Chargers and Raiders say they can copy 49ers’ private stadium financing, but it’s not quite that simple

More information is trickling out about the proposed $1.7 billion San Diego Chargers/Oakland Raiders stadium in Carson, and it adds up to — well, let’s just run it down first, then see what it adds up to:

  • The promised press conference in Carson happened on Friday, and tons of local officials showed up, but no representatives of either team took the stage. (Chargers stadium chief Mark Fabiani was in the audience, but didn’t speak.) No details of how the plan would work were revealed, with one elected official (SFGate didn’t say who) saying, “The financing will work with the revenue generated by the stadium itself. I don’t have all the details. This is about convincing a community that this is a good project.”
  • Fabiani was busy talking up the press elsewhere, telling ESPN’s Aaron Markazi that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s announced Inglewood stadium was what prompted the Chargers to immediately jump in on a stadium elsewhere in the L.A. area: “We deliberately changed our strategy in the wake of what Kroenke did. When this opportunity to create an alternative came along we decided to seize it.” Fabiani also told Markazi that the Raiders just officially came on board last week.
  • Fabiani told Markazi that the model for the stadium is the San Francisco 49ers‘ $1.3 billion stadium in Santa Clara: “We took the template of the Santa Clara funding mechanisms … so we basically took that and adjusted it for different costs here.” (A Goldman Sachs rep who’s been working on the plan echoed this at the press conference.) He also insisted that the Chargers are prepared to fund the stadium alone if necessary.
  • Regarding the use of NFL G-4 funds for a Carson stadium, NFL VP Eric Grubman told the OC Register, “A stadium project can be eligible for league financing provided the project and its sponsors meet certain criteria. A Carson project would be eligible and could apply if it met those criteria.” Of course, one of the criteria of the G-4 fund is that “the project must not involve any relocation of or change in an affected club’s ‘home territory,'” so either Grubman is saying that the league has changed the criteria, or coyly saying that Carson wouldn’t be eligible, or just ducking the question because he doesn’t want to mess with the teams’ leverage.
  • U-T San Diego reports that San Diego residents hope the team doesn’t move, and more surprisingly, that the newspaper’s headline writers think they’re called “San Diegians.”

So what do we have? Clearly the message the teams are trying to send (or at least Fabiani is trying to send — the Raiders seem to be merely along for the ride) is “the 49ers did this in Santa Clara, so we can do it too.” There are some significant differences, though: First off, the Carson stadium is projected to cost an extra $400 million, something that additional G-4 funding won’t come close to making up, assuming the NFL changes its rules and approves it. Second, L.A. is not Silicon Valley, and the Chargers and Raiders aren’t the 49ers, meaning selling $500 million worth of personal seat licenses to fans, as the 49ers did, is less of a sure thing. And third, the NFL hasn’t committed to waiving relocation fees for teams moving to L.A., which could blow as much as another $500 million hole in the budget.

Probably the best way of looking at the Carson stadium plan is the way this commenter suggested: It’s part negotiating ploy, part fallback plan, and both Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis are hoping that it will shake loose stadium money in San Diego and Oakland and they’ll never have to decide whether to shoot the dog. (Fabiani also spent a fair bit of media time over the weekend shaming San Diego officials about not being as friendly-like as Carson ones.) Grubman’s statement seems calculated to support this tactic: He’s not going to commit to G-4 funding, but he’s not going to rule it out, either.

The big question, then, is: If one or both teams can’t use the Carson threat to get stadium money out of their current home cities, will they really pull the trigger and move? That, we simply don’t know, and won’t until there’s more details revealed about how the Carson stadium money would work, beyond “We’ll have what Santa Clara is having.”

Come to think of it, though, there’s one equally big question: If the Santa Clara stadium’s private financing can be picked up and relocated to Carson, how come it can’t be done in San Diego or Oakland? Yes, L.A. is a bigger market, but market size doesn’t matter that much in the NFL. And as noted above, it comes with a bigger price tag, in both construction cost and relocation fees, than a stadium in the teams’ current homes would.

