Oh, goodie, U-T San Diego, the ersatz newspaper whose owner wants it to be a “cheerleader” for a new Chargers stadium, has a new column out today by sportswriter Nick Canepa on the Chargers’ push for a new stadium. Can’t wait to see which side this one takes!
The drawing board for a new stadium in Mission Valley never was taken down. So the Chargers are going back to it.
It was 11 years ago, when the housing market was a place to shop, that the football franchise proposed building a new stadium, surrounded by condos and retail space, for a portion of the 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site. City Hallians, with the vision of a one-eyed bat and the spine of a sponge, nixed the plan — for a variety of reasons, not one making sense.
But tell us what you really think, Nick!
Translated into actual journalism, what the column actually seems to be saying is that now that the San Diego Coastal Commission has approved a convention center expansion plan that doesn’t allow for the Chargers to build a stadium as part of the deal, the team may reconsider the site of its current stadium, which it had previously considered, then moved away from once the convention center site seemed an easier get. Though the team is still trying to keep all its options open: Chargers stadium-dream czar Mark Fabiani told Canepa, “We’ll be watching [the convention center site], but we can’t just sit around and wait while the next mayor is campaigning. So, with the economy and housing situations better, we’re talking another look at the Qualcomm site.”
All of which is pretty dull, which is why Canepa then brings out the big guns:
But the team can’t play in Qualcomm forever. The day will come when the stadium, allowed to deteriorate by the City, will become unplayable, and if the franchise has to move to Boise to play, so be it.
Mark the date: October 17, 2013 is officially the first time that the “our team will move to Idaho” threat has been unleashed, however tongue-in-cheekily. Though it’s probably not surprising that Canepa is the one to have done it, given that he’s previously interpreted his job as to make move threats so that Chargers ownership doesn’t have to. Somebody give that guy a raise! And some fresh pom-poms!
Well not idaho. But Ssn Antonio is a real possiblity if San Diego the city does not put up public funds foe a new stadium….if they can do it for thr padres then they can do it for Chargers. I don’t blame the Spanos family.
“I don’t blame the Spanos family.”
I don’t either. The rule in professional sports is, you demand a free stadium, you get one. If San Diego won’t play by the rules, some other city will.
Very true. The Boston Red Sox demanded a new stadium 15 years ago, and now they’re playing in a beautiful replica of Fenway Park right on Boston Harbor.
…which is why the number of NFL teams that have moved in the last 15 years is zero.
Not saying it’s completely an empty threat — thanks to the national TV deals, NFL teams can more easily jump cities without regard to market size than in any other sport, as we saw from the Rams and Raiders leaving L.A. But as for teams being able to easily find new suitors, it simply has not happened in this century.
(Ben snuck in.)
Boise is the new…Virginia Beach.
“I don’t blame the Spanos family.”
Well…just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you have to – or should. They’re just as free to take the high road and realize that the city shouldn’t be subsidizing a business as profitable as an NFL team.
Hey, a guy can dream.
Well at least the Chargers are back to looking at the site they always should have been looking at. The Qualcomm site was designed for such a stadium and has done well hosting one for almost a half century. It’s relatively close to its second tenant’s main campus at SDSU. It had a massive parking lot to support such a venue unlike downtown or apparently the new 49ers Stadium. It has direct access to 3 freeways with a 4th close by. And best of all it has its own trolley stop the city built for them. Infrastructure wise Qualcomm has always been the only site that made sense.
But ultimately to make it work in this town the team needs to win and get people in a wallet opening mood like the Padres did. And the Spanos family will need to kick in a large portion of the funding like the Chargers did. Otherwise this is an exercise in wasting everyone’s time.
That last Chargers should have read “like the Padres did.”
I agree with Dan. A winning San Diego team could ooen more wallets for a new stadium. Maybe the spanos family can put up 70% and city of San Diego puts in the rest 30%….public funds for stadiums (like it or not Keith) will always be there.
Before we find some pom poms for Canepa, can someone please arrange for him to take remedial English lessons? Specifically: composition and grammar.
But I guess actually being able to write is not a prerequisite for staff writers at the U-T anymore.
I agree Dan. It’s significantly easier and cheaper to build the kinds of “stadium village” amenities the club wants around the present site than it is to try and shoehorn a football stadium into an urban area. So the present site makes the most sense.
With funding available from the G4 program, funding from the Spanos family and a reasonable contribution from the city, I think this can get done… so long as the Spanos’ don’t decide they’d really rather not pay anything for their new facility.
To Berry, I visited San Antonio this summer. It’s a joke of a city. I can’t believe they can even support the Spurs. They can’t also support a football team. Austin looks like a more viable location for another team in Texas.
To Ben Miller, a replica of Fenway was proposed, but the plan never went through. The Red Sox are in the same stadium, albeit renovated a bit.
John, well the Spanos clan was proposing to spend $400 mil of their own money/financed money on the park downtown. In addition to G4 funding. If that could be carried over to the Qualcomm site in addition to a naming rights deal and even a modest PSL haul and potentially some $$$ from SDSU since it is also their stadium, and its a very doable plan. Assuming San Diegans have the stomach for a 25-35% contribution.
Keith, NFL team profits are part of the problem. NFL teams are just not that profitable, yet they want to conduct business in these billion dollar palaces. The average NFL team only makes around $20-40 million per year in profits. True, Dallas and other teams make much more, but most teams don’t. The Chargers made around $30 million last year. If the Chargers paid for their own new stadium (like most private businesses would do) they would never be able to pay down a $1 billion stadium since the financing alone would be greater than their current profit level, much less paying down the principal. In the real world, they would probably only be able to afford to build a $250-300 million stadium (depending on suite sales and potential PSL’s). However since Dallas has a cool new billion dollar + stadium, they feel that they deserve a cool new expensive stadium, even though they cannot afford it themselves. Fortunately for NFL teams, there are always people on city councils stupid enough (or paid off) to give NFL teams what they want, not what they really need. Let’s just hope Walmart does not figure this out or we will be building them stores also.
