Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pedro, I'm guessing many of your assertions aren't based on research or fact. Your long point about corporate sponsors is ridiculous. Have you walked through Petco Park on the Toyota Terrace level. Check out the luxury suites with the corporate logos on each door. As much as people want to tell the story that San Diego is devoid of big industry, our mediocre baseball team has been able to attract corporate suiteholders (should be noted that most of the large gaming tribes have suites also for themselves and for casino clients), not to mention the group sales suites in the Western Metal Supply building seem to be occupied at every game I'm at. This isn't even getting into the fact that both the NFL team and MLB team have attracted corporate naming rights. As much as you tell the story that the Chargers are fighting to sell out their games (which is true), the margin of tickets they need to sell by the deadline is almost always under 5k, usually far less. That means in our current, decrepit and aging stadium, even on non-sell out days, 57 thousand tickets are sold. This isn't Jacksonville where they are selling 35k out of 60k tickets on gamedays - far from it. Are there less corporate sponsors/dollars than New York/Boston? Of course. Is there not enough to support an NFL franchise/new stadium? I strongly disagree.
The whole point of the Chargers new proposal is to colocate the stadium with the convention center, replace the $520mil expansion with the new multi-purpose facility. The fact that there are only 8 home games a year becomes less and less relevant if the city is able to find ways to use the facility for conventions/Final Fours/Super Bowls/bowl games/etc. If anything, keeping Qualcomm around for 8 NFL games, 5 Aztec games, and a handful of monster truck rallies/used car sales/religious revivals with Tim Tebow seems a far more wasteful usage of civic facilities than a multi-purpose stadium/convention space.
Pedro, I'm guessing many of your assertions aren't based on research or fact. Your long point about corporate sponsors is ridiculous. Have you walked through Petco Park on the Toyota Terrace level. Check out the luxury suites with the corporate logos on each door. As much as people want to tell the story that San Diego is devoid of big industry, our mediocre baseball team has been able to attract corporate suiteholders (should be noted that most of the large gaming tribes have suites also for themselves and for casino clients), not to mention the group sales suites in the Western Metal Supply building seem to be occupied at every game I'm at. This isn't even getting into the fact that both the NFL team and MLB team have attracted corporate naming rights. As much as you tell the story that the Chargers are fighting to sell out their games (which is true), the margin of tickets they need to sell by the deadline is almost always under 5k, usually far less. That means in our current, decrepit and aging stadium, even on non-sell out days, 57 thousand tickets are sold. This isn't Jacksonville where they are selling 35k out of 60k tickets on gamedays - far from it. Are there less corporate sponsors/dollars than New York/Boston? Of course. Is there not enough to support an NFL franchise/new stadium? I strongly disagree.
The whole point of the Chargers new proposal is to colocate the stadium with the convention center, replace the $520mil expansion with the new multi-purpose facility. The fact that there are only 8 home games a year becomes less and less relevant if the city is able to find ways to use the facility for conventions/Final Fours/Super Bowls/bowl games/etc. If anything, keeping Qualcomm around for 8 NFL games, 5 Aztec games, and a handful of monster truck rallies/used car sales/religious revivals with Tim Tebow seems a far more wasteful usage of civic facilities than a multi-purpose stadium/convention space.
If they can't get contiguous space it's not gonna happen. Which they can't so? It kind of answers itself. Regardless, if the Spanos want to buy land, build a new stadium with their own money there is nothing we can do to stop them. GOOOO Spanos
If they can't get contiguous space it's not gonna happen. Which they can't so? It kind of answers itself. Regardless, if the Spanos want to buy land, build a new stadium with their own money there is nothing we can do to stop them. GOOOO Spanos
Doesn't seem to me they'd have to touch. It's a five minute walk from the convention center, over the pedestrian bridge to where this stadium/convention expansion is being proposed. Talk is of a "campus" like environment. If there's anything to complain about, it's that this site is where Mission Brewing is.