Good questions for officials, and journalists, in San Diego and Oakland to be asking, anyway. It’s possible to take threats seriously without taking them at face value, and that’s what everybody should be focusing on now. If only to take their minds off of the horror that is this photo:


44 comments on “Chargers and Raiders say they can copy 49ers’ private stadium financing, but it’s not quite that simple

  1. I think the key issue is that both Oak and SD know there will be no significant taxpayer money coming from the electorate in either city. Even with the potential relocation fees and minimal PSL sales, going halfs on an LA stadium might be less out of pocket than building a single team stadium with small to zero taxpayer subsidies.

  2. @bensmith

    You are absolutely right. The Raiders and Chargers are hoping that the NFL’s money will be doubled since it’s two teams – Fabiani is coming on SD radio here in 10 minutes to discuss that possibility. The NFL is willing to fork out 200 million per team so why not throw it at a single stadium – does it really make a difference?

    Getting the owners to vote to approve the move… that’s another story.

  3. Neil,
    Does the G-4 money have to be paid back by the teams to the NFL, or is it a grant?

    If the NFL deems that it is better off to have one or more teams in LA, than to have the current configuration, there is no doubt that they will waive fees and change rules as needed.

  4. Here is a wrap up regarding Mark Fabiani’s visit to local (SD) sports talk radio:

    The Mayor met with Spanos and apparently the Mayor’s task force timeline is now accelerated. The task force’s report is now pushed up to May of this year, not fall as was originally planned. The problem remains that ~700 million is potentially on the taxpayer here in SD (against the proposed 1.2 billion dollar price tag). 2/3rds majority is required to pass any tax increase here in San Diego proper.
    The land in Carson is not titled for building a stadium on right now.
    Each team needs to be approved individually – 24 “yes” votes for the Chargers and another 24 for the Raiders.
    The 200 million that would be given to the Chargers and Raiders individually for stadiums would be pooled to make 400 million in LA.
    Fabiani admitted that Kroenke’s power move to LA forced the Raiders and Chargers to put this plan together and get the land in Carson. This apparently was not something they were seriously looking into until they realized Kroenke wasn’t messing around.
    The Chargers are going to continue to work on the SD Task Force AND the Carson project at the same time.
    There will be a campaign in Carson (signature gathering) to get a ballot measure in that area. I’m not sure what they need to vote on exactly as the money is not going to come from the public.
    The convention center expansion team is not working with the stadium Task Force, which is making the push more difficult for both (especially when it comes to tax payer dollars). For SD voters, what do you do? Keep Comic-Con or the Chargers? It doesn’t sound like both will happen, unless the stadium is placed near the convention center / Petco Park and is a multi-use facility. Perhaps the increased price tag that has been touted recently is because it’s a retractable roof for mixed use? I have no idea where they would place this facility as there’s not a ton of room.

    Here is the wrap up with the task force chairman (Adam Day):

    “What’s going to happen in Carson is going to, but we have blinders on to get a solution here.”
    The task force was ahead of the original fall deadline even before the Carson plan came out publically.
    Adam was asked if he trusts the Chargers after the Friday announcement, and he said they “have no choice.”
    Qualcomm is currently costing the city 8-10 million dollars a year due to the state of the facility.

    Here is the wrap up with the architect of the Carson stadium:

    The drawing is only a concept for what could possibly be in Carson – they are still gathering what the Chargers and Raiders would want in a stadium still.
    None of the required work on the site itself has started. It’s a landfill site, so special considerations are required.
    12+ months to finish design, and 2.5-3 years to complete the stadium in Carson. While design is going on they’ll do the required soil discovery etc.

  5. “but market size doesn’t matter that much in the NFL”

    In terms of the profitability/value of any given team, probably not. But when it comes to raising PSL money to pay for stadium construction, size (and how much wealth their might be in that SMA, which is partially a function of size) absolutely matters.

