Not long ago, the mayor’s stadium task force began arguing the Chargers were torpedoing everything it was doing. The team was doing this, they said, because its owner didn’t want anything to come together and wanted to move the franchise to Los Angeles.

Scott Lewis on Politics LogoI asked the group’s spokesman, Tony Manolatos, why we were even bothering with the dog-and-pony show then. If they’re moving, why not move on?

He said the goal was to win over the NFL — not the Chargers. Surely the other owners would force the Chargers to stay if we put together a reasonable plan.

This is why it was amusing to see the NFL come to town and tell the task force that, to win over the NFL, the group needed to win over the Chargers.

The messenger was the league’s lead executive on business ventures, VP Eric Grubman. He told the task force that if the Chargers don’t support what the mayor comes up with, this was an exercise in futility.

He also laid down two major conditions as part of a grand ultimatum. Perhaps the Chargers were shooting torpedoes before. But these — these new ones from Grubman — have sunk the ship.

We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?

First, he said the NFL and Chargers were no longer able to wait until November 2016 for a public vote on a new stadium.

If you want a stadium built, you have to take this news as devastating. He’s not even willing to say even that a June 2016 ballot would suffice. They want it now.

I’ve tried to make sense of timeline issues before, but this is simply unworkable. We have to have a vote, too many politicians have committed to it. It’s the right thing to do. And getting something together for a vote will take at least a year.

Then Grubman said something else that caught my eye and probably should have been the lead of the stories that had it. The U-T’s Nick Canepa described it like this:

“Grubman told them that, if stadium financing depends on development around the facility (which is what the committee is counting on), it won’t work, because it will take far too long to get it done, and bringing in a developer would just mean another mouth to feed,” he wrote.

The LA Daily News also wrote a similar take. If that’s true, Canepa’s right: It was a major setback.

But Manolatos told me Grubman did not say that. He said that the task force simply had to “eliminate the risk” of generating money for the stadium from construction around it.

“We already had plans to eliminate the risk,” Manolatos said.

Manolatos apparently got the U-T to change its editorial on the subject as well. The paper retracted its claim that Grubman had told the task force that “financing the stadium with the help of a Qualcomm site development partner” was unacceptable. That’s no longer in the piece (the paper did not make note of the change to its text).

Why is this such a big deal? Unlike other parts of the country that build stadiums, we can’t raise taxes to do it without a two-thirds vote. So to make up a big part of the difference between what the NFL is willing to pay for a stadium, and what it costs, the idea has been to squeeze value out of the land that surrounds Qualcomm Stadium and apply that to the stadium.

If Grubman said that’s not going to work, then the clock has run out on this game. The Chargers are moving.

But maybe he did not say that, as Manolatos is apparently saying.

I contacted Grubman. He refused to discuss in detail what he said to the task force, but he did say this.

“I believe I am on record, and in multiple places, that real estate development is unlikely to yield funding for a stadium, and thus it is not a track that offers a high probability of success,” he said.

Notably, Grubman did not try to correct either Canepa’s take or the one in the LA Daily News.

But let’s assume, for now, that Manolatos is right and the task force and mayor merely have to eliminate the risk of development to make the Chargers and the NFL happy. In other words, they need to prove that the NFL doesn’t have to worry about land-use lawsuits or recessions or pollution or anything that could possibly disrupt the money for this stadium.

That’s all!

Real estate development, though, is all about risk. Only two routes could possibly eliminate the risk: One is the city simply sells the land around Qualcomm Stadium and puts the money from the sale into an escrow account marked “For the NFL.”

By law, selling more than 80 acres of land requires a specific vote of the people — it might have to be separate from a required vote by the county. Two votes? Those are not insignificant hurdles.

Or maybe they sell 79 acres and avoid a specific vote. At $2.5 million an acre, that’s almost $200 million. Cobbled together with other potential revenue streams, it might be enough for a $1 billion stadium.

But it’s hard to picture a developer who’s going to give the city $2.5 million per acre right now for land that’s zoned for … a stadium. They want to build condos. Perhaps they’d pay that much for land that was zoned to build offices, condos and a hotel.

Changing the zoning requires either a long environmental review or legislation at the state level — or a vote. These are not insurmountable problems. But they involve risk and time.

