The team wants a new stadium to play football in because, somehow, the current stadium is worn out or something like that. I understand wanting a new stadium, but they want it to be partially taxpayer funded, and I could care less for that. Sure, I like football - ON TV - never intending to pay those prices to park in a crowded lot and watch a game from so far back I can’t really see what’s happening. I’d rather head off to take a leak and find my bathroom empty than a line of people and wet floors, not to mention way overpriced beer and food that is merely okay. (I’ve been to their games before)
Chargers, you’ve changed coaches, players, strategy and yet you still end up barely making the playoffs, if at all, then choking. What makes us think a new stadium will make it any different? There’s only 2 things left to change. Your location and your worthless owner.
Right now, the city is negotiating with these asswipes to stay in San Diego, and that all centers around building a new stadium. The Chargers are also negotiating to move to LA (along with Oakland) for 2016 or 2017. The problem is that apparently the Chargers haven’t been negotiating in good faith. The pricks are making arrangements (per the news accounts) to make the move while placating San Diego by going through the motions of pretending to negotiate in good faith. They claim San Diego can’t build a new stadium soon enough, and they need a new stadium because…yeah, it’s pretty.
So, fuck you Chargers, take your shit and go packing. I don’t want to help fund your stadium in the slightest. And, I hope Oakland owns you this season. (the ultimate Charger insult)
Now, any other teams interested in locating to San Diego?
All municipal bonds are federal income tax-free. 4 billion, spread from 1986 to 2047, is nothing. New ball parks generate interest, and business, and tourism. Their construction provides jobs for a couple of years.
I hate sports owners that use their teams as hostages saying that if they don’t get a new stadium with all the bells and whistles for free that they’ll find another city that will.
In Pittsburgh, we not only pay for the stadiums but we also give the teams the development rights for the land around them. As one would expect, the results are sub-optimal.
As somebody who’s not all that into the NFL (college is more my bag) I’m not-so-secretly hoping that all three of the Raiders, Chargers and Rams move to LA all at once.
They’re a terrible investment. Every independent study does on them shows the opportunity cost is horrific; the money is being pissed away at best, and the risk of the stadium becoming a terrible white elephant is significant. Ask the taxpayers of Glendale how the hockey arena’s worked out for them. Ask Montrealers how the Big O, aka “The Big Owe,” worked out.
Pretty sure the Rams returning to LA is a done deal, yet not formally announced. Then it’s between the Chargers and the Raiders for the second spot. LA will not get 3 franchises.
I personally don’t think the people in LA would support one franchise let alone, two.
OK. That figure of 4 billion (the interest the feds are giving up) spread over 60 years sounded trivial- especially since the point the article was making is that people all over the US are paying for a place like the Cowboys’ new stadium (and the 4 billion is the interest lost on all public sports venues).
But a city like Glendale (population 225,000) taking on a stadium all on its own is a horrible investment.
I guess they’re not good even for a large metro area, from the stuff you linked. It doesn’t bother me a lot that there’s a .1% sales tax in 5 counties in Wisconsin, for instance, to have a great place like Miller Park.
But especially just one portion of the Phoenix metro area being on the hook for the whole mortgage -that’s insane.
There are, I think, eight home games a year in the NFL, versus about 80 home games in baseball. So if a city builds an NFL stadium, it’s really only needed less than a dozen times a year. Sure they can and will try to schedule concerts, conventions and soccer games there. But basically, it’s a terrible use of resources.
Quick test: What do you think it means when a city or state subsidizes the construction of a professional sports team arena/stadium?
It means that the government entity acts as a conduit for the stadium organization to issue tax-exempt bonds. These bonds have a lower interest rate than regular debt and are backed by the government entity. The investors buying the bonds do not have to pay state or federal income tax on the interest earned on those bonds. The stadium organization still has to repay the bonds through the government entity. The subsidy comes from the loss of tax revenues that the investors would have to pay otherwise. In a stress case, if the stadium organization cannot support the payback of the bonds and defaults, then the government steps in to payback the bondholders.
It wasn’t all that long ago that the Chargers manipulated SD into paying (or crediting against rents - or whatever, I’m not sure of the mechanism) for unsold seats for each home game. The city finally figured out they were getting screwed by that provision and stopped doing it. If these teams can’t pay their way, let them fold.