    As you point out in your post, Neil, LA isn’t Silicon Valley. True, but there are still a lot of very, very wealthy people in the greater LA area. That’ll matter when trying to figure out the total amount of the PSL money they can project to raise.

    Re: SD moving more quickly. Christ, you’d think these people would learn. “Oh, you’re serious about moving to LA? How much money can we throw at you how quickly to stay?” Anyone checked the e-gambling revenues in Minnesota lately?

  6. Taking these one at a time:

    Scott: G-4 money is technically a loan, but since much of it can be paid back with money that would have to be shared with the NFL anyway, it’s effectively a grant. Mostly.

  7. SD: Thanks for the update. Clearly Kroenke’s move kicked the Chargers into gear, though it’s as yet unclear whether that gear was “We need to move to L.A. before the Rams do!” or “We need to use L.A. as leverage to get money out of San Diego before it’s no longer a viable threat!” or both.

    I’m guessing a Carson vote would be to get around the EIR requirement, as in Inglewood.

  8. Michael: Sure, market size matters for PSL sales, but how much? The 49ers got about $500m, the Jets and Giants got about $400m each. L.A. doesn’t have as many rich people as either NY or SF, and the teams don’t have a built-in fan base to draw from, so … maybe $300m each, at the outside? Add in $400m in naming rights and $400m from G-4, and there’s still another $600 million to pay off — plus anything they’d have to pay in relocation fees. Would the value of having a team in L.A. vs. S.D. or Oakland be enough to make it worth saddling yourself with at least $20-25m a year in construction debt?

    I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s a very dicey proposition. I think it’s safe to say that both Spanos and Davis are hoping like crazy that they don’t have to find out.

  9. @Michael

    The Task force here will come up with a location etc. and it’ll be fine and great, but where is the money coming from? There was someone on the radio Friday that said 2/3 majority may be sidestepped (didn’t hear how though). “Let’s raise taxes without people approving it” – now that is a slap in the face.

    The economics of publically funded stadiums simply isn’t there. Look at the Bengals stadium, look at Lucas Oil Field, and look at the Glendale stadium / Super Bowl fiasco. Like you said, let’s just run out, call eminent domain downtown and build this thing with 600+ million of tax payer dollars! Don’t worry about the economics long term… it’ll be fine!

    People in SD who are pro-stadium are all over getting a super bowl and the supposed huge cash flow is brings to the city. Perhaps they should look at this 153 page requirement list the NFL gave to Minneapolis and review the money, or lack thereof, “made” by Indy, Glendale etc.

    http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/262253921.html

    600+ million dollars is going to be pissed away.

  10. @Neil

    I think the former is the case. The Chargers know that public money will never be used if it goes to a vote.

    SD just doesn’t approve tax increases – we pay enough to live here as it is. SD is full of transplants, which makes the public money case even more difficult to swallow.

    Even the “diehard” Charger fans I know don’t want to use public money. That says something, and they are from SD too.

  11. Just some quick calculations from this link (from October 2014):

    http://time.com/3546731/wealthiest-cities/

    So households with income > $150,000
    SF ~ 192,000
    LA ~ 430,000

    Now, that might just be SF proper and not all of the Bay Area, but that’s also only LA proper (although I’m guessing West Covina isn’t as wealthy as, oh, Cupertino). But cost of living is also much cheaper in LA, so more disposable income for everyone. Sure, the built-in fan base mightn’t be there in LA (although there are legacy Raider fans, and SD ain’t that far away), but I don’t see any wealth/population reason why you would ballpark LA at $100M less than what SF or NYC got from PSL’s.

    Also, nowhere did I say that they can find all the money privately. My point was that, from a PSL-maximaztion standpoint, LA is definitely an advantageous location.

  12. SD: Did you somehow infer that I was pro-stadium? I’m stadium neutral. If you can finance it privately, then I have zero objections. If you can publicly finance it and do so getting your local population to approve it via vote, then I also have no problem (assuming your financing mechanism isn’t to tax people who don’t live there and didn’t get to vote).