Actually, Welkin: http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/
Hey welkin…as I said before…with public funds fair or unfair…that is the business…California thinks they are the exception. ….it all depends on the corporate support tho…but no free stadiums for any city. Evem as a taxpayer I undestand and except it.
What we should talk about is that when taxpayers to fund stadiums, arena and ballparks…the question is how can the teams “give back” to the communities around…rich or poor….black, white or latino….some ideas on housing, school programs ( I worked with plenty of Oakland Raider and SF 49er players that have gave back to the public school system.. that should be the real discussion…
I liked how latley the Raiders have been helping Oakland public schools out with some of the proceds they got from season tickets…that small gesture= good will among Oakland residents that support a decade loding Raider team…in fact the Raiders have been selling out every home game….didn’t happen in the mid 2000’s. ….so anyway not to get off subject just wanted to be clear.
So if San Diego fan help public fund a renovated Qualfoom with extra stuff around it. I’m sure San Diego Chargers will give back to the community….
The Raiders donated $50,000 to the Oakland public schools last year. Oakland spends $14 million a year on paying off the renovations the Raiders demanded.
I’ll offer San Diego a bargain: If they give me just $10 million a year, I promise to donate $100,000 a year to their schools! I’ll even throw in free pencils!
” The average NFL team only makes around $20-40 million per year in profits. True, Dallas and other teams make much more, but most teams don’t. The Chargers made around $30 million last year. If the Chargers paid for their own new stadium (like most private businesses would do) they would never be able to pay down a $1 billion stadium since the financing alone would be greater than their current profit level, much less paying down the principal.”
Do I have to be the one to note that the Chargers would receive an incredible increase in value with new digs? Just getting their stadium (finally) named gave the Cowboys a $100 million value increase.
To quote twincities(dot)com,
“The stadium-financing deal reached last spring has helped increase the team’s value 22 percent the past year, the biggest jump of any NFL team, Forbes reported Wednesday, Sept. 5.
The Vikings rank 22nd in value among the league’s 32 teams, up from 28th last year when it was valued at $796 million in 2011.”
Notably, the Vikings are now valued at $1.007 billion by Forbes. That’s an increase in over $200 million in value just from the announcement that a stadium was forthcoming. According to Forbes, the Vikings, “could [also] generate an additional $40 million a year from the new stadium.”
50000 is better than nothing neil….and that same 55000 toward Oakland schools =frequent sell outs for a losing Raider team…ill take my 300 mil for a new Raider stadium amd donate 100, 000 to Oakland schools. Again fair or unfair pbs special or not the NFL is here to stay…its jujust more of the burned anti-sports crowd with the same lame excuses. Try going after hockey
Dan – The Spanii’s contribution includes the $200 mil from the NFL.
The UT is a joke. San Diegans are not going to give money to the Spanos welfare queens. They’ve got a sweet deal at the Q through 2020 and will milk it.
San Diego would be better off if the Chargers left.
“..its jujust more of the burned anti-sports crowd with the same lame excuses.”
If you want to be taken seriously, stop spouting that nonsense.
“like it or not”, “fair or unfair”, stadiums would exist without subsidies. Teams gotta have a place to play. And with all the money they make from the TV contracts they’d do just fine in the stadiums that they can afford to build themselves.
And they wouldn’t be limited to paying for stadiums with their current profits. If building their own facilities was just a cost of doing business (like most other businesses), the salary structure would adjust to pay for some of it.
Berry: Yes, it’s true… the Raiders just keep tarping off seats until every game is a sellout.
Since no-one has brought it up… I just thought I’d mention that Canepa’s “Idaho” claim brings my not-yet-one-year-old prediction that somebody will threaten to move to Minot ever closer to reality.
Take that, psychics…
Newspaper mouthpieces are a dime a dozen. Spanos needs to get busy buying politicians. That’s how you get things done. The newspaper stuff doesn’t get the job done, it just keeps the public misdirected from where the real action is, and by “action” I mean “public stadium cash”. It’s better than sex for us NFL owners, baby!
Wilf, Spanos didn’t even buy off the “newspaper”. Doug Manchester bought the remains of San Diego’s last newspaper a while back and has been cheer leading for a new stadium all on his own. He even pushed his own stadium plan for a time at the 10th Ave Marine terminal until the longshoremen and city told him unequivocally no.
what’s even more amusing is the UT published an article about a month ago with the headline
New Library: Is this monument necessary?
@Keith
Canepa is allegedly an alcoholic in recovery who was on leave from the UT for a long time. At this point it’s pretty clear he will write anything management wants him to write to save his job. He’s worse than incompetent.
@piggy
Spanos bought Susan Golding in the 90’s and got the stadium expansion and ticket guarantee. She had state senate hopes but the fiasco ended her career.
There’s a lot of hate for the Spanos family in San Diego, a new owner might be able to fool the public but the Spanoses will never get voter approval as long as this goes to a vote. That’s why they wanted to added it on to the convention center.
Sasha, they actually had a point on the new library. It’s a beautiful building, but it’s a waste of taxpayer money as well. The library is more likely to be used by east village hobos looking for a place to keep warm and bathe than it is by anyone looking for a book. The old library was more than sufficient for the city’s meager library needs.