The Chargers are now saying they can’t tolerate any more of either.

Perhaps a developer would put up the money despite the risk.

Any volunteers?

That might win the Chargers over. But they’re not being helpful. The Chargers’ Mark Fabiani told me he was pessimistic about the idea. They tried for years to find their own investor — remember, the Chargers could not find a partner in 2005 to develop the area around Qualcomm Stadium.

“We were advised throughout by the best experts money could buy. And so, unfortunately for us, we are all too well-acquainted with the myriad reasons why a development-based solution is likely doomed to fail,” Fabiani said in an email.

That’s the development problem.

The vote problem is much worse. Grubman told the city that it should try to pull something off this year. The NFL’s commissioner just announced he might move the deadline and window for applying to move to Los Angeles up. Once one team does, chances are others will. Grubman warned the task force that waiting until after January for a public vote was risky.

Even Manolatos admitted that was news to the task force and they don’t know how to deal with it.

“That’s a political problem that will be up to the mayor and City Council to solve,” Manolatos said.

Got your checklist? The Chargers will move to LA unless we give the team a plan to subsidize the stadium with at least $500 million in public money without the risk involved in waiting for a real estate development to come together and it has to be fully approved much sooner than ever imagined. A vote will have to be called and approved before teams start officially vying for Los Angeles.

Or the mayor has to change course and renege on his pledge to let the people vote on a plan. Maybe send a letter to the NFL apologizing for taking so long with its billion dollars.

That’s just to make the Chargers happy.

Laugh out loud.

Maybe the mayor could not satisfy the team at all and this was all a folly — an elegant trap he’s stumbled into. Or maybe the Chargers really would have gone along with a downtown plan. Though if time and risk are intolerable for Mission Valley, it’s hard to see how they would have been better downtown.

Regardless, it’s done. Unless plans in LA fall apart, the Chargers are breaking up with the city. The mayor just might have to decide if he wants to dump them first.

    This article relates to: Chargers Stadium, Opinion, Quest, Sports

    Written by Scott Lewis

    Scott Lewis oversees Voice of San Diego’s operations, website and daily functions as Editor in Chief. He also writes about local politics, where he frequently breaks news and goes back and forth with local political figures. Contact Scott at or 619.325.0527, and follow him on Twitter at @vosdscott.

    Jay Byrd
    Jay Byrd

    Another Charger's display of the product provided by Spanos today in Cleveland.  They could not even beat the worst team in The NFL.  Why waste any time, money or effort on this dismal sports team?  I think we should start donations for the moving truck.  

    So tired of hearing how much $ the city brings in on the 10 days they play.  Certainly not from the season ticket holders who tailgate party before the game and then head for home during the fourth quarter.  

    Chargers, close the door on the way out and turn out the lights so you don't cost our fine city any more money on your sorry butts.

    John H Borja
    John H Borja subscriber

    I'm sorry, the public needs public works projects long, very long overdue. The Chargers, while emotional, does not make San There was a time in which San Diego was a definitive "backwater", an "end cap", a little "out of the way", the place people PASS on the way to fun in TJ and Ensenada.

    No longer. In 1985, "head hunters" would usher you to ELLL LAYYY. Today, San Diego has its own good job market not dependent on SDSU, the military, or the recent baby of biotech. The time has passed that San Diego is just a corner, an elbow and a low grade media market. No. If the Chargers think that San Diego is a losing business proposition, then they should follow their "dream".  I think maybe the Jaguars would really like to move to San Diego. There is nothing in Jacksonville, ....nothing. And, those folks have money. Spanos is cheap and wants the taxpayer to help him with his "bottom line". As far as San Diego is concerned, the Chargers have been a glorious bust. We don't want to pay for losers.

    Mon Mothma
    Mon Mothma

    The Chargers are NOT moving people! I'm so sick of Chargers fans running around like headless chickens telling everyone the sky is falling. The Spanos plan has always been to instill fear in the public that the Chargers might leave San Diego in hopes they get everything they want. And what they want is to have the public pay for their new Stadium and for that new stadium to be located downtown. And the Major, city council and the majority of San Diegans will eventually give into them.

    Echo5Juliet subscribermember

    While VOSD's coverage is good I am tried of the subject over all. Please just move to LA already. I'll help pack boxes. I'll chip in for a UHaul truck. Just go already. Forget Carson, Spanos should move the team to Stockton to be with his other mediocre enterprises. 