    My previous post was simply an argument that being in LA will matter when it comes to maximizing PSL revenue. The comment at the bottom was me laughing at cities that fall for the “We’ll move to LA” threat and do so without really knowing how they will pay for the hastily cobbled together plan for not losing their NFL team.

  13. This is such an obvious ploy for these two teams to squeeze money from their current towns that I can’t stand it. When is Carson going to wake up and realize they’re being used?

    Carson — you’re the fulcrum point here, and neither of these teams cares that you’ll eventually be hurt pretty badly. Stop helping these teams extort more money.

    Sorry, but I find this entire scenario to be extremely f**king insulting. I can’t believe Carson is doing this. They need to slam the door while their dignity is still somewhat intact.

  14. Michael, they won’t need a vote. They’re structuring this so that it’ll be revenue-anticipation bonds, and as long as they can produce projections that the bonds will be repaid by money raised by the site, there is no election needed.

    This is another reason for me to resent what the Kings have done. They set a precedent. They found a loophole, and they’re exploiting it. I think voters in this state need to close that loophole; make it so even revenue-anticipation bond sales require a vote.

  15. MikeM: You think SD can find enough future revenues to fund a Chargers stadium Sacramento-style? Remember, Sacramento couldn’t even really do that (though they pretended they could by shuffling money around), and that was for a building that cost less than half the price.

  16. All they need to do is pretend it’ll work. That’s really the source of my ire over this.

    Anyway, maybe this is a twist:

    http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/report-oakland-faces-30-day-deadline-raiders-stadium-talks

  17. @Michael

    Nope, didn’t think you were pro-stadium at all.

    I’m with you… have a vote and see what happens. I wouldn’t care for it if we did use public funds but at least let people choose. If it’s privately funded, I’m all for it.

  18. Neil, think of all those people who will suddenly demand more meals, more hotel rooms, more parking, more SWAG stores, all because of a stadium! And it’ll be busy at least 40 other weekends a year, with tractor pulls and rock shows! It’ll make $7B over 30 years — no-brainer!

    (I didn’t just conjure up $7B over 30 years.)

    Done. Revenue-anticipation notes it is!

  19. @Neil
    It means nothing. It’s just yet another example of the ineptitude that permeates the Oakland situation. There are 5 parties involved in the situation: the City of Oakland, Alameda County, Floyd Kephart’s New City Development, the Raiders, and the A’s. None of those parties is on the same page as any of the others. The other day, Kephart said that if there’s no agreement within a couple of months, that everything would likely fall apart (again). The Raiders are really just along for the ride. They don’t have the ability to finance their own stadium anywhere and neither Oakland nor Carson is going to give them money to build a stadium.

  20. The lack of unity in Oakland is little like it is here in SD. There is a big push for a convention center expansion, and the folks who are pushing for this want the expansion to be “continuous” (I believe that’s the wording I’ve heard) – in other words the expansion isn’t across or down the street etc. It must be part of the existing facility. No one can explain why that’s such a big deal either… it’s not like the weather here is a problem.

    This push is mostly to keep Comic-Con here, which has outgrown the current space. The convention center expansion push is not aligned with the Chargers at all. In fact, I haven’t heard squat about the convention center expansion in some time. The mixed use stadium downtown is supposedly a push to make the convention center folks happy along with the Chargers – to be honest I’m not sure if it will work for the former. The convention center faces the same issues as the Chargers – public funds in a vote.

    Petco Park was build under the guise of it’s “San Diego’s Stadium…for mixed use”, not just the “Padres’ Stadium”. Even without the Padres making the World Series in ’98 I expect the stadium would have eventually been built.

    Would the A’s move if a stadium isn’t agreed upon, or would they get one themselves? (I am ignorant Oakland’s feelings toward the A’s and Raiders / A’s financial situation) It would seem to me that Oakland wouldn’t want to lose both teams… or I am wrong there too?

