Chargers may now be without stadium site, as well as stadium funds

Speaking of news updates on already-dormant stories:

The state’s decision to end redevelopment has put the fate of Tailgate Park, a 1,040-space parking lot next to Petco Park, in question as the city may have to put the site up for sale to the highest bidder rather than include a portion of it as part of the 14-acre footprint needed to build a $1 billion stadium.

That’s a new San Diego Chargers stadium, mind you, a plan that was already put in question when California eliminated its redevelopment agencies last year. Now, though, the Chargers could be lacking a site, in addition to lacking $1 billion. Whether that’s a significant step backwards I’ll leave to up to readers to decide for themselves.


7 comments on “Chargers may now be without stadium site, as well as stadium funds

  1. That “tailgate park” site is on top of a big fault line and nothing of significance can be built there, so there’s not much value in that land.
    This is just a delay tactic, the Chargers are not serious about a new stadium in San Diego, this ranks right up there with their demand of free land from the city that our water department owns and could not be given away.
    It’s clear the Chargers are just delaying the whole issue waiting on the Rams’ arbitration decision and Stl’s response. A shared stadium in LA is the goal and the Spanos family is waiting on the next step.

  2. Yep. Could just as easily be he’s waiting to see whether or not Mark Davis’ inheiritance taxes are so high he’d actually be willing to deal with AEG.

  3. “Ladies and Gentlemen! Please welcome your Los Angeles Chargers!” I’m convinced they’re trying to extract a territorial/goodwill fee from the next NFL team in San Diego first before moving to LA. I just don’t think the LA stadium deal is favorable enough to move yet. But they will.

  4. Cujo, there wont be another NFL team in San Diego if the Chargers leave.

    What they are doing is playing “good cop” in hopes that they can lay the blame on our city government and lure as many current ticket holders to continue to buy tickets for LA. If the Chargers were serious about building a new stadium they would’ve put forth a legally viable proposal for the current stadium site. They’re not.

    I’m even more sure that my prediction is correct after being banned from the Chargers site for stating my opinion even though my posts met all of their TOS.

    If the Rams get out of their lease the Chargers and Rams will share a stadium in LA.

  5. I’m sure the Chargers would rather be (back) in Los Angeles than in San Diego, given roughly equivalent stadium deals. They would no doubt agree to a slightly less lucrative deal in LA, simply because of the relative populations of the markets.

    Unfortunately, the present stadium deals on offer in LA (to the extent there remains two deals) would put the Chargers very much behind the curve as far as other NFL stadium agreements go, what with having to share revenue with the stadium owner and all.

    The League has also said/implied that it doesn’t think the present stadium deal is “equitable” (which suggests a lack of understanding of the word “equitable”, but this is not a surprise).

    As set out in Raiders II, the team(s) moving to Los Angeles whenever a stadium actually arises will almost certainly have to pay for the difference in relative market values between their former and new home.

    As with Lew Wolff and his “right” to move to San Jose, the Chargers/Raiders/Jags/Bills moving to LA seems like it would be a slam dunk. If a ‘portable franchise’ could be relocated there for free, it might be. But they can’t.

    From the league’s perspective, I don’t believe they are in a hurry to fill this apparently vacant market. Los Angeles is a fantastic stalking horse for stadium deal seekers (it’s worked really well in four or five markets already, well but not as spectacularly in a few others). In addition, the league isn’t losing any money through not having a team in LA. If you visit the city, there are still NFL jerseys, hats and other merch visible literally everywhere.

    Eventually a team will probably return to LA. I wouldn’t count on it being a relocation, though. The last expansion earned the league some $700m (in 2002 dollars, as I recall). Why would the league give LA to the Spanos/Khan/Davis/Wilson families when it can charge well over $1Bn for the market?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

150,335 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

HTML tags are not allowed.