    Justin Peniche
    Justin Peniche

    While real estate development will not produce immediate revenue that can be used to finance a new stadium, the prospective development revenue can secure loans which would provide immediate funding for stadium construction. The main reason why the city is partnering with the county is because of their superior credit rating. It seems to me the Chargers main issue with the CSAG proposal is the total amount of team/NFL contribution. The $200 million the Chargers were at one time willing to contribute towards the financing of a stadium is all they want to contribute meaning that if the rent to play in a new stadium is $10 million per year for 30 years they would consider the $300 million in rent as their contribution for financing. They also consider any contribution from the NFL to be part of the team's contribution. This creates a large gap in what CSAG originally required to be paid by the city/county.

    Stephen Ponsiglione
    Stephen Ponsiglione

    The chargers must be lying about LA being 25% because clearly the city does not want them! Those "Charger fans" in Carson for the city vote were probably actors lol. Here's a solid sample size, and proof that LA doesn't want the Chargers.  People forget that the Chargers were only in LA for 1 year while SD got ready for them.. The Rams and Raiders have a true LA history and should share the stadium.

    The fan base will have to grow in LA but they will still have a few SD fans remaining, dunno if I'll be one.. (maybe if Rivers plays there)

    Justin Peniche
    Justin Peniche

    @Stephen Ponsiglion The Chargers have not said 25% of their fan base is from Los Angeles they have said 25% of their business is from Los Angeles meaning advertising and corporate sponsorship. Their concern is that when another team moves into the Los Angeles market they will lose that 25% and will not be able to replace it with additional revenue from San Diego. The issue is luxury boxes. Every NFL team shares 50% of general ticket sales proceeds with the visiting team. They keep 100% of the luxury box revenue. With a new stadium and upgraded luxury boxes they can generate more interest from local businesses but if another team moves into LA and they lose that 25% there will be empty boxes at the games and that means less in the pockets of Mr. Spanos.

    M Pal
    M Pal subscriber

    The same groups on both sides are going just rehashing the same old stalemated proposals

    and going around and around and around in circles....

    All the stakeholders need some brand new blood and new approaches to these negotiations

    if they are to have a hope and a prayer of getting any deal done for a new NFL stadium

    in San Diego.

    It can be a "Win/Win" proposition for all the Stakeholders with out huge taxpayer subsidies.

    The present "financial experts"  appear to be financially vested in torpedoing potentially viable San Diego stadium proposals because they see "dollar signs in their eyes"

    in maximizing commissions, fees and set up costs in the LA market                           (2nd largest TV market in the country)...                                                             Fianciers/Wall St  can hide/justify exhorbitant deal fees and commission fees in an LA dealbetter than they could in a San Diego deal where breathing room for fees and commissions would be tighter... that represents a "blantant conflict of interest"

    for the hired dealmakers...                                                                                             "Hired Gun Financier"s want to maximize their own fees and commissions.           They have no incentive to put together a successful deal in San Diego....               since they will fly back to NYC after whichever final deal closes and do not care as long as they get paid...And, they may be giving the Spanos family questionable advice regarding these stadium the viability of the numbers for a shared Carson stadium with the Raiders...both the Raiders and the Chargers would be hard pressed to come up with funds to finance the Carson project....

    The San Diego Stadium Commission set up by Mayor Falconer started on numeorus  false premises not based on business and financial realities...the main one being that the Chargers wanted a downtown stadium and not a stadium in Mission Valley for various reasons not the least being "financial viablity"...that is/was a deal killer from the start.

    No question that the Qualcomm site may have some role in helping a "grand plan" for a New Football Stadium in San Diego County, But,  for the Mayor and Stadium Commission to  "go all in" on the Qualcomm site for a proposed new football stadium when the Chargers prefer the downtown site and Carson in that order and not Qualcomm, 

    is foolish and inexplicable in a negotiation that requires consensus among all the major stakeholders....

    The Chargers and San Diego City/County need to completely change their approach to these negotiations or the chances of negotiatons succeeding  in San Diego are slim indeed...