  21. @Neil
    You may have seen this, but I hope I have found the one level-headed article written by a sports writer on a stadium issue: http://www.mercurynews.com/marcus-thompson/ci_27580221/thompson-take-emotion-out-raiders-stadium-issue?source=infinite

    The best line:

    “Because if [the Raiders] really cared about this area and its beloved fans, the last thing they would want to do is again pillage the city and county resources.”

  22. I haven’t seen answers to these questions.

    If the Raiders are willing to share a stadium with the Chargers, and privately finance half of it, then why not strike a deal with the 49ers’ at Levi Stadium? I understand it’s all red color, but it could be dressed up like what the Jets did at the original Giants stadium. And even if there’s still much red showing, you save a lot of money playing in an already built state-of-the-art stadium.

    If the Chargers are willing to share a stadium with the Raiders in LA, and privately finance half of it, then why not strike a deal with the Rams with their proposed stadium in Inglewood? Is Kroenke rejecting any overtures to share his stadium? Doesn’t the NFL want 2 teams in LA?

    I’d rather see the Rams and Chargers in LA, than the Raiders down there. Would restore the Rams-49ers SoCal-NoCal rivalry, and keep the Chargers and Raiders in the same division and keep their storied AFL rivalry.

  23. @Share time

    It does seem odd that neither the Chargers or Raiders got in with Kroenke – perhaps he wants nothing to do with them? I don’t know personally, but it’s a quick ticket out of the stadium situations the Chargers and Raiders find themselves in (even if it’s a “backup plan” as the Chargers claim).

    The NFL definitely wants 2, but not 3 (again, supposedly). Someone is going to get the shaft, and it’s going to be either the Chargers or Raiders as I don’t see how the Rams don’t end up in LA.

    The Raiders would definitely be smart to play in Santa Clara, but do the 49ers want them? The Raiders are flat out screwed, unless Carson works out. I think I heard on the radio that the Inglewood vote at the city council is sometime this week, and it’ll pass no doubt.

  24. @SD
    The A’s ownership group has repeatedly stated that they are only interested in building in the Bay Area and aren’t interested in any other market or in selling the team.

    The best shot the A’s have at staying in Oakland is if the Raiders leave and the A’s gain total control over the Coliseum area and development rights. What they would really prefer is to be allowed to move to downtown San Jose. But the Giants currently have rights over Santa Clara County because of a murky set of circumstances that arose in the 1990s regarding Giants wanting to move to the South Bay during their stadium search and A’s owner Walter Haas granting them rights to the previously neutral territory (with the understanding that it would all be moot if they didn’t move). The Bay Area is the only split 2-team market in the country, where each team has a defined territory rather than sharing a single larger territory. That’s also a complicating factor because if the A’s were allowed to move to San Jose, then it would also be easier (still not actually easy) for the Raiders to address the situation in Oakland.

  25. @Neil

    I can’t believe you fell for these rumors of $500 million relocation fees. That’s been spread by ignorant sportswriters who can’t figure out the difference between expansion fees and relocation fees. If you did any research you’d know the last relocation fee was $29 million for the Ravens, the same $1 million per franchise that was charged for all relocations from 1982 to 1996, while a few years later the Texans paid a $700 million expansion fee. Don’t parrot this nonsense.

  26. The explanation for why either team can afford to split the costs of a $1.7 million, which is a ridiculously high estimate for a copy of Levis Stadium, and can’t afford to pay for their own stadium in San Diego and Oakland is simple. First, half of $1.7 billion is $850 million, Fabiani said a stadium in San Diego will cost $1.2 to $1.5 billion. $850 million < $1.2 to $1.5 billion. It's not that hard.

    Second, San Diegans wont buy PSLs while LA will, at least that's what the Chargers believe from their and the NFL's market research, LA's corporate base dwarfs what San Diego and Oakland can draw from. Third, naming rights are far more valuable in LA, even Carson or Inglewood, than they are in San Diego or Oakland. The Farmers naming rights were worth up to $1 billion over 30 years for 2 teams, Allianz were reportedly willing to pay $20M to $25 million per year for the Jet/Giants stadium before the JDL shot that down. Metlife pays $16 million per year for 25 years.