Doesn't seem to me they'd have to touch. It's a five minute walk from the convention center, over the pedestrian bridge to where this stadium/convention expansion is being proposed. Talk is of a "campus" like environment. If there's anything to complain about, it's that this site is where Mission Brewing is.
Meh me either but apparently that is the deal breaker. Everything I've read that involved the CC says "not happening". Now it appears this protest by the Bolts is going to derail the expansion? That sounds like a pr nightmare.
It sounds like it'll just force this to be a mayoral issue that actually gets commented on during the special election. Filner and Demaio both totally dodged the issue when put on the spot last election by local sports talk radio. It would be great if a candidate would actually endorse one of the proposed courses of action.
Pedro, I'm guessing many of your assertions aren't based on research or fact. Your long point about corporate sponsors is ridiculous. Have you walked through Petco Park on the Toyota Terrace level. Check out the luxury suites with the corporate logos on each door. As much as people want to tell the story that San Diego is devoid of big industry, our mediocre baseball team has been able to attract corporate suiteholders (should be noted that most of the large gaming tribes have suites also for themselves and for casino clients), not to mention the group sales suites in the Western Metal Supply building seem to be occupied at every game I'm at. This isn't even getting into the fact that both the NFL team and MLB team have attracted corporate naming rights. As much as you tell the story that the Chargers are fighting to sell out their games (which is true), the margin of tickets they need to sell by the deadline is almost always under 5k, usually far less. That means in our current, decrepit and aging stadium, even on non-sell out days, 57 thousand tickets are sold. This isn't Jacksonville where they are selling 35k out of 60k tickets on gamedays - far from it. Are there less corporate sponsors/dollars than New York/Boston? Of course. Is there not enough to support an NFL franchise/new stadium? I strongly disagree.
The whole point of the Chargers new proposal is to colocate the stadium with the convention center, replace the $520mil expansion with the new multi-purpose facility. The fact that there are only 8 home games a year becomes less and less relevant if the city is able to find ways to use the facility for conventions/Final Fours/Super Bowls/bowl games/etc. If anything, keeping Qualcomm around for 8 NFL games, 5 Aztec games, and a handful of monster truck rallies/used car sales/religious revivals with Tim Tebow seems a far more wasteful usage of civic facilities than a multi-purpose stadium/convention space.
It's a nice theory to believe all these things will be used, but most stadiums are rather empty for most of the year when games aren't played. And who is to say where a new stadium would be built. They've been talking about Chula Vista, North County, Downtown, East Village , the existing stadium, etc. There was even talks about some stadium build on the marina. At this point there are no final declarations of where a new stadium would actually be built.
And come on. The Chargers were 28th out of 32 teams last year in Attendance. That's a lot of fans not showing up or going to games. The Padres are 21st out of 30 teams. So in general, people in San Diego aren't going to games as much as many other teams. Of course, winning teams mean more fans attend games, but the problem is San Diego seems to be on the cheap side of building winning teams. The Padres are known as a "minor league" team in certain circles where once the player becomes really good and wants more money, they get shipped off to another team who can pay them. The Chargers. They are better regarded now, but a decade ago, ELi Manning refused to play for the Chargers.
In the grand scheme of things a new stadium wears off quickly. Fans who aren't going to games now or can't afford to, sure won't be going when a new stadium means more expensive tickets. The Padres have a new stadium and a revitalized area, but it's not like the Padres are drawing in massive crowds. Again they are 21st out of 30 teams.
It's nice to think all these 'extra' events will happen, but the Jets/Giants don't need a super bowl to make money. It's a nice feature. And with all these other new stadiums, San Diego will get what, 1-2 Super Bowls over 15-20 years. That's not a selling point. That's a short sighted example of some billionaire owner trying to get tax payers to pay for a stadium. The Olympics? It's a well known fact that cities that get the olympics seem to go bankrupt soon thereafter. And the Olympics don't come just because a team got one new NFL stadium. It's more civic pride, great for the moment, but long term, the olympics puts many cities around the world deep in debt because of it. And half the things wind up being "white elephants" that wind up unused or under utilized.