    Phillip Franklin
    Phillip Franklin subscriber

    The NFL and Spanos will do whatever they can to avoid a public vote in this process. However, the Chargers are not going to move to LA.  That is a given. Unfortunately San Diego is stuck with this team and the Spanos  family for some time.  This is like a very bad, long-drawn out  divorce proceeding  where neither side can let go of the other.  The Spanos family has absolutely no real intentions of actually paying for a stadium with their own billions of dollars.  The Carson crap is no more than a subterfuge.  And not even an elegant one.  And even if the Spanos family had the balls to pay for a stadium deal in LA like Stan Kroenke the NFL probably would not let them. NFL will fight Kroenke in court over this move anyway.  But Kroenke will be a strong match for the powerful league.  The Spanos's have no balls and will simply stay put in San Diego with or without a new stadium.  Right now they are getting free rent and probably another $15-20 million if not more in other freebies from the city.  The Chargers are like a very bad house guests who won't leave.  Actually they are worse.  The Chargers actual leaving would be a welcome move.  But you all know that will simply not happen any time soon.  The are a parasite that enjoys sucking the blood out of this city. I'm sorry but I can't find a better description except parasite. They should change their name to the San Diego Parasites.

    gemini2 subscriber

    the rams move to LA-------------the city of st louis offers the chargers a most lucrative deal to move to st louis -----------the deal is so good, the chargers have to say yes. 

    Phillip Franklin
    Phillip Franklin subscriber

    @gemini2 That is a real possibility if the Spanos family decides to sell the team.  And that might happen if they get top dollar for the team.  It would be a great relief to the tax payers of San Diego if that did happen.  It is a much more likely scenario than the team ever  moving to LA. But the Spanos family are getting a free ride here and they won't leave until they can get the most money for this team.  Some St. Louis potential owner would have to offer them a huge amount of money.

    gemini2 subscriber

    @Phillip Franklin @gemini2 the city of st louis have already prepared a very generous offer to the rams to stay. that generous offer could be switched over to spanos to move the chargers.

    Phillip Franklin
    Phillip Franklin subscriber

    @gemini2 @Phillip Franklin That deal is they offered Kroenke $400 million on a new stadium deal where Kroenke would put up the rest which would be another $400-500 million.  I sure as hell don't see the Spanos family coming up with any money much less $400 million. Plus the Spanos family would not want to own a team outside of California since they are so entrenched here in this state.  The only way the Chargers would end up in St. Louis is if the Spanos family were to sell the team to someone who wanted to have a team there.  And the Spanos would probably want way more than the team is worth.  And there's really nothing wrong with Edward Jones Dome.  More than likely the Jaguars would move there if the Rams leave. The only way the Chargers will leave San Diego is if Spanos sold the team.  And that's the problem the tax payers of this city face.  They won't leave.  We are stuck with them whether we like it or not. Right now all of this drama is nothing more than the greedy Spanos family trying to get more and more from the taxpayers of this city.  They want a new stadium simply because they see an opportunity to make even more money off of PSLs, naming rights and anything else they can get from this city including a possible ticket sales guarantee.  They will stop a nothing until they bleed this city dry. I doubt that there is any host as stupid as San Diego when it comes to things like this.  And those cities that have been bleed dry by NFL franchises are probably not as stupid as they once were.  

    gemini2 subscriber

    @Phillip Franklin @gemini2 thanks for your thoughts. you make some  good points. right now i would say that if a vote was taken of the city of san diego voters,the result would be no, 59% vs 41 %. when the chargers leave, what team(s) would be seeking nfl approval,to move to san diego ?

    Dean Plassaras
    Dean Plassaras

    (Ability of)  Financing a stadium is the key in LA and elsewhere like SD.

    The NFL, of course, does not want you to know the truth. The NFL hides all feasibility reports on NFL stadiums but you only have to look at comparable feasibility studies on MLB stadiums to understand why(the LA stadium is beyond unfeasible). Those who understand the language of finance only have to look at the financing section of this report (page #24) to understand why a private $2 Bil. stadium in LA is a total joke:

    Jay Byrd
    Jay Byrd

    I am so over the Chargers.  95% of the people in SD cannot afford the high price of tickets, the cost of food and the parking.  Let them go to LA.