    The naming rights mid point for a 2 team stadium is $25 million per year, for 30 years the PV would be $375 million. Jets and Giants raised a total of $725 million from PSLs during the worst years of our great recession. 2 G-4 loans, which are available, is another $400 million. There's $1.5 billion and we haven't touch luxury suite revenue.

    In 2 months AEG loses all rights on their Farmers Field development. The Chargers/Raiders could pick that up for free and leap frog Kroenke's plan while having a better location to raise more from PSLs, luxury suites, and naming rights.

  27. No, David, the relocation fee numbers are coming from multiple sources who claim that $250-275m per team is what the NFL has been discussing in terms of relocation fees. See:

    http://www.footballphds.com/2011/12/19/nfl-in-la-relocation-fees-for-los-angeles-currently-at-275-million/

    Here’s economist Andrew Zimbalist saying any relocation fee would be large:

    “Whatever team moves there is going to have to pay a very handsome ransom to the NFL,” said Zimbalist. “The NFL basically treats any market that currently is not occupied as a market that they own.”

    http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/dec/01/nfl-could-charge-heafty-fee-la-relocation/

    And here’s Eric Grubman, who presumably knows the difference between expansion fees and relocation fees, saying he doesn’t know how much the relocation fee will be:

    http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20150212/los-angeles-has-a-legitimate-hope-at-an-nfl-team-league-vp-says

    Now, I could totally see the NFL lowering the fees in order to encourage the Raiders and Chargers to move there instead of the Rams, say, if that’s what the league wants. (Though it can do so just as easily by offering G-4 money to one stadium and not the other.) But good luck getting 24 votes to pass up the whole $500 million.

  28. On the funding, if you really think that the Chargers and Raiders, which have next to no current fan base in L.A., are going to sell as many PSLs as two existing teams in a market more than double L.A.’s size, yes, that would be a big help. I think that’s extremely optimistic, though.

    I mean, more power to Spanos and Davis if they want to roll the dice and try to make it work without public subsidies. But it would categorically be a dice roll.

  29. @Scott Myers – The $200 million G-4 loan…

    “such loan to be repaid through waived club seat premium VTS(Visiting Teams Share) and “Incremental Gate VTS” (defined below) during the first 15 seasons of operations in the new stadium and to otherwise include such terms, including with respect to maturity, interest, repayment and subordination, as the League-Level Lender may determine, provided that the controlling owner of the club will be required to guarantee and pay on a current basis any shortfalls in scheduled repayments due to club seat premium VTS and Incremental Gate VTS falling below the amounts necessary for such repayments”

    http://media.signonsandiego.com/news/documents/2011/12/14/NFL_on_its_new_stadium_loan_program.pdf

    The entire loan can be repaid through the VTS if that revenue is large enough to cover the amount due.

    @Michael

    San Diego isn’t doing anything, they moved up the timeline for the task force to complete a project that could be completed in a single weekend if not day. It was originally created as political cover for our Mayor who routinely says “lets get this done” and does nothing. Foulconer would die of asphyxiation if he told his lungs they need to breathe followed by “lets get this done”.

    @SD

    I read a lot about Kroenke and I believe he thought he could have LA to himself or try to bring in a second team as just a tenant instead of partner. It’s been 4 and a half years since he bought controlling interest in the Rams and he’s done nothing to comply with the NFL’s cross ownership rules. Stan screwed up, he could have locked up LA if he was willing to bring the Chargers on as 50/50 partners, sounds like he wanted be an LA slumlord.

