voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Solution: Qualcomm Stadium

Monday, June 9, 2008 | If San Diego loses the Chargers, it is a major loss--in terms of national prestige, financially and pride and enjoyment for the people of San Diego. The solution is simple--Qualcomm Stadium. The central location (access to all parts of San Diego County, southern Orange County and Imperial County), the present road structure (which can be improved), the trolley lines (which go directly to the stadium and would cost a huge sum to begin to duplicate today), the added income to this community if the Super Bowl returns (and it only will with a new stadium) and the ease of making a "deal" with the Chargers using Qualcomm Stadium.

First, we have to hope that Aguirre gets beaten in the forthcoming election. Second, Mayor Jerry Sanders has to wake up to his responsibility and be prepared to make "the deal". If I were the mayor, I could make the deal with the Chargers in ten minutes. Phoenix, Arizona has been able to make "the deal" with three major league professional teams (none the equal of the Chargers). If necessary, give Qualcomm to the Chargers and let them develop it. Finally, if the Chargers leave San Diego and Qualcomm needs to be torn down we will have more condos and shopping centers in the Qualcomm location, and we hardly need that.

The answer--for the community and financially--is to keep the Chargers in San Diego. Unfortunately, Chula Vista is not the location, and doesn't have the "horsepower" to make the Chargers a deal there. The Chargers are a major community asset, the Spanos family has done a good job managing them and we need to find a way to keep them here. We stole the Chargers from Los Angeles. There will be a lot of crying if we give them back.

Ah, if only the Spanos family cared about San Diego as much as San Diego cares about LT. You don't employ a guy like Fabiani to make friends in Chula Vista. He's there to move the team to whatever city offers the biggest handout. The Spanoses want money and land and could care less about the fan experience. SD first learned of the Spanos' questionable ethics when the team decided it didn't need to pay for advertising because Susan Golding's infamous "ticket guarantee" yielded them automatic millions. There are good business people. There are bad business people. Then, there are the Spanoses. If a new stadium gets built, it will be in spite of the Spanos family, not because of them.

Posted by Worse than Al Davis | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 12:55 pm

"If necessary, give Qualcomm to the Chargers and let them develop it. "....GIVE AWAY THE STADIUM????? What, are you crazy??? That is nuts, the kind of thinking that got us into this financial mess. You MUST work for Spanos-there can be no other reason for such a ridiculous statement.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 1:02 pm

It is a fallacy that a professional football team is a financial boost to a City. This fact has been debunked many times by economists across the nation, but is an urban myth that is perpetuated by NFL owners. Also the promise of an economical "Golden Goose" in the form of a Super Bowl every 8-10 years is also a myth. City's have to agree to give the NFL huge amounts of free public service and other concessions to even be considered for a Super Bowl. The City of San Diego hid the huge costs to taxpayers for police overtime during each of the Super Bowls held here. I believe that other taxpayer costs were also hidden from the public. It is moraly wrong to use public money to finance a new stadium for the rich NFL football team owner(s). Qualcom Stadium is fine for 10 events a year.

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 2:00 pm

Mr. Goodman, could you please show all of us who live in San Diego just how the Chargers are a financial asset to San Diego. Do you have any hard data that makes your assertion true? You also state that the Spanos family has done a good job of managing them. May I suggest that the Chargers are a private company that gets a waiver on any anti-trust laws. You seem to believe that the Chargers are owned by the city, as the Green Bay Packers are, the Chargers are not a public company they are solely owned and operated by the Spanos family as a for profit business.The good management you speak of has been to take our tax money to support his business. If the Chargers were playing in my front yard, I would close the drapes.

Posted by zollner | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 3:13 pm

100% AGREE!!!! San Diego has never been able to maintain a "Winning" Franchise...now that they have a chance, they are going to let them slip through their fingers.... "Let's bend over backwards for the Padres, but hmmm...a winning respectable NFL franchise with five of the leagues top 20 players all wearing Bolts... Lt Merrimen Gates Cromartie Scifres Nah...let em go!" City BigWhig

Posted by El Centro Rice | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 3:56 pm

City government should get out of development and concentrate on providing municipal services to taxpayers. Let the market run development and make developers pay their fair share for the burden their developments put on existing infrastructure and services.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 4:36 pm

If Spanos would SELL the Chargers to the Citt or County, like the Green Bay Packers, then there is a legitiate reason to put taxpayer money into the team-BECAUSE we would OWN it! But if SPanos thinks we are gicing ou free money to get him more billions he has serious delusions.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 7:34 pm

It should be noted that the Spanos family and the John Moore's family (owner of Padres) are among the most philanthropic in all of San Diego when giving support to local charities.