    If I choose to watch their mediocre team, I can get a 50-yard-line seat on TV for free.  I can even evade those evil ads.  LA Chargers sounds like a good name.  Don't let the door hit you in the butt.  

    Dean Plassaras
    Dean Plassaras

    Carson is a deception and here is another way of explaining why:

    NFL owners have very little incentive to win (see article below) as  a means to revenue enhancement . The 3 revenue items  NFL owners are truly after (because they are not required to share with the league) are:

    1. Naming rights

    2. Sponsorships

    3. Luxury Boxes 

    In the case of LA because the requirement (entry price @ the gate) is for a 100% private stadium, which means that the above 3 sources which would normally go to an owner's pocket are seriously compromised to pay for part of the new stadium cost, is a self-defeating purpose.

    Any feasibility study would reveal such fatal flaw and would invalidate the need for a relocation to LA. This is why none of the 3 relocation candidate teams have ever released or planning to release such study. If they did the whole farce would be exposed.

    Instead they want the public to be terrorized on the basis of imperfect information and appearances only. That's the name of the game; fake the other side.

    bgetzel subscriber

    The article ignores 2 major factors: 1) The Charger / Raider proposal in Carson is flakey as hell, and unlikely to work financially; and 2) The St. Louis Rams proposal for L.A. has a very good chance of being approved. Given that, it is likely that the Chargers will have to somehow learn to continue to live in San Diego. How, is anyone's guess. One more thing, The Spanos family has been a major real estate developer ( mainly in the Stockton - Lodi area) for many years. They may not need a developer partner in the end game.

    tarfu7 subscribermember

    @bgetzel You're right that the Carson deal is unlikely to succeed. However, the talk I've heard is that the Rams' new stadium in Inglewood is being planned to accommodate TWO NFL teams - the Rams, and another team to be determined. It seems to me like the Chargers would be a major contender to be that 2nd team, especially since it looks like Oakland may be willing to fund a new stadium to keep the Raiders.

    Stephen Ponsiglione
    Stephen Ponsiglione

    @tarfu7 @bgetzel Great the bay area's toilet can afford to fund their team and "America's Finest City" cannot. Mostly the people are not willing when it comes to vote

    Justin Peniche
    Justin Peniche

    @bgetzel The Chargers wouldn't be the ones developing the surrounding area the city would. They were only willing to pay for anything if the city gave them the land.

    Jim Neri
    Jim Neri subscribermember

    this is a business deal (franchise)

    go Padres!

    Larry Githens
    Larry Githens subscriber

    Millions of dollars to keep the Chargers...I think not!  We have more social and political problems that need to be addressed, beyond providing the Chargers with a new money-making stadium, where I small segment of SD citizens can view "8 home games" in person!!  Give me a break,.  Most of us watch football on TV....even Charger home games.

    I'm an overburdened tax payer who declines to pay the tab on this shell game to help the Spanos Family "make ends meet!!" 

    Dean Plassaras
    Dean Plassaras

    @Larry Githens Agreed but the issue here (article title) is what comes up next?

    The author suggests that the owner has decided to move.

    However, Game Theory suggests that the owner can't move and has but only one real option which is to stay put. 

    This suggests that we will enter a decade of amplified owner grievances and complaints. This is where we have the option of either turning it off or continue to be obsessed with the owner's daily nonsense because it sells in journalistic terms. We all understand it's nonsense but we are somehow fascinated by it. Do you have an explanation as to why?

    lawrence park
    lawrence park

    SD Mayor upset that the league and the team does not want to risk waiting for a November 2016 election for a vote for approval of public funding; The Chargers have patiently worked with the city for 14 years. I don't blame them for leaving. Oakland is done as well.

    Rich Hertz
    Rich Hertz


    When Jerry Sanders was elected Mayor, I said that The Chargers had little chance of staying in San Diego.  Once the idiot voters elected Faulkner, I said that The Chargers are gone.

    It looks like I was extremely prophetic.

    Rich Hertz
    Rich Hertz

    @Dean Plassaras @Rich Hertz 


    Yes, and I believe that the Spanos family wants to keep the team here.  I hope they do, but I have no confidence in The Mayor or the City Council to achieve it.

    Dean Plassaras
    Dean Plassaras

    @Rich Hertz @Dean Plassaras Obviously whatever the city offers the owner will reject. But that's the game part.