  30. No Neil the relocation numbers are coming from people like you who are repeating baseless nonsense that started from ignorant sportswriters. It really is hilarious that you believe this relocation nonsense, the Chargers stated that the NFL has never discussed relocation fee amounts. That confirms what Grubman said and relocation fees have never been market related. footballphds is a joke and Andrew Zimbalist believes the baseless rumors because he is either lazy or these irrational amounts make for a good story. The only evidence anyone has are the relocation fees charged to the Raiders, Colts, Cardinal, Rams, Ravens, and Oilers. And the Raiders weren’t charged a relocation fee to return to Oakland. That would be an interesting precedent for the Chargers, Raiders, or Rams who all called LA home in the past, Post a link with an amount from the NFL offices or just stop spreading more baseless nonsense.

    As far as market size goes you are being completely disingenuous Neil, Southern CA has 25 million people to draw from. The entire region already travels to LA for concerts on a regular basis. Bands will do multiple nights in LA instead of playing in any of the surrounding counties. PSLs will go for at least what the Jets and Giants pulled in because our economy is in much better shape, the NY teams’ PSLs went on sale at the worst time possible in the last 80 years. Spanos claims about 30% of STHs are from the LA area, and it looks like 1/3 to half of San Diego county STH’s will make the commute to LA. The Raiders still have a massive fan base in LA. I’ve done contract work for companies in LA for the last 15 years and for the last couple years they are they back to paying what a comparable salaried employee would earn in 3 to 6 months for a week’s worth of work. Raising $700 million from PSLs shouldn’t be a problem and we still haven’t covered luxury suite revenue.

    This site’s reputation is on par with the Heritage foundation or the CATO institute. You might get through to a lot more people if you didn’t always let your agenda get in the way.

  31. So I only have one question, David (I’ll skip asking what you think my “agenda” is): If a privately funded L.A. stadium is such a slam dunk, why has it taken 20 years for anyone to propose one?

  32. ATTN Oakland and San Diego fans wanting revenge: Call up your local cable or satellite TV company. Tell them you are canceling your service because the ripoff fees the NFL charges and how they are dicking around with your teams. CANCEL TODAY! Do not buy anymore tickets, pennants, jerseys, hats, etc. Buy an OTA TV antenna and watch games for free if you must or listen to the radio.
    This is the ONLY thing the NFL understands. (I did it.)

  33. @Scott

    The Kroenke ownership deal in STL is interesting. Doesn’t sound like he could get 24 owners to approve a move considering his lack of complying with the rules. Is he best off working on the STL-proposed 980 million dollar open stadium near the arch first instead of Inglewood?

    He knows he can line his pockets in LA, but it sounds like he will have a hard time getting there.

  34. Money talks and Kroenke has more money than the Spanos and Davis families combined. Unless another total sweetheart deal comes through in St. Louis, and there are indications from the state legislature and the public that they are not down with a large public subsidy, the Rams are LA-bound.

  35. @Anon

    He needs 24 teams to approve it. I suppose he could sue (which he has threatened to do), but will that force it through I’m not sure.

    STL gave him a proposal, but it cannot be a lucrative long term as LA. I’m with you – I see them LA-bound, but I don’t know the details of trying to get around the 24 votes.

    Kroenke is apparently good friends with Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones, so at least he has powerful allies.

  36. Exactly(“he can sue”), he doesn’t really need the 24 votes. There really isn’t a damn thing the NFL can do about it. Al Davis moved to L.A without NFLs’ permission back in the 1980’s. He took them to court and WON! Robert Irsay moved his Colts from Baltimore to Indianapolis without league consent as well! What makes you think Kroenke can’t do the exact same thing? Don’t forget, Kroenke(richer than Davis & Irsay combined) is the 2nd wealthiest owner in the NFL so $$ won’t be a problem. Finally, in L.A he would own the stadium, in St Louis the stadium would belong to the city! What would you do?!

  37. I’m sorry, I can’t stop thinking about how everyone(or so it seemed) was saying how the 49ers stadium in santa clara would never get built because it wasn’t financially feasible……… Guess what? It got built, enough said.

  38. @Neil

    Because it only works with 2 teams sharing one stadium. When in the last 20 years have 2 teams been out of their lease at the same time? Then expand on that and ask yourself when in the last 20 years have 2 or more NFL teams been out of their lease at the same time and their current markets have zero interest in providing public funds for a new stadium?

