- Thread starter
- #61
Eugene Baker III
"Oh a stitch in time, just about saved me..."
- 31,584
- 6,281
- 533
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2015
- Location
- East Grove, Escondido, CA
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 946.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
Where do Chargers go if voters reject stadium bid?
“The worst deal in Los Angeles is better than his best deal here,” Spanos advisor Fred Maas told USA TODAY Sports.
But Spanos doesn’t want that, at least not yet. This year so far his team has spent about $12 million to push a Nov. 8 ballot measure for a new $1.8 billion stadium and convention center in downtown San Diego. If two-thirds of San Diego voters approve a hotel room tax hike to help build it, the Chargers would stay put.
If not, things get complicated. The Chargers still might not automatically leave their home of 55 years. On the other hand, the deal in L.A. is financially attractive to the team and could significantly increase the value of the franchise long-term, according to those familiar with it.
“I know the deal very well,” said Marc Ganis, a sports consultant who has worked with NFL owners and helped the Raiders and Rams relocate from Los Angeles in 1995. “It’s a good deal, and San Diego voters shouldn’t think that it’s not.”
Fans and news media still question whether the deal is just posturing or a bluff – more of a leverage play for a public subsidy than a real threat for the team to leave.
The answer is that it’s a little of both – a lever for taxpayer money in San Diego and the only certain fallback plan for the team besides playing indefinitely in San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium, one of the oldest and worst stadiums in the NFL.
The details of the L.A. option haven’t been disclosed, but people familiar with the deal told USA TODAY Sports it generally matches what Rams owner Stan Kroenkeproposed in a letter to the NFL last November. The people requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak about the deal publicly. The deal includes:
– The two teams would be tenants of a stadium company and pay a minimal amount of rent to it after the $2.6 billion facility opens in 2019. Both teams would help pay off the stadium construction debt with $200 million NFL loans for each team, plus founding partner sponsorships, personal seat licenses and stadium naming rights that increase in value with two teams instead of one.
– Excess revenues from these assets would be split between the teams. Each would responsible for its own game-day expenses and revenues, such as tickets and concessions.
For the Chargers, that means they’d at least be able to make what they could sell on game days in a swanky new stadium in a bigger city. In an estimate for USA TODAY Sports, Vanderbilt sports economist John Vrooman projected the team would make more local revenue in L.A. than San Diego. Even after paying a $650 million NFL relocation fee over 10 years, Vrooman also estimated the franchise’s value would be about $50 million greater in L.A., at about $2.725 billion, than it would be at the new stadium proposed in San Diego.
“If you’re thinking of owning this team long-term, it’s a good deal,” Ganis said.
The Chargers also would not have to borrow money for the project, unlike with their previous proposal to build a stadium in the L.A. suburb of Carson – a bid that was rejected by NFL owners in January. In that scenario, the team might have had to borrow $600 million or more.
For Kroenke, adding another team would mean getting help paying off the stadium debt. It also doubles the number of dates at the 298-acre stadium site, which will include retail, hotel and office space and is owned by Kroenke and his development partners.
It’s a win-win scenario in many respects. Yet the Chargers essentially would be starting from scratch in a new market, and Spanos didn’t take the same deal in January when he could have. Instead, he chose to try for a new stadium measure in San Diego that isn’t likely to pass, according to polls.
“We should all be grateful that we have an owner with the financial resources and the wherewithal to (pursue a new stadium here) because of his passion and commitment and love for the city more than the business opportunity another city may be offering him,” Maas said.
Ballot Measure C effectively asks voters if they want to increase the room tax from 12.5% to 16.5% to help fund the project, with $650 million provided by the team and the NFL. Because it’s a tax hike for a specific purpose in California, it would require a daunting two-thirds approval.
If the vote is less than two-thirds but more than 50%, it’s conceivable Spanos and San Diego city leaders would take that as a signal to keep trying for a solution. But it’s unclear where the money would come from for any other stadium plan in San Diego if voters reject public funding for this one.
If the vote fails, Spanos also has until Jan. 15 to decide on L.A., or risk having the Oakland Raiders take the second spot in Inglewood instead. Fortunately for Spanos, the Raiders currently are targeting a new stadium in Las Vegas, possibly giving some more time for Spanos to sort things out in San Diego, including possible legal issues.
An unrelated, pending case before the state Supreme Court could lower the voter-approval threshold for citizens initiatives like this to a simple majority of more than 50 percent. The problem for the Chargers is that such a ruling might not come for a year or two. In August, the court denied the city of San Diego’s request for an expedited determination.
Another possible path for the Chargers is Measure D, which also is on ballot in San Diego. It would authorize a new Chargers stadium but not pay for it, leaving more uncertainties for the team.
“We’ve not considered that a path” to a new stadium, Maas said.
San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer is among those who have endorsed Measure C, with opponents describing it as a bad deal for taxpayers.
“Let me put this very simply: A vote for C is a vote to keep the Chargers in San Diego,” Faulconer said.
Follow sports reporter Brent Schrotenboer on Twitter @Schrotenboer. E-mail: [email protected]