    Reality is that even if the owner gets nothing, of course he'll raise hell with NFL's backing, but still unable to leave. 

    So, that's the whole story in a nutshell. It's a bad marriage and the couple have to share the same roof somehow.

    Mon Mothma
    Mon Mothma

    @Rich Hertz i'm not a fan of Faulkner but if that sexual deviant ex mayor was still in office he would have given Spanos everything he wanted and more.

    Bill Bradshaw
    Bill Bradshaw subscribermember

    Who the bleep is Eric Grubman?  Answer:  One of an inexhaustible number of “suits” with fancy titles that the NFL can throw at a city to intimidate them in order to give one of the club owners what he wants.  Ignore him.

    Scott, I pray that you’re right but I fear your analysis is too optimistic.  The Chargers are the THIRD favorite team to L.A. fans.  What kind of sense does it make to put them there?

    Remember the immortal words of David Benz below:  “Dean Spanos is an incompetent owner who's never accomplished a single thing in his life other than winning the birth lottery.”

    Precisely.  Just what do we owe the Spanos family?  In 31 years, they've had an overall losing record and failed to develop a fan base sufficient to avoid blackouts, despite having the huge Southern California market to themselves for most of their tenure!  How about we trade them for a group that knows how to win, not whine?

    Dean Plassaras
    Dean Plassaras

    @Bill Bradshaw - Don't pay attention to Grubman and the NFL. They will obviously support the theater of deception. But there is nothing they could do.

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Bill Bradshaw - A scientific study for LA's most popular team hasn't been performed or at least it hasn't been released.  Facebook released sourced data from their users that has the Chargers and Raiders as Southern California's favorite teams, not scientific but much more accurate than the LA Times poll that allowed people to vote as many times as they wanted and was taken over by the "Bring Back The LA Rams" cult.  This is a small very vocal group that will distort any open poll and they have destroyed a few of the St. Louis Rams forums with their trolling.

    Here's the facebook map

    Bob Nelson
    Bob Nelson subscribermember

    Let's review: (A) the Courts say San Diego cannot receive $38 million from the Jacobs family designated for a parking structure without first conducting an EIR -- but (B) they'll let the city sign off on a billion dollar-plus stadium and land development deal without processing the concept as a Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA)? (C). What am I missing? (D. What does the Lincoln Club's lawyer, Jan Goldsmith, say about this topic?

    Dean Plassaras
    Dean Plassaras

    @Bob Nelson A new stadium would be complicated. The only way to avoid these challenges is to renovate the stadium. The NFL has programs for renovation.

    La Playa Heritage
    La Playa Heritage subscribermember

    The Jacobs-designed Parking Structure in Balboa Park was to be paid by $17.4 Million in Parking Revenue Bonds from the few who would actually pay for parking or Valet.  The City's General Fund Reserves  would have pay the Bond debt if the Parking Structure did not make enough money to pay for itself through user fees.

    The Shady part was former Mayor Sanders plan to use the defunct Redevelopment Agency's Public Facilities Financing Authority (PFFA) Joint Powers Authority (JPA)  to sell the Parking bonds.

    "THE FACT #10

    Dr. Jacobs himself has only committed to a fraction of the money needed for this massive project. The balance to be made up by other donors and a parking bond to be paid for by hoped for revenues of the garage. To this date, no other donors have been identified. In fact, we have been told by potential donors that they do not like this project and are hoping that this project can be put to bed soon so that they can begin to come forward to address the real needs of Balboa Park and get on with the 2015 celebration and the 250 million dollars of backlogged deferred maintenance for the park."

    @Bob Nelson 

    Todd Youngquist
    Todd Youngquist

    Why wasn't Oceanside (old drive-in area) considered?

    I heard recently Spanos said they have 40% (?) of their revenue stream coming from Orange County?

    Does Oceanside's Airport get used? Could the planes parked there get moved to Carlsbad? If so, shutting down that airport... access from I-5 would be a no-brainer! I would think Oceanside would gladly trade the airport for a new Chargers' Stadium!

    Transportation from San Diego to stadium would be easy.

    Does anyone know of those negotiations?

    Another note... Rams' home was LA.

    NFL should stipulate Rams coming back... kinda like Cleveland & Houston getting teams "back".


