Pro-Chargers newspaper threatens team will move to Idaho if stadium not built

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!

Share this post:

Sacramento arena gets new opponents, outdoor “seats”

Now that the disputed Sacramento Kings arena referendum petitions that were gathered by signature gatherers who were paid with money wannabe Seattle arena builder Chris Hansen are being submitted anyway, you might think that Sacramento is finally over this whole referendum-signature-controversy mess. But no, because apparently whoever is scripting this show has decided to throw in one more incomprehensible plot twist:

With support from nonunion contractors who have been locked out of the project, a new Sacramento citizens’ group was formed today to fight the proposed $258 million taxpayer subsidy for the new Kings arena downtown.

The new group, Voters for a Fair Arena Deal, will gather signatures for a ballot initiative launched months ago by another group opposed to the arena subsidy. But Voters for a Fair Arena Deal took pains to separate itself from the original effort and said it will “limit communications” between itself and the first group, Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork.

That’s right, the Kings arena has pulled off the rare feat of being opposed by a group of construction companies. But they’re construction companies that aren’t going to get a cut of the swag, so they’re all mad and stuff.

The new group was actually announced by Craig Powell, head of the watchdog group Eye on Sacramento, which you’ll recall from its excellent report on why the arena deal was a hot mess. Joining with a nonunion labor group seems a bit of a case of odd bedfellows — Powell said yesterday that “we are not opposed to a public subsidy for an arena, [but] what we are in favor of is an arena subsidy we can afford,” then declined to give specifics, other than that the group would push for eliminating the “project labor agreement” that gives preference to union contractors, because duh.

Meanwhile, Kings president Chris Granger announced that the proposed arena would have its seating capacity scaled down from a planned 18,500 to 17,500 or even less, possibly making it even smaller than the Kings’ current arena, which holds 17,317 and has been derided by the team as too small. But no worries, as according to the Sacramento Bee, the Kings have dispensed with the old notion that fans watching the game actually have to be at the game:

the $448 million Downtown Plaza facility may have far fewer seats than originally proposed, possibly fewer than at old Sleep Train Arena, but could pack more patrons in, nonetheless, by offering special standing-room-only ticket sections and a dramatic outdoor plaza seating area…

The Kings are talking about offering a number of standing-room-only tickets for fans to watch the game in open areas behind the arena’s lower seating bowl or on what officials say would be a dramatic “bridgeway” over one end of the arena, offering bar seating, couches, and a railing overlooking the event floor.

At one end of the arena, the Kings say they envision a glass wall that slides open onto a plaza at Sixth and K streets, making the arena an indoor-outdoor facility. Ticket buyers for some events, such as concerts, would be able to sit in the plaza with a view of the stage through the open glass wall, as well as via video screens in the plaza. The outdoor area could boost arena capacity by thousands for some events, Kings officials said.

Hey, here’s an idea: How about selling tickets to watch events on padded seats, in private suites among the company of your selected guests, via state-of-the-art high-definition video technology? We could call it tele-vision.

Share this post:

Somebody mentioned “Virginia Beach” and “arena” in the same sentence again

Let’s see, what’s the last thing you would expect to see in the news this morning? Zombie invasion? Harry Reid and John Boehner starring in a new buddy-cop movie? Word that Virginia Beach is reviving its crazy arena plans that it declared dead almost a year ago? (Okay, that’s almost the same as “zombie invasion.”)

Yep, you guessed it: According to city councilmember Bill DeSteph, who is running for the state house of delegates, two groups are interested in maybe proposing building something! And one of them includes a Chinese investor! And it wouldn’t cost the city anything, except tax credits, which of course cost the city! And “just about everybody in this room would support it”!

Since that’s clear as mud, let’s check in on Mayor Will Sessoms, who was the force behind last fall’s attempt to lure the Sacramento Kings by building them a new arena that would be paid for by cough cough, sorry something must’ve gone down the wrong pipe, what were we talking about again? What say you, Mayor Sessoms?

Mayor Will Sessoms said a group of Chinese businessmen has expressed interest in investing in a Virginia Beach project but has not taken any formal action.

Sessoms said possible projects they might be interested in include an arena, an entertainment project at the old Dome site and light rail.

He said he met some of those potential investors briefly at a recent luncheon but could not recall their names or companies they represent.

Alrighty, then. Wake me when the zombies are here.

Share this post:

MSG’s new “drop beers on other fans” seats, and other stadium news

After a long weekend thanks to the celebrations for the father of the transatlantic slave trade, I’m facing a busy work day and a pile of small stadium news items that I don’t want you guys to miss. So: bullet points it is!

