Do Chargers have secret deal with Goldman Sachs to build L.A. stadium? (SPOILER: no)

So on a podcast on Friday, a St. Louis radio reporter who covers the Blues said this about a San Diego Chargers stadium, for some reason:

“Spanos from the Chargers has a deal in place with Goldman-Sachs to build a new stadium and the NFL has asked him to hold off from accouncing those plans,” Strickland said, citing St. Louis officials.

Whoa, that’s news! Strickland also said he thought the stadium deal was in L.A., not San Diego, and you know what, let’s stop right there, because though the Strickland report was soon all over the news, immediately thereafter this was:

[Chargers general counsel Mark] Fabiani told 10News Friday night, “The story is untrue. Nothing to it, except that we have worked for years with Goldman Sachs. But the rest of the story is incorrect.”

Now, team execs can lie, of course, but usually they temper their words a bit more when they do so. And the idea that the Chargers have a secret stadium deal in place that has gone unnoticed by everyone except a St. Louis hockey reporter is … let’s just say I’ll believe it when I see it.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, U-T San Diego actually does some reporting today that could be construed as critical of the Chargers’ stadium plans, or at least skeptical that the team can get them funded: Fabiani has talked of raising hotel taxes to help pay for a stadium, but the hotel owners hate the idea, it would take a two-thirds vote to approve it, and the last time a referendum was attempted on hiking hotel taxes, it only got 41.6% of the vote. And that was to hike hotel taxes to fund police and firefighters, not a stadium. I guess it’s pretty hard to find a “cheerleader” spin on facts like that.


4 comments on “Do Chargers have secret deal with Goldman Sachs to build L.A. stadium? (SPOILER: no)

  1. Dean Spanos can’t afford to build his own stadium anywhere, especially not in LA or San Diego. His only hope is to shack up with Kroenke.

  2. Well, if it’s a secret, how would anyone know? And doesn’t that fact that some cub reporter from St. Louis “knows” about it mean it’s no longer secret?

    This is amongst the dumber ideas I’ve ever heard… Goldman Sachs touches nothing without earning a massive return (often for no actual definable work) for their efforts.

    What do they gain by ‘partnering’ on a stadium deal in which all the profit must, pretty much by definition, go to their partner club?

    If anyone cared about journalistic integrity these days, the clown who made this claim would be fired on the spot. Given what passes for reporting these days, he’ll probably be promoted and win a Pulitzer….

  3. Goldman Sachs “partnering” would be nothing more than providing private financing, like they did for the 49ers. The returns were not massive, the interest rate on the long term debt is 5%, short term rate was 2.19%.