    Jacksonville's Jaguars fill LA's vacancy since they're floundering in Jacksonville and could kick Kansas City Chiefs to AFC SOUTH, Jaguars to AFC WEST. Which geographically makes sense.

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Todd Youngquist Here's the Chargers statement...

    "Now, fully 25 percent of the Chargers’ season ticket base comes from the LA/Orange County market (along with the Inland Empire)."

    Two teams in one stadium obviously makes the cost of construction much more affordable, the only other alternative is to get the taxpayers to pay a large share which isn't likely.  Carson makes sense because it's a large area of land with very good freeway access and lots of room for tailgating.

    Rams original home was Cleveland, there's no reason for the owners to choose the Rams plan over the Chargers/Raiders Carson stadium plan.

    Jacksonville Jaguars are doing fine and their average attendance was better than the Chargers even though the Jags were 3-13.

    The Jags are locked into a lease and aren't going anywhere.  I don't know why people keep bringing them up for relocation.

    "The team and the city have invested heavily in the game-day experience, spending $63 million this year on upgrades to EverBank Field."

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @David Crossley @David Benz @Todd Youngquist The Rams haven't made any effort in St Louis, the state of Missiouri and city of St. Louis believe they have $400 million dollars worth of funding.  They've already done more than Oakland and San Diego.  The biggest reason the NFL wont choose Inglewood, as it stands, over Carson is that Kroenke is trying to control Los Angeles for himself.  He hasn't made an effort to bring on a second team as a partner.  Reportedly, a second team in Kroenke's stadium would be a tenant instead of a partner.

    The NFL might prefer the Inglewood stadium, but Kroenke will have to make major concessions and allow a second team to be equal partners in the stadium.  Goodell's and other owners' comments have covered that the NFL believes LA is a two team city and they don't want another landlord tenant situation.

    David Crossley
    David Crossley subscriber

    @David Benz @David Crossley @Todd Youngquist  --Doesn't the funding plan in St Louis completely fall apart if Kroenke is not interested in the plan?  And hasn't a lawsuit already been filed, with another apparently on the way, seeking clarification as to whether public funds could be used for financing without a vote of the people?

    I'm beginning to think that St Louis is going to build another stadium, but what I'm not too sure of is what team is going to play in it.

    This is JMO, but I think the reason that no one is moving to LA until 2016 at the earliest is the NFL is trying to work with Kroenke and seeing what exactly he wants to allow a 2nd team to play in his stadium.  The problem is that neither the Raiders or Chargers have the financial might that would be required to foot half of the bill for Kroenke World in Inglewood along with Kroenke.  And again, this is JMO, but I don't think the Carson plan is going to fly--and it has nothing to do with the fact it would be built on an old dump site.

    mike mata
    mike mata subscriber

    @David Benz @Todd Youngquist Charger's ticket prices might be a factor (JAX with better attendance numbers) here, they are a slight above the NFL average (JAX is pretty far down, which probably justifies the attendance)

    $85 bucks?

    Something Chargers should consider when they throw around attendance numbers, especially since the above average teams appear to have rings. hmm

    Also, I've been to Levi stadium, twice, and its a sad, horribly expensive stadium. $50 parking, $100 VIEW seats, and a meal for two (2xcarne asada tortas, 2 beers) $50 bucks..but then again, people will pay to love their team. Once you have a team-nation built, you'll have the money. 

    I'm still a Charger fan, just throwing this aspect out there.

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    Good article Scott your only mistake is on the land sale law.

    Section 221: Sale of Real Property

    Real property owned by The City of San Diego consisting of eighty (80) contiguous acres or more, whether or not in separate parcels, shall not be sold or exchanged unless such sale or exchange shall have first been authorized by ordinance of the Council and thereafter ratified by the electors of The City of San Diego.

    Cutting out a 79 acre parcel out of the 166 total acres doesn't change the fact that a public vote would be required to sell the land.

    Your site has made it, it's being overrun by Jo...err Mark and Dean.  Sucks for everyone else.

    David Crossley
    David Crossley subscriber

    @David Benz  --Hey--I didn't know that Mark, er, Joe made it over here.  At least the comment numbers should be astronomical now.  And Dean may post quite a bit, but one thing he doesn't do is respond to himself like our other "friend" does.