  • The “sky bridges” in the renovated Madison Square Garden turn out just to be a new deck of seats suspended from the ceiling. Also, pretty obtrusive to fans sitting in the back rows of what used to be the blue seats. And there’s still the low railings that will allow fans to drop beers on the heads of those in the pricey seats below them. A win-win-win!
  • Some Minnesota Vikings fans say that personal seat licenses at the new stadium will make them give up their season tickets; others say they’ll just put off buying a new boat.
  • San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee compared a new San Francisco Warriors arena to the Statue of Liberty, and the San Francisco Chronicle’s Scott Ostler has brought out the sarcasm stick.
  • Qatar’s plan for hosting the 2022 World Cup will cost an estimated $200 billion, including building a stadium for the final in a city that doesn’t exist yet. Also, an estimated 4,000 migrant workers will likely die building all this stuff. Maybe that Columbus guy isn’t sounding so bad by comparison.
Share this post:

With antitrust suit dismissed, what next for San Jose’s quest for the A’s?

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte made his ruling in San Jose’s antitrust suit against Major League Baseball over moving the Oakland A’s late on Friday, and it wasn’t a complete win for either side: Whyte dismissed the city’s antitrust charges, on the grounds that baseball’s longstanding Supreme Court-issued antitrust exemption trumps any challenges, but allowed another portion of the suit, accusing MLB of interfering with San Jose’s sale of a option on stadium land to A’s owner Lew Wolff.

San Jose attorney Phil Gregory called this a “big victory,” but it’s hard to ignore the fact that the antitrust piece is the hammer that MLB was deathly afraid of. As NBC Sports’ Craig Calcaterra (who’d previously pooh-poohed the San Jose suit as a load of p.r.) points out, the threat posed by the tortious interference claim is pretty limited:

The A’s paid San Jose $50,000 for the option. It expires soon. If they want to keep the option open for another year it’s another $25,000. If the A’s owners were to buy the land, they can do it for between $6 million and $7 million. Nothing in the option agreement, however, promises that the A’s will actually move. It doesn’t even promise that they’ll buy the land. Just that they have the option to do so.

Of course, since the antitrust exemption is in place, the A’s can’t just decide to move to San Jose. Therefore, unless they are the biggest idiots on the planet, they will not agree to commit to the $7 million land deal. Put differently, no A’s witness will get on a stand and say “yes, we totally want to give San Jose $7 million right now but MLB won’t let us!”  As such, the value of the contract that San Jose now has to prove MLB interfered with is $75,000. That’s it.

MLB can still be forced to go through the discovery phase, which could include embarrassing subpoenas about Bud Selig’s “blue ribbon commission” and its non-decision-making process, though as FanGraphs’ Wendy Thurm points out, the judge could still allow limits on that as well. But that’s a threat way less scary to MLB than the one of potentially having its antitrust exemption mucked with, and while San Jose could still appeal the rejection of the antitrust claim, that might have to wait until the tortious interference piece is resolved — and even then is a longshot to be approved.

The best-case scenario for San Jose’s A’s-coveting officials here, really, is that MLB decides that the gnat of a suit remaining is annoying enough that Bud Selig calls over to the San Francisco Giants executive offices and says, “Hey, can you at least put a price on what you want for the territorial rights to San Jose, so we can tell this judge we’re not being obstinate?” Though then if the Giants do so, there’s still a fair chance that A’s owner Lew Wolff decides he can’t or won’t pay it, at which point San Jose is suddenly looking at having to prove that MLB is harming them by interfering with a piddly-ass land sale option in order to prevent a franchise relocation that the team’s owner himself is choosing not to pursue. “You’re using your Supreme Court-affirmed rights to control franchise movement to make it too expensive for a team to move to our city” may be a decent argument in the court of public opinion, but unfortunately for San Jose A’s boosters, that court isn’t the one that has jurisdiction here.

Share this post:

Vikings trim some stadium amenities, because they only have a billion dollars to play with

What do you get when you’re a team that has $1.1 billion in public stadium subsidies? Not anything you want, apparently, because $1.1 billion doesn’t go as far as it used to:

Officials for the team and public authority overseeing construction have been forced to trim their project wish list to keep the downtown Minneapolis stadium within budget.

Among the potential casualties: a 400-stall parking garage a block north of the stadium, a skyway linked to a ramp a block south, two large escalators and as much as 40 feet from the height of five massive, pivoting glass doors at the venue’s main entrance.

“We only have $975 million in the budget, and there’s only so many things you can get under that number,” said Vikings Vice President Lester Bagley.