Posted by A Casual Fan | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 9:21 pm

The Q costs the city more than they get in revenue. Hence the soundness of "giving away" a loss in order to get a gain. "Gain?" you ask? Yes, there are many, many thousands of NFL fans worldwide who have chosen the Chargers as their team. They dream of coming to SD to attend a game ... and otherwise enjoy the many attractions of the city. If we act to maintain and add to our community assets we will act to increase the community quality. Professional sports teams are a source of local pride and worldwide attention. The Spanos' have given and given and given to SD through the years. They could have acted directly to prepare to leave SD if they wanted to leave. The mayor released them to negotiate elsewhere in the county and they have spent big bucks on studies already.

Posted by Tommy | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 9:43 pm

Allan Goodman ignores the fact that we already give Chargers owner Spanos well over a hundred million dollars in the last dozen years. This money was diverted from parks, sewers, water, police, fire, roads, and other vital services...for football. Now Goodman wants to give the Spanos family more? How about if billionaire Spanos pays his own way for a change? How about if we spend the money on infrastructure? How about if lunkhead football fans learn some basic economics before writing rah rah letters begging money from the rest of us?

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 6:04 am

Anyone who denies that revenue can be generated for the Community is simply denying the facts. One Superbowl brings untold publicity and dollars to San Diego. The current losses are the result of poorly negotiated contracts in the past. Any new negotiation, with a New Stadium as the goal, can eliminate those losses. If the Chargers are not using Qualcom Stadium, it will be torn down, and replaced by Condos. Would Billy Bob Henry rahtre have that. Incidently, that will probably mean that SD State will lose it's Div 1 status as well. I have never met Mr Spanos, but have seen enough to know that the family are benificent owners. They have invested a lot in the NFL team, and have to make money if the team is to continue being as good as it has been. The problem is not Mr. Fabiani, it is Mr. Aguirre and MayorSanders.

Posted by Allan Goodman | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 7:31 am

If the Chargers want to stay in San Diego, let them buy property at market rate,build their stadium, and operate it. They're a business, let them act like one without undue help from government.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 8:14 am

I agree with Allan Goodman 100% The suggestion by Larry that the Chargers should "buy property at market rate,build their stadium, and operate it" is another way of saying that the Chargers should leave San Diego. Unfortunately, the current market for major league football and baseball teams is such that cities are willing to give numerous concessions in order get and keep teams in their cities. If San Diego does not step up to the plate and offer the concessions that Allan is suggesting, then we will lose the Chargers. That would be a tragedy for all of us San Diegans who take such pride, and gain tremendous enjoyment, from them. GO CHARGERS!!!

Posted by John Stevens | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 9:28 am

"All" of the econonmic studies of the financial impact of NFL franchises on cities have found that there in no significant financial benefit to having a team in your city for ten games. Now you add in the fact that these rich team owners demand that cities finance their stadiums to the tune of 500 million to a billion dollars plus, and it's a real drain on the taxpayers. Remember 10 games a year.... Then they throw in the promise of a Super Bowl every 10 years or so. The facts to that are that the NFL goes to the Cities that promise them the most subsidies for the privilege of holding that game. These subsidies are taxpayer dollars. San Diego hotels are at 90% occupancy in February every year anyway, so why the need for taxpayers to foot the bill for a football game?

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 9:55 am

I'm with you 100% Allan. Keep the Chargers in San Diego!

Posted by Caitlin | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 5:35 pm

"BBH - Sell the Chargers to the City or County." There are so many deficiencies in both the County and the City and both lack the resources to buy even 1% of a billion dollar plus team. After all, the City was unable and unwilling to pay a consultant $200,000 for an independent site study. If $200K is a problem, $1 billion plus is out of the question. For the record, during the "ticket guaranty" period, the Chargers paid more for rent than the seat guaranty offsets......but don't let those facts hinder your conclusions.

Posted by The Roaming Gnome | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 10:55 pm

Go Chargers, Go! Far, Far Away! But give us back our money first...

