|
San Diego has an estimated 2 billion dollar backlog of infrastructure maintenance, last I heard an over 1 billion pension unfunded pension liability, poor bike and transit infrastructure, and is already working with a reduced government workforce and services. How can anyone support giving the Spanos family taxpayer money, government subsidies, or any sort of free ride to provide a football team that has a marginal if any economic benefit to the region? Good luck to them I hope they find another municipality to trick or maybe they'll actually have to take a risk and privately finance something.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
SA2K posted:San Diego County basically said on Tuesday they'd write the chargers a check for a billion dollars for a stadium gently caress Ron Roberts. That guy is so obviously angling for legacy projects at the expense of the voters. He should stick to wasting money on his gondola in the sky bullshit since it's less of a waste of money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
SA2K posted:Meanwhile the San Diego Stadium task force will have their financing plan done and ready to present to the mayor on May 20th. More money to the Spanos family! And on my birthday too!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
How long would it actually take the Chargers to move to these sites? Even if they announced today that their time in San Diego is done wouldn't they still be two-three years out from physically relocating?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
I hope San Diego continues to (whether purposefully or accidentally) call Spanos' bluff. I don't believe Spanos was seriously considering moving until the last year or so when they tried to get the Carson joint stadium proposal going. Who knew getting a cooperative (them and Oakland) billion dollar project approved takes longer than a year! There is no way Spanos is building his own stadium so he needs to get a partner or find a locale stupid enough to give him one. If San Diego continues to hold strong the Chargers will be in Qualcomm for at least two more years.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Ya Oakland owes them nothing. It's not their fault that Mark Davis' only alternative was a last minute joint stadium plan in a county where someone else was already much further along. Maybe he should have planned better for this scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Well either somebody else wouldn't or Mark Davis didn't properly consider all available alternatives. It's either a called bluff brought about by a lack of leverage or poor leadership by Davis and Spanos. Either way it's hilarious and the local governments in both cities have to be laughing their asses off at how poorly Davis and Spanos have handled this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:How do you figure? What, they should have left for San Antonio or something while LA was still on the table? What I'm getting at is that San Antonio (a joke I know) was never on the table. They only had their half-baked Carson option after trying to strong arm their respective hometowns. If there was a San Antonio out there somewhere they should have found it or moved on Carson more seriously if their plan at home was to create a PR nightmare. The best available alternatives to their hometowns were not well thought out. If someone else will pay why didn't they find them and seriously move forward with that alternative? Betting everything on bluffing your hometown is poor business. It seems obvious that Davis and Spanos bet the farm on their respective cities caving and Carson was only seriously considered at the last minute while a clearly better competing proposal was already further along in the area. Where we are now is either a result of the teams overestimating the leverage they had, poor planning, or both. Presently, why would Oakland or San Diego provide any public money to these owners when their best alternative, which seemed half baked in my opinion, is gone. The Carson stadium was only on the table if Davis and Spanos believed the NFL would allow three teams to move to Los Angeles since the Inglewood proposal was obviously superior. The teams did not own the land until May 2015, there are still issues with the site being a former landfill, no finance plan has been worked out, neither team had a plan of where they would play while it was being built, cooperating with two owners to build a joint stadium is harder than one owner building a stadium, and if one team backed out the stadium would be dead. This is in contrast to Kroenke already owning the land in Inglewood, having no partner, putting up the money, and ready to break ground at the end of 2015. At no point was the NFL going to approve Carson and not Inglewood. Again, Carson was only on the table if Davis and Spanos thought LA was a three team city and even with approval many of the details had yet to be worked out. I'm not saying Carson would not have been built but there was a chance it could still fall apart even with NFL approval.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:if the NFL wanted two teams in LA, Carson was going to be the priority This is a good point. Maybe Carson did have a chance over Inglewood. I have trouble getting over the financing aspect though. Kroenke had the money and was ready to break ground while Davis and Spanos were still figuring things out. Would the NFL really have chosen them over basically a done deal?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
As this all is wrapping up I wanted to say, as a San Diegan, I'm so proud of our voters for not giving in. Not so proud of the county and the mayor but hell yeah for all of us.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Zurreco posted:Except SD will probably never cave in unless a team accepts the land Qualcomm is on. If the Chargers leave, the SDCC and the port will expand into the land that Spanos wanted to build on and then there will be zero space for a new stadium in the downtown area. The city and its people win in either scenario and I'll never understand how Spanos thought otherwise. I don't know about the difficulties of developing that site in particular but I do know that San Diego is building a lot of housing in that Mission Valley corridor. The Qualcomm site may not be available for long.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 16:23
|
|