium forever.

[TTK]

Of course the initial proposal by CSAG isn't the final deal but how much do you expect the city and county should pay if the stadium is going to cost $1.15B? What if the Chargers say the stadium isn't quite good enough (not enough "bells and whistles" which is quite likely) and want some upgrades?

CSAG was limited by both the city and Chargers in what they could propose. It couldn't require a tax increase (city) and it couldn't rely on future development to fund it (Chargers). So CSAGs proposal followed those guidelines. The Chargers aren't going to want to pay as much as CSAG proposes so we are going to have to find more public money to do so. While the country does have cash to put in the deal (more than the city has) I really don't expect them to throw a lot more money at the problem, and there is some debate on whether they can do that without a public vote. If the county puts in more money they have to show that they can get both a return of their principal and a return on their investment to make that fly.

The City/County are going to have to put more money in. It's going to a public vote anyway.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

Let's start a go fund me page!

[KNSD]

Does it really matter where the increased revenue ends up? Is subsidizing Rivers' salary more worthy than subsidizing NFL owner's pocketbooks?

This is America where free enterprise reigns! Except if you're an NFL team. Then you need public funds to maximize revenue to compete against other teams that use public funds as well (because, apparently, they have to compete against you).

Maybe they should all just build their own private stadiums so that they can all compete on an even playing field?

lol.... yeah pretty ridiculous suggestion.... my bad.

[Wheels]

You guys make reasonable points on the surcharge, but the idea behind it is to make the users of the service pay more for it, instead of taxing everybody. I totally get why non-fans think there are much better investments for their tax dollars. I get that the NFL and team think a ticket surcharge cuts into or affects their revenue. But it's simply a mechanism to more directly tax the users instead of all the citizens, so I hope the NFL is open to this idea.