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
June 11, 2008 6:11 am

It is disappointing to see that very few Chargers fans are responding to this article. Allan Goodman proposes - key word proposes - a way to keep the Chargers in San Diego. His proposal may not be perfect, but it is a start. Any true Chargers fan should help try to find a way to keep the Chargers here and - if there is disagreement with Allan's approach - give constructive input to make the proposal better. I wonder if the commenters will still be saying that the Chargers should leave when the Chargers are winning their division and during the postseason. I doubt it, because all San Diegans seem to come together to support the Chargers.

Posted by John | reply to this comment
June 11, 2008 9:17 am

For the tremendous economic benefits that the Chargers provide to San Diego, see: link "The PricewaterhouseCoope study done for the 1998 Super Bowl XXXII in San Diego identified $206.7 million of direct and indirect economic impact for the City of San Diego, $294.6 million of County impact, and $318.9 million of impact on the State, in addition to total new tax revenue generated of over $15 million."

Posted by Mr. Stevens | reply to this comment
June 11, 2008 11:00 am

If you're really interested in obtaining an impartial view of NFL Franchises and taxpayer financed statiums, take a look here: link

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
June 11, 2008 5:23 pm

Ralph (comment 21) "impartial view", that's funny! The study you cite is written by someone from an organization that "work(s) for lower taxes, smaller government, and economic freedom at all levels." You couldn't have cited a more partial study. The study Mr. Stevens (comment 20) cites is much more objective. It is testimony by a Harvard professor and a Sports Business Analyst for CNN.

Posted by Sheri | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 7:48 am

Yes Sheri, a "CNN Sports Analyst" is most definetley an "impartial party" with no "bias" whatsoever.... . . . . . Bwahah one! The fact of the matter is what little impact a SUPERBOWL brings once every 20-30 years is 1/1,000,000 of the costs gifted out to these billionaires. I have a great idea for you though, if you and Mr. Stevens and Spanos want a stadium, THEN GET PRIVATE FINANCING AND BUILD IT! No one is stopping you. Just keep your dirty little hands out of my pocket and the taxpayers pocket.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 12:54 pm

Mr. Goodman should read at least one of the many books on financing sports stadiums. There's no way Spanos would accept Qualcomm, even if it were in top shape. Then, he'd have to maintain it, find events to fill it the 355 days a year he isn't playing there, and who would he be able to threaten when he wanted upgrades to "stay competitive"? One of the very few privately owned stadiums in the country is Dodger Stadium, and when the owners cried for upgades, the city of L.A. reminded them that they owned it!

Posted by Bill Bradshaw | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 1:31 pm

It is sad to see how people who feel that they are losing an argument, such as Billy Bob Henry, get so personal and acrimonious (referring to Sheri's "dirty little hands"). I'll bet you Sheri's hands are quite clean. She is intelligent enough to read both studies and point out which one she feels is more objective. This is furthering our understanding of the issue and consistent with somebody who has good hygiene.

Posted by J.S. | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 3:13 pm

JS, you can keep "your dirty little hands" out of my pockets too! BTW, I showered and brushed my teeth and hair this morning.........

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 6:29 pm

JS in Post#25, brought up a good point about the Chargers maintaining Qualcom Stadium. The Padres were smart in their negoiations in being so kind to give title to Petco Park to the City after 20 years. It's just a coincidence that that's probably when the maintenance problems will escalate at a phenomenal rate. Oh, then the Padres will have to have a new stadium. We couldn't expect them to play in a 20 year old stadium, could we? I think not! The baselines will be worn out, and the steel girters will need painting or replacing because of the salt-air corosion. They are so smart..... They just made the ticket guarntee look like small time stuff.

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 7:13 pm

Bruce Henderson was 100% correct when he warned us about the ticket guarantee...Chargers fans, led by the UT, responded with death threats and tried to run him out of town. The sad truth is that the Spanos family will stop at nothing to rip-off this city. This includes outright lies about the "benefits" of hosting football games. Nobody mentions the opportunity costs. If, instead of subsidizing billionaires, we had cleaned our beaches and bays instead, we would REALLY boost tourism and our environment. But we wasted the money on games instead. Stupid...