Having a new stadium will definitely be a good thing for the San Diego short term, but that new feeling soon fades. Last year the Chargers had what 4 black outs? You can say that doesn't mean anything, but it means a lot of people and companies didn't give a damn to even watch the Chargers on TV. There are certain companies and owners around the league where a potential blackout results in 1-2 people buying up enough tickets so there isn't one. For an NFL team with 8 home games and half of them were blacked out, kind of means there aren't enough fans or corporations who actually care that the game was even on TV. That says a lot about the area and sports.
And you always here the nonsense about other events at these NFL stadiums. It's the only selling point considering most of these stadiums are used 10 days per year. Even in San Diego with the weather, there just aren't a ton of events who need 60K seats that are outdoors. Maybe some concerts now and again, but what happens to the other venues that have concerts now? Chula Vista takes a hit I guess.
The truth is, most economic experts without some corporate agenda, have done enough analysis and found that very few, if any, economic benefits result from building new sports stadiums. Most of the time they cost more then originally claimed, and many times Funds are diverted from other things like schools, police, firefighters, infrastructure elsewhere and so on to pay for it. And then all the 'sponsors' and licenses go to the owners, not to the city.
Rivers is the lame duck here. Everyone knows it but does not want to say it. He performed well only to throw an insanely horrible pass which was picked off by a great catch. I have only watched this for 2 seasons but I have seen enough to know that while a good citizen he can not smell blood in the water. His game is adequate sometimes better but with the high impact of his turnovers he must go....
A similar issue came up with another sport with Barry Zito. Purchased for 126M by the Giants he failed and failed awful. Finally, In 2010 Bochy benched him for the playoffs and the world series and the Giants showed up for work. While more complicated, Rivers failures are the chip which tips over the house of cards. ANY team can be a champion when a group of guys rally around the QB. Rivers does not generate that loyalty. Sell him.
Pedro, there is a pretty specific site being pushed by the Chargers. That's across the pedestrian bridge from the convention center and the Hilton Bayfront, across the Tailgate lot from Petco Park. The location is so that it is colocated with the convention center, providing additional space for the convention center to attract large scale conventions, and as a replacement for the $550 million convention center expansion in the works now. Sure, if you totally ignore this publicly stated plan, then you can continue attacking the strawman of NFL stadiums only beng used 10-20 times a year. If you look at it as a synergistic plan to combine a new stadium with desperately needed additional convention center capacity, it looks a lot more economical. And yes, the strawman argument of attacking a city funded stadium is fine, but in this case, the NFL is pitching in from their stadium fund, as are the Chargers. Selling the Qualcomm site and Sports Arena site can't happen soon enough, they both are bleeding money for the city in operating costs.
The truth is, most economic experts without some corporate agenda, have done enough analysis and found that very few, if any, economic benefits result from building new sports stadiums. Most of the time they cost more then originally claimed, and many times Funds are diverted from other things like schools, police, firefighters, infrastructure elsewhere and so on to pay for it. And then all the 'sponsors' and licenses go to the owners, not to the city.
I love to see some hard facts on this. I know for a fact, all the money does not go to Owners. They, like anybody else, rent the stadium. Also, keep in mind that when players and coaches have a game in San Diego, we get to tax them for that game. What is the tax on 1/16 of Peyton Manning's 20+ million dollar salary?
While I wont argue that when tax money is used it sometimes comes from budgets for schools, etc, most cities use an extra small tax to get funds. Also, rarely does an owner put 0 out of pocket for said stadium, they often have millions on the line.
I could find you news articles that say having teams in a city helps financially. I am sure you could find some saying the opposite. Without all of the data it is hard to tell, more importantly I can guarantee each market reacts differently to a team.
I think one thing we can all agree on is San Diego, like many cities, has fair weather fans. When things go well, people will show up in droves. When the team stinks, "fans" disappear. In Portland, we had the same problem with the Blazers. Although, for a period, they were called the Jail Blazers because our arrest record rivaled the NFL's. That kept people away, more than their terrible play.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