    Do you get it yet? Oakland and San Diego aren’t providing public funding for a new stadium. STL’s bond refi and state grants are only worth about $400 million and that sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. STL expects Kroenke to finance at least $400 million plus the $200 million G-4 loan that will never be completely covered by VTS in STL. The STL revenue projections are $120 to $130 million from PSLs and $7M to $9M per year for naming rights.

    A 75 mile radius from the Carson site covers or spreads into LA, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernadino, Kern, and Ventura County. Over the air signals from the Fox and CBS affiliates that cover San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties spread into Carson’s 75 mile radius. Imperial county is probably the only SoCal county that wont be stuck under the NFL’s primary or secondary TV market rules. If you understood Southern California you would realize that LA’s surrounding counties already depend on LA for many entertainment options. We are a market of 25 million people.

    Do you care to explain how Kroenke’s $1.8 billion Inglewood stadium makes any financial sense if he wants the Rams as the only NFL team in LA?

  39. The Chargers and Raiders both could have gotten out of their leases in 2010, but the Raiders chose to extend theirs, and the Chargers didn’t exercise their early-termination option.

    And I don’t think Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium makes sense either — or rather, I think it’s just as high-risk as a Carson stadium. If any of these owners are looking at Santa Clara and thinking, “We can do that, too!” then, hey, it’s their money. But given past history, I think it’s far more likely that they’re looking at Santa Clara and thinking, “Hey, we can threaten to do that! And hopefully we won’t have to!”

  40. And I should be clear: Part of me hopes that one of these stadiums gets built, if only to provide one more example of how public subsidies aren’t just something that should be accepted as “industry standard.” (Though I’m not sure how well that precedent would play in, say, Buffalo in any case.) But if it were my money, knowing what we know from here, I’d be looking to put it into something safer, like Manhattan penthouses.

  41. @Neil
    Re: “Hey, we can threaten to do that! And hopefully we won’t have to!”

    The difference being that, in my opinion, Kroenke truly wants the Rams in LA.

  42. The Chargers lease buyout amount for 2010 was $54,670,000 I think that was a big deterrent. (pg. 19)

    http://www.sandiego.gov/real-estate-assets/pdf/stadium/qaulcommstadiumaudit2009.pdf

    IMHO Dean Spanos is a silver-spoon cheap skate who has never accomplished anything on his own, and I’m an actual native San Diegan. Dean is the poster boy for the “when push comes to shove” idiom and Kroenke is shoving Dean over a cliff.

    Other people have asked me why didn’t Stan do this before and I really believe that he wasn’t interested in paying the buyout fee and financing a stadium or half a stadium when he was making $millions in profits with his toy and he didn’t believe anyone else was capable of moving to LA.

    Kroenke’s land purchased caught everyone off guard and sent Dean scrambling. I know all about the 1995 to 97 stadium expansion scam, and the PetCo Park scam, and our stupid mayor/city counsel renegotiating the Chargers lease in 2004 just as the terms were improving for the city. That’s all well known and we now have a very large voting base that votes no on everything because they don’t trust city or county government. We voted down taxes to fund the fire dept. right after major fires.

    I’m not saying we are now going to make only smart decisions or that voting “no on everything” is the best policy but I don’t believe a simple majority public vote will pass and I’d bet my life on the fact that a 2/3rds majority vote will definitely not pass. Fabiani says over and over that a new stadium will require new taxes. That’s an automatic fail, that’s not a starting point for a negotiation. Friday’s Carson announcement didn’t win over any voters.

    I think LA will be decided in the Jan-Feb 2016 relocation window. I don’t see how Dean can possibly surrender LA to Kroenke in hopes that San Diego votes yes on a new stadium. The downtown “Convadium” plan is dead, Now we will either lose the Chargers or lose Comic-Con, or we will be true San Diegans and lose both. That’s how things are now.

  43. Correction – Stan should be Dean “Other people have asked me why didn’t Dean do this before”