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 6:10 am

For those of you who actually listen - During the "ticket guaranty" period, the Chargers paid more for rent than the seat guaranty offsets. No check was sent to the Chargers. As for the "stadium studies" that exist, they are all biased one way or another. The City of San Diego had their own opportunity to have their own independent study conducted and Mayor Sanders and the Council decided against authorizing the $200,000 for it while the current stadium net operating LOSS for all events continues at $10+ million plus a year. Pennywise and pound foolish.

Posted by The Roaming Gnome | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 7:44 am

What city would be dumb enough to take the Chargers in today's economy? It will be fun watching the greedy Spanoses try to shop their team elsewhere. Such a losing franchise with a losing owner. God, even Tampa Bay has won a Superbowl. Even the Charger's God of God's, L.T., is only out for himself. To think I agree with Neon Dion. How sad.

Posted by Jackson | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 4:44 pm

I see the same cast of characters are all here. Well, we're still missing one. Where's Edgar? Maybe his tin hat was melted. I missed you a lot Billy Boo Henrietta and I'm glad I found another sane person that wants the Chargers to raid your pockets for another 100 years!!! Nice letter Mr. Goodman and I fully agree with everything you've written. I'm praying for a good outcome to this ridiculous situation. If you're interested, there are several Chargers stadium proponents groups forming. Just check out the forum at link It would be worth your time and energy. Here's to the Chargers robbing Billy Boo blind year after year....LMAO!!!

Posted by Aaron Wright | reply to this comment
June 18, 2008 1:42 pm

I thank all people who responded with letters supporting efforts to keep the Chargers in San Diego. Much of the mail supported my viewpoint that Qualcom Stadium is the location for NFL and SD State Football. I believe that a competent City Government could make the deal easily, to the benefit of the People of San Diego. I attended the recent U.S. Open Tournamnent at Torrey Pines, a booming success for all of the People of San Diego. That never would have happened had the "Naysayers" regarding keeping the Chargers at Qualcomb been around those many years ago when the Municipality of San Diego elected to create that magnificent Sports Golf Facility. I note that Mayor Sanders was overjoyed at the success of the US Open, though he announced that he is "too busy" to deal with the Chargers, which would guarantee many SuperBowls for our City. Supporters thanks.

Posted by Allan Goodman | reply to this comment
June 18, 2008 7:31 pm

A paraphrased quote from Mayor Sanders about the US Open---Question: "Mayor Sanders, there was a lot of criticism or some criticism about the deal that was made with the USGA back when it was made that the City didn't get its fair share....after you analyzed the deal do you think the City got it's fair share?"--Response: "I don't think we can even begin to estimate what the return to the City will be from a week of advertising and shooting on locations here and really advertising every part of San Diego. That's never part of any deal when you work out the dollars and cents...this really brings a lot of people to San Diego, so the impact goes over for a long time." link What about the 8 WEEKS of free advertising every Chargers home game a year? Sounds like one of Billy Bob's stupid comments..lol.

Posted by Aaron Wright | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 10:07 am

Allan....we've got your back. The naysayers here are elist snobs that would prefer the US Open v. the Chargers games. It's part of life. They'll have to deal with us lowly football fans for a long time hopefully....Billy will have to deal with me bugging him for the rest of his life...lucky Billy! It's okay Billy, 10 out of 3 people are dislexic...HAHAHA.

Posted by Aaron Wright | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 10:25 am

I could agree with #18 if the Chargers took Fred with them-- What a negitive person. Allen is correct to reopen the discussions. The Chargers could be a financial benefit to the community, if done correctly. Its silly to think CV, whose bond rating is begining to slip has the political might or financial strenght to do the deal. Q-com has problems that other location do not. But only thru open discussions, not negitive insult throwing (Yes Fred W that means you) can we actually discover our best oppertunities..

Posted by Sez Me | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 12:01 pm

Let the chargers shop themselves around and figure out no other city wants them or can afford them. Then, reality will hit home hard. If we do get lucky and someone takes them, we can finally get a decent team here that can pull their weight.

Posted by Bud | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 12:58 am

Its not a sin having not enough money to give to those who demand money from you {Chargers}. There are more suckers in L.A. than in San Diego, they are next on list to contribute to the Spanos financial well being

Posted by Jeff Knows | reply to this comment
June 25, 2008 4:46 pm

Solution: Qualcomm Stadium

By Allan Goodman, San Diego