This is actually pretty common in stadium deals — for some reason, there’s not a stadium developer in the world that can manage to come up with a cost projection that doesn’t end up with overruns. (If you’re wondering whether they do this intentionally in order to lowball costs and make it easier to get stadium plans approved, you are a horrible suspicious person with no faith in human goodness.) Still, it’s pretty impressive that we’re now talking about “value engineering” for projects with a near-billion-dollar price tag.

Anyway, this news is apparently stirring controversy in the state legislature that approved the plan, because I see there’s a headline about a legislator raising questions about the Vikings’ lease:

State Rep. Pat Garofalo is questioning a provision in the lease for the new Minnesota Vikings stadium that prohibits gun shops from being vendors in the new facility.

Oh. Never mind.

Share this post:

Why did MLB’s pro-Oakland video disappear even faster than the A’s from the postseason?

The Oakland A’s got Verlandered out of the playoffs last night, but that wasn’t even the most ignominious moment of their week. How about having their promotional video pulled from airing, allegedly because it might make people think that Oakland has fans and that the Coliseum is a “home” and not just a dump?

Why don’t MLB or the A’s want you to see this pro-Oakland, pro-Coliseum video?

The most obvious answer is that both MLB and the A’s want out of Oakland as soon as possible…

Six days after being pulled offline, the video surfaced again on YouTube, with the uploader claiming that baseball’s and the Athletics’ desire for a new stadium meant a hype reel promoting the magic of the old ballpark wouldn’t be on-message.

Okay, sourcing a news story to YouTube commenters is a bit like … actually, I can’t think of anything as bad as that. There’s been some speculation that the video was only ever meant to be shown inside the stadium, and was posted to MLB’s site unintentionally, though that doesn’t explain why both MLB and MLB Advanced Media declined to explain this when asked by Deadspin. Nor does it explain why it apparently never aired during pregame ceremonies, either.

If nothing else, it’s an indication of how frought everything becomes in the middle of a stadium battle: Poor A’s fans don’t even get to celebrate their city and team spirit during what turned out to be a brief playoff run, because supporting your team when you’re Oakland is grounds for controversy. Which is too bad, as there’s plenty worth celebrating.

Share this post:

You will never see the MNF graphic of two helmets colliding the same way again

Slow news day, so I’d suggest you take the opportunity to watch last night’s long-awaited Frontline documentary “League of Denial,” now streaming in its entirety on the PBS website. It is excellent, harrowing, and likely to make you think twice about getting your entertainment from watching a sport that involves human beings smashing their heads against each other as hard as they can. Not to mention whether cities should be approving NFL stadiums based on expectations of what league revenues will look like 20-30 years from now.

Share this post:

Orlando soccer stadium clears first hurdle, heads for county commission showdown

The proposed Orlando City Soccer Club stadium cleared its first hurdle yesterday, as the Orlando city council voted unanimously for an $84 million stadium plan that would use $20 million in city funds, $20 million in county funds, $30 million from the team and $14 million from … they don’t seem to be saying where, though it could be the “annual payments for the next 25 years” that the team would be committing to.

That’s not actually all that big news, since unanimous approval was expected from the city. It’s the county commission where there’s opposition, including that guy who thinks that if the public hands over money to a private team, it should get a share of the profits, too. That vote won’t come until October 22, by which point hopefully the plan’s boosters — or at least the papers covering it — will be able to make their numbers add up.

Share this post:

NFL considers using league money for Washington stadium upgrades, signaling G-4 fund rule change

This is a really short news item in the Washington Post, and I’m not sure what to make of it:

NFL owners are expected to vote Tuesday on providing league funding to the Washington Redskins for renovations to FedEx Field, two people familiar with the situation said.

The Redskins declined to provide details, but one of the people with knowledge of the matter said the $27 million renovation includes seating modifications, wi-fi, ribbon boards (a form of stadium signage) and a Hall of Fame expansion.

This is the second instance (the previous being the Philadelphia Eagles) of the NFL considering committing G-4 funds to a stadium upgrade project, despite there being no public money involved. Which is only strange because the G-4 rules clearly state that the money needs to go to public-private partnerships, and Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross reiterated this to Miami officials as recently as this spring when he was trying (and failing) to get public subsidies for stadium renovations.

If the NFL has changed its rules for G-4 funding, that’d be great, as clearly the league has plenty of cash on hand to help teams with their stadium costs. If so, though, you’d think they’d at least announce it — though actually, given that there are still plenty of NFL teams trying to hit up their local governments for money by saying they have nowhere else to turn, maybe they wouldn’t.

Share this post: