Bolts From The Blue: All Posts by Jeffrey SiniardAn Unofficial Los Angeles Chargers Blog Created By The Fans, For The Fanshttps://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/47753/btfb-fv.png2017-01-12T14:30:01-08:00https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/authors/jeff-siniard/rss2017-01-12T14:30:01-08:002017-01-12T14:30:01-08:00Tears In Rain
<figure>
<img alt="NFL: Kansas City Chiefs at San Diego Chargers" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/p4oClDtZDfl2vgJuN7y07gEauUQ=/0x868:2972x2849/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52725863/usa_today_9789318.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jake Roth-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And now the end. </p> <p id="tC6X7X">It hurts really bad. I’m not going to front.</p>
<p id="liUes1">Even as I reached acceptance a few weeks ago, I still held out a glimmer of hope that somehow the NFL wouldn’t do what it has done in every other instance whenever an owner makes the decision that there is a better deal elsewhere.</p>
<p id="TCU0nZ">And last night, San Diego was treated to yet another close-up look at how the sausage gets made as it pertains to the NFL and it’s ever escalating stadium construction game.</p>
<p id="rfk4pE">The NFL is a business (a cartel, to be specific). The Chargers are a franchise in that cartel. They have the right to conduct their business as they see fit. And fans are often the collateral damage in their business dealings.</p>
<p id="HeIoV1">So, what I’m left with now are memories...</p>
<p id="DJDFGM">I’ve written some of this before, but some of my earliest memories were of spending time with my grandparents at Chargers’ games. This is when I was maybe 3-4 years old. My grandfather was a County Supervisor at the time, and so my grandparents would sit in the San Diego County Box in the Press Level. There were always catered snacks in the box. I wasn’t old enough to know anything about football, but I loved the cheddar cheese squares almost as much as the Chargers Cannon which fired & the Chargers helmet car which drove around the field after every score - which was often in those days. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say I probably knew who Dan Fouts was before I knew who Ronald Reagan was, or what a President was.</p>
<p id="n8JTOE">My folks went back to the Balboa Stadium days. My grandparents moved to the San Diego area in 1964 and promptly spent money for season tickets. I remember the stories about overflowing bathrooms spilling down onto the concrete bleachers. Stories of the greatness of Lance Alworth. My grandfather told me I was delusional as a teenager when I suggested that Dan Marino might have had a better arm and release than Joe Namath, who he watched in person.</p>
<p id="3KK0E8">Speaking of being a teenager... the first time I ever got drunk was at a Chargers/Raiders game. It was 1992, the 1st year under Bobby Ross as head coach. After a 0-4 start, the team had won 6 of 7 to get themselves back into playoff contention. The Charger fan who sat next to me in Plaza 25 would find himself tossed by security before the end of the 1st quarter, but not before he left me with a Jack and Coke (how he got the Jack in the Coke I’ll never know). By the 3rd quarter, I was buzzed and leading “Raiders Suck!” chants while the Chargers cruised to a 27-3 victory on Sunday Night football.</p>
<p id="wzo9fN">A couple of years later, I was in a rain-soaked parking lot helping my uncle prepare a tailgate of filet mignon, baked potato, and garlic bread in advance of a Divisional Round playoff game against Marino and the Miami Dolphins. While our steak was searing, I saw a nearby tailgater dropping a live lobster into a pot of hot water for his pregame feast. 7 hours later, we all screamed louder than a Harrier Jet when Miami PK Pete Stoyanovich shanked a 47 yard FG with 0:01 on the clock to secure an epic 22-21 come-from-behind win. </p>
<p id="uyOPIC">The Chargers would go on to win their only AFC Championship a week later against Pittsburgh. I watched at home with lots of family surrounding us, from my grandfather’s rocking chair. He had passed away in Spring of 1994, due to complications from diabetes, not living long enough to see the team reach its only Super Bowl.</p>
<p id="aH3cX3">Among the Chargers’ greats, only the late Junior Seau was fortunate enough to see this team get to a Super Bowl while he played for them. Alworth reached a Super Bowl with the Dallas Cowboys near the end of his career. Fred Dean made it to a Super Bowl in San Francisco and won. There was no such moment for Fouts, Charlie Joiner, Kellen Winslow or LaDainian Tomlinson. There may not be a moment for Philip Rivers or Antonio Gates...</p>
<p id="6rPhZ7">I remember the first game when Tomlinson ran for 200 yards. From Field 5, surrounded by a fair amount of (not yet insufferable) Patriots fans who were still basking in the glow of their first Super Bowl win, I watched as Tomlinson shredded Bill Belichick’s defense. First, on a 4th and 1 run where he made a jump cut past Tedy Bruschi that sucked the breath out of Qualcomm Stadium and filled it with raucous cheers, then later on a long run which crossed the field and picked up a Tim Dwight block on his way to what proved the winning score. It was a quintessential “Star is Born” moment... </p>
<p id="lbvnhY">Which made it all the better that I was at Qualcomm several years later, at the apex of Tomlinson’s career when he broke the single season TD record against the Denver Broncos. Better yet, I was there with my then-girlfriend and now wife of 10 years. Tomlinson had scored to put the game out of reach with his 2nd TD, which tied the record. Seconds later, the Chargers had recovered the ball from a fumbled kick return, and the stage was set. The crowd erupted in “LT, LT, LT” chants, which gained in intensity as fans came scrambling back into the stands to not miss history...</p>
<p id="6VmqkT">The last moment of history was shared with that same uncle at the end of the 2016 season against the Chiefs. In my life as a Chargers fan, I’ve never found it easier to drive into the massive parking lot at Qualcomm Stadium. This last day, the place where my Uncle had shown me how to grill, I returned the favor with buffalo chicken fajitas. Never before had it been so easy to walk to the ticket gate. Never before had to been so quick to get through security. And never before had it been so lifeless inside the building...</p>
<p id="JBk06x">And then there was one play. Jahleel Addae’s 90-yard Interception return woke Qualcomm and its beaten fans from their collective and deceptive slumber. The twisty, turning, altogether improbable return evoked some of the great players in San Diego’s 56-year history in one play. For one spectacular moment, all of the terrible which surrounded the franchise dissipated and we were able to love the Chargers. For the briefest of moments, it was like it used to be. And just like that...</p>
<p id="uxezra">Gone. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWXd1wVijqw">Tears in rain</a>.</p>
<p id="4ljJTo">As I said above, the NFL is a business. Dean Spanos, specifically, is a businessman. He has the right to conduct his business as he sees fit, and in the manner he deems best for himself and his family.</p>
<p id="ijZFsr">Having said that, I must also say that having been this close to the NFL’s sausage making process, and the disgusting, inhuman way it chews up its fans and spits them out with cavalier disregard, I will also say that being on this end of the business has placed me into the position of being a consumer.</p>
<p id="eh074d">As a consumer, there simply isn’t any denying the Chargers are a below average product with glaring defects and a management which demonstrates no real interest in correcting them. Today, the Chargers made the final business decision to tell me and my family that our collective decades of loyalty don’t matter.</p>
<p id="zUWrUx">Accordingly, I choose not to consume this product anymore.</p>
<p id="P8URT4"><small><strong>Author’s Note:</strong></small><small> This marks the end of my time as a member of the Bolts From The Blue staff. Since joining this community in 2009, I have overwhelmingly enjoyed the arguments, conversations, and debates with members of this community. Made some friendships over the years which I hope will endure. Learned a lot from this community about football and the team I grew up loving. For anyone I ever offended, I apologize. I wish you all nothing but the best, and say heartfelt thanks to everyone here who tolerated my drivel. Have fun and be safe.</small></p>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2017/1/12/14253532/tears-in-rainJeffrey Siniard2017-01-02T11:32:42-08:002017-01-02T11:32:42-08:00Will the NFL help the Chargers Stay in SD?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/GyTB8lGKpLDeZbIZ9gf4Vf6qKCk=/263x0:2387x1416/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52558655/Screen_Shot_2016_11_15_at_8.30.24_PM.0.png" />
<figcaption>A rendering of San Diego’s proposed Mission Valley stadium from 2015 | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OSC-rXed-I">Populous / City of San Diego</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to the San Diego Union Tribune’s Kevin Acee, San Diego has submitted a final offer. Is it enough?</p> <p id="q16lL4">In case there’s any doubt, the firing of Mike McCoy has placed all the emphasis regarding the Chargers on whether the team will be relocating to Los Angeles.</p>
<p id="P5iCPP">Further, we also know there is a sizable gap between what the Chargers and NFL want in a public subsidy, and what the City and County of San Diego (as well as San Diego State University) are prepared to offer.</p>
<p id="cYffpj">Yet, somehow, there’s some hope. Maybe just a fool’s hope, but hope nonetheless.</p>
<h4 id="Su5WfK">The Story As Of Right Now</h4>
<p id="t2tsFj">Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union Tribune <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-charupdate-0103-story.html">reported that San Diego’s (City+County+SDSU) final offer consists of approximately $375 million</a>. The exact mix of which entities contribute and how much is currently not public.</p>
<p id="XHwLWW">Briefly, if you recall <a href="https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/mayor/pdf/20150810_CityofSDChargersMissionValleyPresentation.pdf">San Diego’s offer back in fall of 2015 </a>was for a new stadium in Mission Valley. That offer called for a $1.1 billion new stadium, with $350 million in public money. The public contribution broke down as $200M from the City and $150 million from the County. Aside from the questions of the City’s expedited Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the team had concerns that the County’s offer “wasn’t real.”</p>
<p id="OWN2C8">As <a href="http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/12-29-trending-now-with-kevin-acee-7pm-hour/">Acee also reported in the open of his radio show last Thursday evening</a>, the County’s contribution was diminished, with the hope that SDSU could make up some portion of their contribution.</p>
<p id="MIJQAf">Further, if you recall last January, when the Chargers announced they would stay in San Diego for the 2016 season, Scott Reid of the Orange County Register reported the team would be <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/1/29/10866250/chargers-san-diego-los-angeles-stadium-public-money">seeking a public subsidy of about $500 million</a>.</p>
<p id="ZvxsSA">Thus, it’s pretty clearly cut-and-dried that the $375 million offered is about $125 million short of what the team and NFL were looking for. However, and this is critical for San Diego... Acee’s article indicates that both the team and the NFL regard the offer as legitimate.</p>
<p id="myBQ4g">Thus, the question shifts to the NFL. Is it worth $125 million to keep the Chargers in San Diego?</p>
<h4 id="8nWxTv">The Counter Narrative Regarding Los Angeles</h4>
<p id="w0fzgs">First, we had Vincent Bonsignore of the Los Angeles Daily News:</p>
<div id="zFBi7e">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" align="center">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Got a sneaky feeling it's going to work out in SD <a href="https://t.co/lXc0O7UOCP">https://t.co/lXc0O7UOCP</a></p>— Vincent Bonsignore (@DailyNewsVinny) <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyNewsVinny/status/814599695339163648">December 29, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<p id="PY3c2d">Then, we had NFL Networks’ Marc Sessler:</p>
<div id="GLE5f3">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" align="center">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">The idea of two LA-based NFL teams is a disaster-in-waiting. A total miscalculation of how this town operates/thinks/feels/buys in.</p>— Marc Sessler (@MarcSesslerNFL) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarcSesslerNFL/status/814641910610423808">December 30, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<p id="YYl914">Lastly, we have San Diego’s own Annie Heilbrunn:</p>
<div id="KcgVRg">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" align="center">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Am interesting wrinkle in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Chargers?src=hash">#Chargers</a> stadium saga may be if <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NFL?src=hash">#NFL</a> "power owners" don't want team moving. Could give more money, loans.</p>— Annie Heilbrunn (@annieheilbrunn) <a href="https://twitter.com/annieheilbrunn/status/814943388491333632">December 30, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<p id="oGoC0g">Any one of these coming out by itself would’ve been interesting by themselves. All three of them coming out around the same time is what happens when something has changed, and a counter narrative is developed.</p>
<p id="6i0GJ3">I view all of this as the NFL ownerships trying to decide how to balance out all of these competing interests, as it regards the Chargers, and not over-saturating Los Angeles with 2 struggling franchises.</p>
<p id="ws6pEy">Most importantly, having received San Diego’s best offer, Chargers’ owner Dean Spanos has apparently appealed to the NFL for help staying in San Diego.</p>
<p id="mMmnYA">Further, as it turns out, there’s a simple and elegant solution to this issue.</p>
<p id="SWT9XS">Take the extra $100 million offered to the Raiders to stay in Oakland, add $25 million and give it to the Chargers to stay in San Diego and give this a chance to work with the explicit understanding that a failed vote in 2018 is the end in San Diego. In exchange, the NFL allows the Raiders to move to Las Vegas. </p>
<p id="1ZYmx2">In reality, this solution costs the NFL only $25 million more than they were already prepared to spend to keep both the Chargers and Raiders in their home markets, while giving San Diego a realistic chance to keep the Chargers, and protecting the Rams in Los Angeles.</p>
<h4 id="DrhoYO">In Closing</h4>
<p id="wMoAQN">We’ve reached the end game. </p>
<p id="6EZYYS">We know what San Diego’s best realistic offer is. </p>
<p id="Gx3Gzb">We know it’s not quite enough. As Acee says in his article, it’s now up to the NFL and it’s fellow owners to decide whether they want two struggling franchises in Los Angeles more than they want to keep the Chargers in San Diego and give the Rams room to succeed in Los Angeles.</p>
<p id="Xag5ln">Stay tuned.</p>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2017/1/2/14146620/will-the-nfl-help-the-chargers-stay-in-sdJeffrey Siniard2016-12-22T07:17:29-08:002016-12-22T07:17:29-08:00Making Peace With the Inevitable
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/HU7N5HfwjOt0MFs1DC36O-qMYyg=/846x0:2160x876/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52418637/Screen_Shot_2016_12_20_at_9.25.11_PM.0.png" />
<figcaption>Headed North on Interstate 5 | <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@32.961749,-117.2460491,3a,75y,345.28h,84.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFDrm69z8EWkaCWrn2FYWCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en">Google Maps - Streetview</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Dean Spanos may soon be forced to make billions of dollars in Los Angeles. And that’s Ok with me.</p> <p id="hszQWh">I’ve said it many times over the last couple of years.</p>
<p id="GuyC2k">I want the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/san-diego-chargers">Chargers</a> to stay in San Diego, </p>
<p id="LMtHeq">Even following 2015, I was willing to show good faith. As proof, I bought season tickets (with a friend) for 2016.</p>
<p id="IPuard">I’m willing to have public money spent towards that goal. As proof, <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/11/8/13558012/why-i-m-voting-yes-on-c">I voted Yes on Measure C</a>, despite <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/11/1/13317814/before-you-vote-yes-on-c">my misgivings about the plan</a>.</p>
<p id="k6B4lC">But the fact remains that I am neither an owner of the San Diego Chargers nor am I any other person who has the power or influence to affect their ability to relocate.</p>
<p id="gNgH4N">This is Dean Spanos’ team. He may do with it as he pleases.</p>
<h4 id="EuMoZp">The False Dilemma - San Diego Against Itself</h4>
<p id="gczI80">San Diegans have been presented with a classic false dilemma - that dilemma being: give Spanos a deal entirely on his terms or watching the Chargers move to Los Angeles.</p>
<p id="hmlBCq">It’s a false dilemma precisely because <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/1/18/10784714/san-diego-chargers-stadium-inglewood-economic-potential-money-spanos">no deal he’s offered in San Diego can make him as wealthy as he would be in moving to Los Angeles</a>. Period.</p>
<p id="uWAnGI">Spanos knows this. San Diego knows this. Los Angeles knows this. The NFL knows this.</p>
<p id="6aZ17x">Everyone knows this.</p>
<p id="JEueGB">Regardless of how poor the team performs on the field in Los Angeles, the value of the franchise will go overnight from $2 billion to close to $4 billion simply by moving. By the time Spanos would be able to sell without incurring a penalty from the NFL (15 years) the value is likely to be over $5 billion. Throw in luxury boxes, advertising revenues, concessions, higher ticket prices at Stan Kroenke’s yet-to-be built (or named) Inglewood Stadium... and from a business perspective, it’s quite simply a no brainer.</p>
<p id="v69gqe">In exchange, he has to pay nominal rent each year to be a tenant in Inglewood, plus over $600 million of relocation fees (adding interest), and probably close to another $100 million in physical relocation costs (e.g. team headquarters, practice and training facilities, rent or fees to USC for use of the Coliseum, rebranding, etc.).</p>
<p id="agVuYp">This was the deal he made back in January 2016 and decided to not immediately take. This is the same deal which was <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/chargers-738827-san-diego.html">ratified at the NFL owners meetings</a> last week.</p>
<p id="8evTCR">Dean Spanos should take the Los Angeles option right now if maximizing his father’s investment in the NFL is the number one priority. Take it and never look back.</p>
<p id="Ibd1eb">No deal San Diego makes or offers can match that deal. Any attempt by San Diego results in San Diego simply bidding against itself.</p>
<h4 id="Ay0xqO">San Diego Cannot Give Dean Spanos a Deal on His Terms</h4>
<p id="hoGMPC">This isn’t about leverage or negotiation. Last January, <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/1/29/10866250/chargers-san-diego-los-angeles-stadium-public-money">it was reported</a> that the Chargers would be seeking a public subsidy of at least $500 million to stay in San Diego. When Mayor Kevin Faulconer and County Supervisor Ron Roberts met with the team in February, they refused to come off their offer of $350 million for the Mission valley stadium proposal from 2015.</p>
<p id="I4QweR">As a result, we all got Measure C, a plan which required a 2/3rds Yes vote to pass and alienated a significant number of the allies it needed to have a chance to pass. As we know, it ended up with 43% of the vote.</p>
<p id="sgl2Sv">All of this helps to underline a point which has been (compared to other states and municipalities) made very clear. One professional franchise in California has received almost 50% public financing since 1998, and that’s the Sacramento Kings with their new arena in downtown Sacramento.</p>
<p id="bKhcRw">Here’s a list of franchises in California which have received new or modified stadiums since 1995, the total cost of the project, and the percentage of public money involved.</p>
<ul>
<li id="lE4DHq">San Diego Chargers: Qualcomm Stadium 1995, $78 million. 100% public.</li>
<li id="Qfa26C">Anaheim Ducks: Honda Center 1995, $128 million, 100% public.</li>
<li id="b4dwyC">
<a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/oakland-raiders">Oakland Raiders</a>: O.Co Coliseum 1996, $200 million, 100% public.</li>
<li id="eseukh">Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: Angel Stadium 1997, $117 million, 25% public</li>
<li id="T8HZKt">Golden State Warriors: Oracle Arena 1997, $121 million, 100% public.</li>
<li id="rjmNSN">San Francisco <a href="https://www.bigblueview.com/">Giants</a>: AT&T Ballpark 1997, $357 million, 22% public.</li>
<li id="WJ5aSA">San Diego Padres: Petco Park 1998, $456 million, 66% public.</li>
<li id="WWdfAZ">Los Angeles Lakers/Kings/Clippers: Staples Center 1999, $400 million, 17% public.</li>
<li id="nEM7WD">
<a href="https://www.ninersnation.com/">San Francisco 49ers</a>: Levi’s Stadium: $1.2 billion, 9% public.</li>
<li id="cPCd4M">Sacramento Kings: Golden One Center 2016, $534 million, 47% public.</li>
<li id="wn6FIl">Los Angeles Dodgers: None.</li>
<li id="TT6pXR">
<a href="https://www.turfshowtimes.com/">Los Angeles Rams</a>: None.</li>
<li id="31w5cX">The new arena proposed by the Warriors in San Francisco is also expected to be privately financed.</li>
</ul>
<p id="vQprSZ">Petco Park remains the largest public subsidy any professional sports team has ever received in California (adjusted for inflation or otherwise). Furthermore, given the 22 year gap between the Raiders and Rams departure from Los Angeles and the Rams return, and the steep decline of public financing for sports teams in California since the late 1990’s, it seems clear the days of public entities paying enormous sums of money for sports teams has mostly passed in the Golden State.</p>
<p id="SIgpP7">Between Spanos’ rejection of the Mayor’s plan from 2015 and the voters‘ rejection of Measure C, what’s evident is the deal Spanos wants from San Diego is one that existed 20 years ago, and one which virtually no single municipality in the United States can afford at this point. Oakland is in a similar position at it relates to the Raiders. </p>
<p id="m9BPkI">Before you say “look at Minneapolis or Las Vegas” those deals offered either a combination of a) local and state revenues as in the <a href="https://www.dailynorseman.com/">Minnesota Vikings</a> stadium deal or b) exclusively state funds as in the proposed Las Vegas stadium deal.</p>
<p id="Z7xajo">The primary reason the Chargers don’t have a stadium in San Diego is that in 1995, when the team had the political capital and public support to get a new stadium, Alex Spanos settled instead on an expansion and minor renovation of then Jack Murphy Stadium, a new team headquarters, and a generous lease agreement which was 100% publicly financed.</p>
<p id="nkXRyT">If it was a deal too good to pass up, it was also a stunning lack of foresight on Alex Spanos’ part. It’s the foundational mistake upon which all other mistakes (and they are legion) were made in the pursuit of a new stadium in San Diego.</p>
<h4 id="EJg9xn">What Might Work in San Diego?</h4>
<p id="PCUqBb">If Dean Spanos were truly serious about staying in San Diego, his Citizen’s Initiative from last year would’ve had significant buy-in from multiple people/interests in San Diego who stood to benefit. I speculated on some ideas in more detail in a <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/11/16/13638154/resetting-the-stadium-question-again">previous post</a>, but here’s a summary of those alternatives:</p>
<ul>
<li id="BvdC8p">Partner with San Diego’s Tourism Industry to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) which covered stadium financing at any site while still allowing for a contiguous Convention Center expansion.</li>
<li id="HMvwoZ">Partner with Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) on a downtown stadium joined up with an arena, thereby replacing both the aging Qualcomm Stadium and Valley View Casino Center in one fell swoop, and positioning San Diego for future NBA or NHL relocation/expansion.</li>
<li id="JqB3ak">Partner with San Diego State University (SDSU) and Major League Soccer (MLS) on a smaller stadium in Mission Valley, which creatively preserves the intimate setting SDSU and MLS desires, while allowing for temporary expansion for NFL games and Bowl Games.</li>
</ul>
<p id="7zBnpO">To aid in rehabbing a devastated public image, Spanos could also have done the following as part of any stadium campaign (<a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/8/20/12558344/helping-the-chargers-get-out-the-vote-on-measure-c">as I wrote earlier this year</a>), putting aside that actually winning games cures a lot of ills:</p>
<ul>
<li id="Oim7WW">Revert to the AFL uniforms, and make the Air Coryell royal blues the official alternate.</li>
<li id="YkKZHS">Engaged the public by owning the damage 2015 caused to the fanbase.</li>
<li id="7NEuiy">Signed Joey Bosa in time for training camp.</li>
<li id="lih6Na">Firing Mike McCoy following the 2015 regular season and hiring a new head coach.</li>
<li id="KHICNS">Getting current and past players involved in the stadium campaign.</li>
<li id="s4KuWU">Lowering ticket prices.</li>
<li id="DJcBiK">Abandoning Mark Fabiani’s leak-heavy media based campaign strategy.</li>
<li id="RUGmT0">Make it clear PRIOR to the vote that 50% on Measure C was a required benchmark to ensure Spanos would continue working in San Diego if Measure C didn’t otherwise pass. </li>
</ul>
<h4 id="mkU8K4">What Actually Happened</h4>
<p id="7p9MVu">As I said above, this is Dean Spanos’ team. He may do with it as he pleases. But aside from some reasonably low season-ticket prices, none of the things suggested above actually happened.</p>
<p id="Sl5SIq">Measure C alienated a core economic constituency in San Diego, and the higher profile support it did receive (SD Chamber of Commerce, Mayor Faulconer) was conditional at best. In other words, there was very little buy-in from community leaders.</p>
<p id="B7Ar04">Further, we’ve had consistent (<a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jason+la+canfora+chargers">see La Canfora, Jason as a recent best example</a>) vaguely sourced stories for months indicating that once Measure C failed, the team would be forced to relocate to Los Angeles. Speaking for myself, these stories stopped working as leverage (ham-handed or otherwise) in early-to-mid 2015. Rather, I’m so tired of the stomach kick which accompanies them, as well as the dread expectation of seeing them that I simply want them to stop, even if it means the team leaving San Diego as a result.</p>
<p id="g0eghT">All of this is combined with one of the most viscerally awful on-field seasons I can remember as a fan, with the injuries to star players combined with freakish stomach-churning 4th quarter mistakes/collapses accounting for 8 of their (current 9) losses.</p>
<p id="KEyyko">And somehow Measure C STILL got 43%!</p>
<h4 id="I0Dxjk">With All This In Mind</h4>
<p id="J2l3z1">I’m under no illusions a “miracle” will happen between now and January 15th. </p>
<p id="Y0e6ra">What Dean Spanos and the NFL would regard as a miracle would probably cost San Diego at least half a billion dollars. </p>
<p id="XqeVUT">What San Diego would regard as a miracle would be an owner who strikes a deal along the lines of what Stan Kroenke is planning to do in Inglewood.</p>
<p id="IThYZq">There are hundreds of millions of dollars between those miracles and no readily apparent way (or willingness) to bridge them.</p>
<p id="pBZOp0">So, I expect Dean Spanos to prove to everyone that he’s capable and willing to move the Chargers from their home of 55 seasons to Los Angeles in 2017.</p>
<p id="bFXuT3">I’m not sure I want to be wrong about this. I don’t want or need another 2 years of vaguely-sourced media leaks threatening a relocation to Los Angeles if the (insert stadium plan here) doesn’t pass (insert required vote threshold here). </p>
<p id="icGOkU">I simply want a good deal where an NFL franchise can make money and use at least some of that money to improve the product on the field. I also want a deal which isn’t crippling for the municipality in which I reside and which provides essential services to my neighbors, my family, and I. </p>
<p id="mY17Z5">I’d be thrilled if that team was the Chargers. </p>
<p id="A8l7sI">But the Chargers are Dean Spanos’ team...</p>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/12/22/14033826/making-peace-with-the-inevitableJeffrey Siniard2016-12-13T10:28:43-08:002016-12-13T10:28:43-08:00San Diego Chargers Stadium: A Hail Mary for Mission Valley?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gxxb0UB4RtW8hQd0aSaSfiJr2gs=/171x0:1101x620/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52267711/SD_proposed_MV_stadium.0.png" />
<figcaption>A rendering of the proposed Mission Valley Stadium from 2015. | Populous / City of San Diego</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Four San Diego City Councilpersons are proposing a low-cost lease to the Chargers for the Mission Valley site</p> <p id="UJTq25">Last night, members of the San Diego City Council were prepared to make an initial offer to keep the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/san-diego-chargers">Chargers</a> in San Diego. </p>
<p id="EWWl7H">The key feature of the offer is a lease of the 166-acre Qualcomm site to the Chargers at $1 per year for 99 years, with the Chargers controlling development rights.</p>
<p id="Lr8nCf">The letter was signed by Councilpersons Scott Sherman, Chris Cate, Lorie Zapf, and Myrtle Cole. The <a href="http://www.mighty1090.com/2016/12/13/a-new-mission-valley-plan-to-keep-the-chargers-in-san-diego/">letter can be read here</a>.</p>
<p id="KUCodJ">According to <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article120533543.html">this article</a> by Bernie Wilson of the Associated Press, Sherman had this to say:</p>
<blockquote><p id="GluH4p">"At the end of the day, 166 acres in the geographic center of the eighth-largest city in the country is the perfect spot to develop. I'm convinced we could get over 50 percent (of a vote) with that. This is all just a starting point to start the discussion. The way we laid it out with the lease, it's a large incentive to come to the table."</p></blockquote>
<p id="DaVKem">Sherman followed up with some other details <a href="http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/scott-sherman-this-is-an-idea-that-could-actually-get-us-across-the-goal-line/">in an interview with Dan Sileo on Mighty 1090 AM</a> this morning.</p>
<p id="0dfF9p">Any development of the Qualcomm site would certainly come with some infrastructure improvements to the City, as it regards freeway access and parking structures to allow for development elsewhere at the site, not to mention mitigating the risk of the southern side of the lot being flooded by the San Diego River.</p>
<p id="K86JDz">Any new development would require re-zoning of the Qualcomm lot, which means either a) a Citizen’s Initiative which needs to be approved by the City Council (or voters) based on the planned development or b) an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would need to be drafted for the development. </p>
<p id="6KGIum">There’s also the issue of the remaining bond debt on the Qualcomm Stadium expansion from 1997, as well as deferred maintenance at Qualcomm Stadium.</p>
<p id="mNKy5m">Lastly, what about the idea to turn the Qualcomm site into an expansion for San Diego State University. This plan seemingly kills that concept.</p>
<p id="QfF7xO">This proposal is similar in concept to a <a href="http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/mar/16/future-san-diego-chargers-mark-fabiani/">plan the Chargers pitched for the Mission Valley site in 2004</a>. The Chargers pursued it until 2006-07 when the housing bubble burst and potential investors were no longer interested. </p>
<p id="NrhAxW">In fact, <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/chargers/sdut-nick-canepa-qualcomm-stadium-2013oct16-story.html">developing Mission Valley with a partner was on the team’s radar as recently as October 2013</a>. </p>
<p id="VMUHBR">Of course, the Chargers were not shy about telling people <a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/06/03/chargers-wont-be-pivoting-back-to-mission-valley-site/">they will not be pivoting back to Mission Valley</a> during the “campaign” for Measure C.</p>
<p id="0Iq4vT">Measure C, for a downtown stadium joined with a convention center annex, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego,_California,_Football_Stadium_Initiative,_Measure_C_(November_2016)">was defeated by City voters in November</a>, by a margin of approximately 43% to 57%. The measure required a two-thirds majority to pass because public financing elements of the plan relied on a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase from 10.5% to 16.5%.</p>
<p id="gdWqk9">This new Mission Valley proposal is similar to an <a href="https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2902203&GUID=12254658-2DE7-4AD5-9B5F-D170C5865806&Options=&Search=">offer proposed to the Oakland Raiders by Oakland Civic Leaders</a>, but there’s one crucial difference. The development rights to the 105-acre Oakland Coliseum site would be controlled by a 3rd party developer called Fortress Investment Group. NFL Hall-of-Famer Ronnie Lott and former NFL QB Rodney Peete are also involved with the proposed project.</p>
<p id="Zr4Nxe"><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/09/oakland-raiders-studium-plan-unveiled-in-bid-to-keep-team-in-city/">Oakland City officials and Alameda County officials are expected to vote on the term sheet today</a>.</p>
<p id="J2yBn2">This letter goes to the NFL just as owner’s prepare to hold their Winter Meetings.</p>
<p id="dazSoL">Among the topics certainly to be included are the Chargers’ potential move to Los Angeles, as well as the <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/jerry-jones-says-its-pretty-definitive-that-the-raiders-will-move-to-las-vegas/">Raiders’ potential move to Las Vegas</a>.</p>
<p id="920Dhm">Pardon my speculation, but I don’t think it’s an accident that the plan offered by San Diego’s City Councilpersons is essentially what the NFL and Raiders reportedly wanted from Oakland. It provides the NFL an opportunity to invest in a market they (may) want to keep, while also giving the Raiders a soft landing spot in the event the Chargers go to Los Angeles and NFL Ownership rejects Mark Davis’ move to Las Vegas.</p>
<p id="YCXgGQ">There have been <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-sandiego-1207-story.html">discussions between Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Chargers Special Advisor Fred Maas</a>, but little to no details have emerged from those meetings.</p>
<p id="pFmp49">That the letter was released publicly prior to being seen by the Chargers or the NFL smacks of political grandstanding, though the Chargers have zero room to criticize anyone for selectively leaking information to the media.</p>
<p id="O3fXcw">The Chargers have had the option to join the <a href="https://www.turfshowtimes.com/">Los Angeles Rams</a> since last January. This option must be exercised by January 15, 2017, or the option to move to Los Angeles reverts to the Raiders.</p>
<p id="CUpgku">The next month should be fun the same way getting repeatedly kicked in the stomach is fun. At least we’re still numb from 2015. </p>
<p id="zBeSPd">Stay tuned, or not - I get it either way.</p>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/12/13/13933246/san-diego-chargers-stadium-a-hail-mary-for-mission-valleyJeffrey Siniard2016-11-22T07:17:33-08:002016-11-22T07:17:33-08:0038th Annual Chargers Blood Drive
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bEphwDheJ8qqLwYANWYyC3ddzwU=/0x49:684x505/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51954405/Screen_Shot_2016_11_21_at_8.17.15_PM.0.png" />
<figcaption>38th Annual Chargers Blood Drive</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Forget about stadiums and tough losses for one day. Donate blood, meet some players/coaches, and save lives</p> <p id="rg2PDF">One of the best events involving any professional sports franchise happens again today at Town & Country Convention Center in Mission Valley.</p>
<p id="eSEy4x">The <a href="http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/chargers-drive-38">38th Annual Chargers Blood Drive</a>, a joint effort of the Chargers and San Diego Blood Bank, will be open from 8AM until 5PM.</p>
<p id="U5nh1E">The <a href="http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/news-and-events/annual-chargers-drive">Chargers Blood Drive got its start in 1979</a> when the team held a blood drive to help kicker Rolf Benirschke, who was suffering from ulcerative colitis. Over 1,000 San Diegans turned out at then-San Diego Stadium to donate, launching a tradition which continues to this day.</p>
<p id="hjSzz5">The Holiday Season tends to be one of the toughest times of year for blood donations, with many people traveling or attending family and work functions. As a former Hospital Services Representative at San Diego Blood Bank, having received urgent calls for blood products from hospitals, I can attest firsthand to the difficulties of making sure area hospitals have a sufficient amount of blood available to meet the needs of the community. Considering that up to 3 different blood products can be provided with a single donation, it’s not a stretch to say each donation may help save the lives of 3 different patients.</p>
<p id="shqa5h">Admission to the Blood Drive is $5 per person, with donors receiving a full refund following their donation. Donors also receive a free T-shirt commemorating the Blood Drive, a VIP wristband for player autographs, and a parking pass validation. There are other events at the blood drive, which includes a “Wellness Zone” with interactive exhibits, food samples, and musical entertainment.</p>
<p id="IdlvTl">So, how about we all forget about tough losses and stadium talk for one day. Let’s come together as a community and help save each other’s lives.</p>
<p id="O408a9">I hope to see some of the BFTB community while I’m working. Keep an eye out for the tall bearded San Diego Blood Bank employee in the Danny Woodhead jersey.</p>
<blockquote><p id="HDaHla">Author’s Note: Full disclosure. I have been employed by San Diego Blood Bank since April 1999. I was neither required or requested to write this post for BFTB on behalf of San Diego Blood Bank or the San Diego Chargers.</p></blockquote>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/11/22/13711138/38th-annual-chargers-blood-driveJeffrey Siniard2016-11-16T08:38:54-08:002016-11-16T08:38:54-08:00Resetting The Stadium Question, Again
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/BRpfkYdnBb5R9WokWSvwrdBMEkI=/297x0:2421x1416/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51863993/Screen_Shot_2016_11_15_at_8.30.24_PM.0.png" />
<figcaption>A rendering of San Diego’s proposed Mission Valley stadium from 2015. | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OSC-rXed-I">Populous / City of San Diego</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Assuming the Chargers stay in San Diego beyond 2016, here’s some thoughts on what will happen next as it regards a replacement for Qualcomm Stadium</p> <p id="YA6JIz">Well, depending on your point of view, last Tuesday was either a rousing success or a major disappointment.</p>
<p id="HBdDVV">Measure C, the Chargers stadium initiative, was <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/San_Diego,_California,_Football_Stadium_Initiative,_Measure_C_(November_2016)">soundly defeated by San Diego City voters, by a (current) margin of about 57% to 43%</a>. The <a href="http://www.chargers.com/sites/chargers.com/files/final-sd-initiative_03-30-16.pdf">measure</a> would’ve raised the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 10.5% to 16.5% to cover the costs of building and maintaining a stadium + plus convention center annex in downtown San Diego.</p>
<p id="nDidmy">As we all know, this plan was put forward by the Chargers <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-acee-1110-story.html">following a furtive attempt to discuss the City’s proposed new stadium in Mission Valley</a>, and largely within a 2 month window following the NFL’s decision on Los Angeles in January 2016.</p>
<p id="7NnzhT">We also know (as CBS Sports’ <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/chargers-have-few-options-but-to-move-to-los-angeles-after-stadium-vote-fails/">Jason La Canfora reminds us regularly</a>) the Chargers have the 1st option on whether or not to join the Rams in Los Angeles, and that they have until January 15, 2017 to exercise or pass on that option.</p>
<p id="LwXHxc">So, where do we go from here? Let’s discuss this a bit...</p>
<h4 id="jUAH4V">Questions to Answer</h4>
<h5 id="OTwfeK">What Has to Happen for the Chargers to stay in San Diego from the NFL’s perspective?</h5>
<p id="rFNLPp">The process is complicated, but the result is simple... Dean Spanos has to be able to pursue a stadium in San Diego without fear of losing his option in Los Angeles. That means the Raiders are either approved to <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/10/17/13307934/raiders-secure-funding-for-a-stadium-in-las-vegas">move to Las Vegas</a>, or somehow stay in Oakland. That question has to be resolved before anything else.</p>
<h5 id="Wi4roI">When Would Another Election be held in San Diego?</h5>
<p id="l0NIN0">The best chance for a successful vote for the Chargers going forward is likely the national election in November 2018. One thing the Chargers have said consistently is that they are more likely to succeed in a high-turnout election. According to Chargers’ Special Counsel Mark Fabiani, the <a href="http://boltblitz.com/?p=16354">team’s research </a>has also indicated that a Special Election is not likely to be successful, due to low voter turnout.</p>
<h5 id="NjV2tS">Where Would the Stadium be located?</h5>
<p id="ETmyQ3">Well, with the failure of both Measure C and <a href="https://sandiegans4opengov.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/notice_of_intent_tfid_final_advance_release.pdf">Measure D</a>, Mission Valley and Downtown are on the table. Mission Valley is likely to be cheaper, as the City already controls much of the land. Downtown is the preferred location for the NFL and the Chargers (likely because advertising, sponsorship, and non-NFL revenue opportunities are higher), but there’s at least <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/2/23/11103572/ten-questions-regarding-the-jmi-joint-use-facility">an additional $200 - $250 million</a> price tag involved because the city doesn’t own the land, and the MTS Bus Yard would need to be relocated. </p>
<h5 id="vOiAR5">How Does This Affect Other Stakeholders?</h5>
<p id="jPjqf8">Whether you agree with them or not, this recent election proved how aggressively the San Diego Tourism Industry will protect their interests, both in regards to raising the TOT and the waterfront Convention Center expansion. Any downtown plan without their buy-in (or at least passive support) is Dead. On. Arrival.</p>
<p id="5XPhFR">There’s also the question of county involvement. Does it hurt or help the Chargers if a public vote is opened up to County voters. Is the $150 million (or any other amount) from SD County in the City’s 2015 Mission Valley plan for real?</p>
<p id="i6yf5g">The <a href="https://gwynntelligence.com/2016/10/05/spanos-gives-faulconer-event-revenue-concession-still-may-screw-padres/">City’s agreement with the San Diego Padres</a> specifies the presence of parking - not to mention the Padres and Chargers making a deal on how to share event revenues.</p>
<h5 id="WZPsy2">Any Anti-Stadium Messaging Regrets?</h5>
<p id="0nKyaG">Did the “No on C” campaign permanently kill any possibility of getting a deal done? The <a href="http://www.nodowntownstadium.com/">“Jobs & Streets First”</a> campaign slogan explicitly means that no stadium should ever get tax revenue (or by extension, any public revenue), not this particular plan shouldn’t get tax revenue. That’s going to be a difficult bell to unring.</p>
<h5 id="CuidWu">Lastly, Can the Chargers Help Themselves?</h5>
<p id="FP8MdA">Fire Mike McCoy and hire a Head Coach who can figure out how to close games in the 4th quarter. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that even marginal <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/10/10/13229292/why-mike-mccoy-should-ve-gone-for-the-4th-and-1">4th quarter/game management </a>improvement is the difference between this team being in the thick of the division race versus playing out the string.</p>
<p id="Sy0AWO"><a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/8/14/12474654/joey-bosa-situation-decades-old-pattern-chargers-spanos">Avoid the inclination to play hardball</a> with your (likely to be top 10-15) 1st round draft pick. Get him signed and in camp as soon as possible.</p>
<p id="KPtKzw">Seriously consider firing Mark Fabiani. Fabiani has had 15 years to get a deal to the finish line. All Spanos has to show for Fabiani’s efforts are: a rushed and failed campaign in San Diego, an extra $100 million from the NFL as a parting gift for losing the Los Angeles Relocation Derby, and <a href="http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/14752649/the-real-story-nfl-owners-battle-bring-football-back-los-angeles">an option with an owner and site Spanos doesn’t love.</a> Maybe it’s a sacrificial gesture, but it’s still easier than swimming through the ashes of the bridges he’s burned in San Diego.</p>
<p id="cIYOAm">If you’re going to keep the option on Los Angeles past 2016, be honest with voters about the threat. Don’t hold Los Angeles over everyone’s heads the way a distant thunderstorm threatens a flash flood. Make it explicit that if this last chance doesn’t work, the team will move to Los Angeles and then leave it alone. Everyone deserves to clearly know what the stakes are. </p>
<p id="Hb7uzh">With all these thoughts in mind, and if the Chargers don’t move to Los Angeles, here are my suggestions going forward:</p>
<h4 id="CnWmI6">Timetable for A Plan</h4>
<p id="q6YEyd">The Chargers and San Diego should commit to a plan which involves the November 2018 election. Here’s why:</p>
<p id="aSRbdI">This allows for over 1 year of discussions, negotiations, public vetting, and detailed design work before submitting a Citizen’s Initiative (this is going to happen just to avoid the costs and time involved with an Environmental Impact Report). One of the primary (and justified) criticisms of Measure C was that it was crafted by the Chargers without input from other stakeholders. This timeframe allows all the stakeholders to work out their disagreements and come to an amicable resolution.</p>
<p id="wBBKm6">There’s potential for the California State Supreme Court to decide whether specific tax increases proposed via Citizen’s Initiative require a 2/3rds affirmative vote, or a simple majority.</p>
<p id="71ELXg">It gives the City and Chargers’ fans a 1 year break in the stadium drama and allows the team to focus on football, and allows the team to focus their efforts at winning back the community.</p>
<p id="T1hA0Y">Time heals some wounds. Consider the Padres in the mid-1990s. Imagine new owner John Moores putting Petco Park on the ballot in 1995, following the “Fire Sale” and the MLB Strike which cancelled the remainder of the 1994 season (including the playoffs, and Tony Gwynn’s run at .400). By attempting to move in 2015, then putting a stadium on the ballot in 2016, that’s essentially what the Chargers just did. The Padres instead spent all of 1995 winning back fans, put a playoff team on the field in 1996, followed by a losing (but entertaining) 1997, then their best ever team in 1998 and the passage of Petco Park.</p>
<h4 id="vKMGhm">What are some possible plans?</h4>
<p id="UKnDgf">If the Chargers want to pursue the TOT increase path for a second time, I’d suggest at least making a contiguous Convention Center expansion part of the plan. Measure C might have been too cute by half - if the plan had allowed for any Convention Center expansion (contiguous or annex, depending on how things break in court), it might have drawn support from the SD Tourism Industry and at least broken 50%.</p>
<p id="wPkp3H">Finding a 3rd party to help share in costs could be a way forward. Earlier this year, I suggested a joint stadium and arena in the downtown location favored by the Chargers. AEG was interested in <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/sdut-seaport-village-could-house-new-san-diego-arena-2016jun26-htmlstory.html">building a (mostly) privately financed arena in Seaport Village</a>, and <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/sd-sp-arenaside-20161110-story.html">may be interested in downtown now</a> that Measures C & D failed. Maybe you could get something like this to work: A joint stadium and arena downtown would cost about $1.65 billion ($1B for stadium, $400M for arena, $250M for land and MTS yard). Suppose that Dean Spanos sold 17% of the Chargers to AEG, equal to about $350M, plus $650M he offered in Measure C. Then, AEG and some wealthy basketball enthusiast(s) (<a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/nba/sdut-Jacobs-NBA-Kings-Qualcomm-2013mar30-story.html">like maybe the Jacobs family, if they sell their stake in the Kings?</a>) go in 50/50 on the new arena and try to get an NBA expansion franchise for San Diego. This might leave a public cost limited to the land, infrastructure improvements, and the MTS yard. Further, it would free up the Sports Arena site and Qualcomm site for other development/uses.</p>
<p id="bDkSeD">A modern stadium in Mission Valley would certainly be popular with fans, as it mostly preserves the existing fan experience in San Diego and modernizes it for the 21st century. According to the Chargers and NFL, the <a href="https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/mayor/pdf/20150810_CityofSDChargersMissionValleyPresentation.pdf">City’s 2015 proposal</a> would <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/chargers-702164-stadium-diego.html">cost about $1.2B,</a> up from the City’s estimate of $1.1B. When the public’s offer of $350M was combined with the Chargers $650M funding proposed, that left a $200M gap which neither side was willing to broach - it appears there wasn’t much interest on either side to move from their positions (the City and County stood firm likely for political reasons, the Chargers wanted downtown more). It remains to be seen if there’s a path forward here, or if a 3rd party gets involved (similar to what I mentioned above) to provide further development at the site. Working against this is support to try and secure the Mission Valley site for an SDSU expansion, including a smaller stadium for the Aztecs and a potential MLS franchise.</p>
<p id="DDW16t">Of course, maybe there’s some other option out there that no one knows about yet.</p>
<h4 id="1VR09v">In Closing</h4>
<p id="1HLA30">Assuming the Chargers are willing to stay in San Diego and able to work out an extension of their option in Los Angeles, there’s one more chance to get something done in San Diego before the team decides to move north. </p>
<p id="uK3E23">The <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-charstadium-20161115-story.html">announcement </a>that Chargers Special Advisor Fred Maas and and San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer met on Tuesday is a step in the right direction. It needs to be the first of many such steps.</p>
<p id="cNmIvA">If it’s done right, with everyone working together, there’s still a puncher’s chance.</p>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/11/16/13638154/resetting-the-stadium-question-againJeffrey Siniard2016-11-08T07:18:28-08:002016-11-08T07:18:28-08:00Why I’m Voting Yes on C
<figure>
<img alt="inside dt stadium" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/q9HacdPqEUzOcRMdm8y2-vnFdA8=/144x0:1154x673/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51732795/Screen_Shot_2016-06-03_at_10.10.03_PM.0.0.png" />
<figcaption>A rendering of the proposed downtown stadium and convention center. | <a href="http://www.manicaarchitecture.com/projects/stadia/50-san-diego-stadium-convention-center">MANICA Architecture</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I don’t love Measure C. I know 2/3rds of voters wont say yes. Here’s why I’m voting yes anyway.</p> <p id="Q2YBS1">Today is an important today as it regards the Chargers’ future in San Diego. I’m not sure if it’s the most important, but it’s certainly not inconsequential.</p>
<p id="zY7yxj">San Diego residents vote today whether to adopt <a href="http://www.chargers.com/sites/chargers.com/files/final-sd-initiative_03-30-16.pdf">Measure C, the Chargers’ stadium & convention center Initiative</a> estimated to cost $1.8 billion.</p>
<p id="UaUTgp"><a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/5/24/11753886/legitimate-questions-about-the-san-diego-chargers-stadium-plan">Measure C is complicated, and it does have flaws</a>.</p>
<p id="KGuv1Y">Among them, I really wish the Chargers had simply left the Convention Center element alone. Regardless of how you feel about the Convention Center question, this attracted a lot of unnecessary opposition from a powerful and influential interest group in San Diego.</p>
<p id="1PuFkV">The rush of losing the Los Angeles Stadium Derby in mid-January to crafting a ballot initiative by mid-March (to guarantee a San Diego stadium plan would reach the November ballot) meant there simply wasn’t time to make sure all interested stakeholders had gotten agreements in place with the Chargers before the language in the measure was locked in place.</p>
<p id="OEmDyB">We don’t know exactly what the facility will look like, or exactly how much the facility will cost, which makes it impossible to determine exactly how much the stadium will cost and how much the Convention Center annex will cost.</p>
<p id="5jCryc">Most importantly, seeking a two-thirds majority from the voting public meant there was almost no margin for error or dissent among the voting public.</p>
<p id="F52gMb">There are <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/11/1/13317814/before-you-vote-yes-on-c">other concerns about the Chargers specifically, and the future of the NFL </a>generally.</p>
<p id="IqyAPt">Those flaws aside, there are two primary reasons I’m voting Yes on Measure C.</p>
<h4 id="FtkcL1">Extending the Game</h4>
<p id="kTjpux"><a href="http://fox5sandiego.com/2016/11/03/spanos-talks-about-future-of-chargers-if-voters-reject-downtown-stadium/">Dean Spanos has said</a> he will be closely watching the election results on Tuesday night, and trying to gauge whether or not there’s any point in trying to come up with a Plan B in San Diego after Measure C fails to reach 66.7%.</p>
<p id="NLuREu"><a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-final-poll-20161103-story.html">Recent polling suggests Measure C will top out around 45%.</a> I’m not Dean Spanos, so I have no idea what his magic number is for deciding to give San Diego another shot versus moving to Los Angeles and becoming a tenant in Inglewood. My suspicion is that 45%-50% will probably be enough, based on the Chargers recent discussions with Mayor Kevin Faulconer.</p>
<p id="qob24W">I also think it’s fairly remarkable if the team even comes within 5% of a simple majority, considering everything which has happened over the last 2 years.</p>
<p id="p7iV1u">Further, the No on C folks continue have asserted over the last couple of days that Spanos filing an <a href="http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Chargers-Football-Proposed-Amicus-Curiae-Brief.pdf">amicus brief</a> in the case of <a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/e063664.html">Upland vs. California Cannabis Coalition</a> was always the plan, and that all he was trying to do was get to a simple majority. As a reminder, Upland vs CCC was an California State Appellate Court ruling earlier this year which determined that a fee or tax imposed by Citizen’s Initiative does not require a 2/3rds majority to be enacted.</p>
<p id="6LlGFM">Maybe that’s true, but it seems equally possible that filing the brief was simply a smart business decision. Just because the Spanos family has made a lot of mistakes over the years doesn’t also mean they’re always on the wrong side of an issue (you know how even broken clocks are right twice a day). Besides, here are some additional factors which make this a dubious conclusion.</p>
<ul>
<li id="05nYoG">There’s absolutely no guarantee the California State Supreme Court (CASC) will rule in Spanos’ favor.</li>
<li id="9upOa0">There’s no timeframe on when the CASC will issue their ruling. It could be tomorrow, it could be next year, it could be 2018, or even beyond.</li>
</ul>
<p id="uH0UrH">Therefore, it seems to me the true benefit of the amicus brief (combined with a simple majority vote) is to extend the Chargers’ option on Los Angeles into 2018. As originally planned, the Chargers were given 1 year from last January to exercise their option to join the Rams in Los Angeles. If they chose not to exercise their option, it reverts to the Raiders. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-meetings-raiders-20160322-column.html">However, there’s also a clause in the option which extends the Chargers’ option to early 2018 if there are unresolved legal issues</a>. </p>
<p id="1lgHO3">This would provide the Chargers at least another year to pursue an option in San Diego, and maybe more if the <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/10/17/13307934/raiders-secure-funding-for-a-stadium-in-las-vegas">NFL approved the Raiders’ potential relocation to Las Vegas</a>.</p>
<p id="9GdJ9p">Since there’s virtually no chance of a 2/3rds majority, and the odds of the CASC deciding in the Chargers’ favor are both unknown AND a long time away, I have no problem showing Dean Spanos that I’d like for him to stay and give San Diego another shot - in that way, it’s not dissimilar from a voter in an already decided state (like California) casting a protest vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.</p>
<h4 id="pVs2uY">Stadiums are Luxury Assets for a Community</h4>
<p id="JR705e">However, one also has to weigh the potential consequences of voting Yes on C, and the measure either somehow getting a 2/3rds majority or the CASC ruling in the Chargers’ favor in the next year or two.</p>
<p id="lhrvig">Since we already know that stadiums are poor public investments, and that the convention center annex attached to it will only return $1 for every $8 invested under optimistic projections, there’s really no case to be made for public financing as an investment.</p>
<p id="fUIJvw">It’s not tangible, and maybe it means I’m overly sentimental, but I think there is an intangible benefit to having professional sports in your community. I remember what San Diego felt like during the heyday of Air Coryell, the early to mid 1990s, and then the 2004-2009 era. There’s simply nothing like the vibe in the community when you get to share the fun and excitement of a contending team playing quality football. </p>
<p id="CAapCz">I realize I’m not speaking for everyone in this regard, but I am willing to pay taxes to keep that intangible benefit in my community.</p>
<p id="S5M68P">To me, it's not too different from spending a tax return on a 4k Ultra HD TV instead of putting the money back into your home to increase its value (e.g. new garage door, remodeling bathroom, fixing closets, etc.). The difference is the size of the community</p>
<p id="K0gLCc">The fundamental question then, is whether or not the proposed tax increase provides sufficient revenues to cover the cost of the proposed facility (i.e. can we afford it?).</p>
<p id="iS8QLK">Based on my research, the answer is more likely to be yes than no.</p>
<p id="Ybc396">Before going forward, the following assumptions are made about these models:</p>
<ul>
<li id="LBRhyp">TOT is based on the <a href="https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/v1generalfundrevenues_3.pdf">City of San Diego’s FY2017 Budget </a>numbers. Given the current total amount of revenue going to the General Fund (about 52% of total) is $113.3 million ($216.3 million total), at 10.5 cents/dollar, raising the TOT to 16.5 cents/dollar would mean about $103 million annually for the Stadium/Convention Center allocation proposed in Measure C.</li>
<li id="okpcs6">The facility cost is $1.8 billion. This includes $1 billion for the stadium, $600 million for the Convention Center, and $200 million for land acquisition and moving the MTS Bus Yard. $1.15 billion of this cost is covered by bonds, with the Chargers and NFL covering the remaining $650 million.</li>
<li id="Z2GbGu">With bonds at 5% interest, the total amount of public cost is about $2.22 billion.</li>
<li id="y84ATL">Inflation rises at 2% annually.</li>
<li id="NU5Rek">Purchase of the land and removal of the MTS yard takes 3 years, followed by 3 years of construction.</li>
<li id="5rlNlQ">The Capital Improvements Sub-Funds for both the Convention Center and Stadium are adjusted to 4% to <a href="https://edzarenski.com/2016/09/12/construction-cost-inflation-midyear-report-2016/">account for higher construction inflation costs</a>.</li>
<li id="C6kEbg">This is based on existing TOT projections, and does not include any projections from proposed new hotels, or from the convention center annex.</li>
<li id="1uEYLC">These projections include money set aside as described in Measure C for annual operations and maintenance, as well as capital improvements.</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="SPJgdu">Model 1 - No annual growth and a 7-year recession (-3% growth).</h5>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6To2DMDemGZ2qxSRoDEdxCxhCcY=/400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7429417/Screen_Shot_2016_11_07_at_8.59.40_PM.png">
</figure>
<p id="EHKVuA">In this case, what you will see is that due to a 7 year recession (from 2027-2032), and zero growth otherwise, there is a shortfall of about $134 million. Again, this is no annual growth and a 7 year recession. As a result of this recession, it takes revenues about 10 years to recover to the pre-recession levels.</p>
<h5 id="QwPffz">Model 2 - Stagnant Tourism (no annual growth).</h5>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/E3XQvCZehkxQosBOFjDN_YFStac=/400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7429419/Screen_Shot_2016_11_07_at_8.59.57_PM.png">
</figure>
<p id="LzLerF">Here the numbers change only due to inflation. As you can see, $490 million reaches the General Fund after covering all other project costs.</p>
<h5 id="h39KDL">Model 3 - Steady growth (2% annually).</h5>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ChFpl2KB1dtqhBueZ7K9fXc_nUU=/400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7429423/Screen_Shot_2016_11_07_at_9.00.14_PM.png">
</figure>
<p id="zSXOgl">Here the numbers adjust for inflation, as well as 2% annual growth with no slowdowns. In this case, the result is a fully funded project with an additional $2.324 billion to the General Fund over the span of the project.</p>
<p id="roooKH">I’d like to add that I’m not alone in projecting that there’s low actual risk to the general fund - the <a href="http://www.sdcta.org/assets/files/Measure%20C%20Supplemental%20Study.pdf">PRAG report commissioned by the City (allowing for the large amount of variables) reached a similar conclusion</a>. And for all of the talk about the Mayor’s inability to make his agreed-upon terms with the Chargers legally binding, he must have seen compelling evidence the project was not likely to impact the General Fund prior to providing his endorsement.</p>
<p id="hylaID">If you vote No on C based on potential risk to the General Fund, it’s my opinion that you are placing a long term bet on a cataclysmic hit to San Diego’s Tourism Industry.</p>
<h4 id="6Xv7qr">In Closing</h4>
<p id="7NFREa">I fully accept that a lot of people here will disagree vehemently with my conclusions and decision, while others will agree just as enthusiastically with my conclusions and decision. All of that is fine. </p>
<p id="jPZOYf">My sincere hope is that if Measure C doesn’t pass (and I’m under no illusions that it will), it eventually leads to a deal and vote which will successfully keep the Chargers in San Diego for the long-term, with a minimized amount of public financing. </p>
<p id="iWHn0D">That said, it’s also my opinion that the TOT increase should cover the costs of the project, barring a severe economic downtown and/or long-term stagnation in San Diego’s Tourism Industry.</p>
<p id="HSGONN">So get out and vote. Do as you think is best.</p>
<h5 id="jZH4Pd">*Author’s Note - In the interests of full disclosure, the author of this post is an employee of San Diego Blood Bank. This post should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Measure C by the San Diego Blood Bank.</h5>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/11/8/13558012/why-i-m-voting-yes-on-cJeffrey Siniard2016-11-01T07:00:03-07:002016-11-01T07:00:03-07:00Before You Vote Yes on C
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/n7ZkLZTzL4dt9gKB5IyFyQmN5Fo=/128x0:1073x630/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51620443/stadium.0.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>A rendering of the proposed downtown stadium and convention center. | <a href="http://www.manicaarchitecture.com/projects/stadia/50-san-diego-stadium-convention-center">MANICA Architecture</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These are the second guesses and negative thoughts I’ve been tossing around in my mind regarding Measure C. Let’s discuss them.</p> <p id="bUl4Fp">When this article posts, there will be 1 week left until Election Day (thank f***ing goodness).</p>
<p id="BqvDze">If you’ve already decided to vote yes on Measure C, that’s fine. But it doesn’t mean you get to wash your hands of the available information, and some of the arguments in opposition.</p>
<p id="m9oR2y">Accordingly, it’s my intention to explore a few ideas I’ve been turning over in my mind which would indicate that voting no on Measure C is the better option.</p>
<p id="C2Nr9J">Interestingly enough, even the No on C Campaign doesn’t seem to bother trying to make these points, or at least they’re de-emphasized making these points in favor of <a href="https://twitter.com/aprilbolingsd/status/783163510771462144">trite swipes at Dean Spanos</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/nodtstadium/status/786624764383068160">complaints about the views</a> looking down the streets in East Village. Most of those arguments are a waste of everyone’s time.</p>
<p id="7Fx7bj">Here are 5 arguments against Measure C which even ardent supporters should be tossing around in their heads before Election Day.</p>
<h4 id="OdThB5">Measure C will not provide a significant return on investment. </h4>
<p id="PCxEcF">Economic studies on this point are a consensus. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs">Sports facilities are likely to be poor public investments</a>. You can read <a href="http://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/chargers/stadium/sdut-nfl-stadium-bubble-concussion-2016jan03-story.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.fieldofschemes.com/">here</a>, and you’ll see there’s very little difference in these opinions.</p>
<p id="T8mlpU">It is with this inescapable fact in mind that the Chargers attempted to join their stadium with an off-site Convention Center expansion. The idea clearly being that a stadium becomes a less terrible public investment if joined with something which definitely provides some return on investment (such as a Convention Center). This isn’t a new trick - for example, the Bureau of Reclamation was once known for a concept called <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=frvKDY0rpToC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=river+basin+accounting&source=bl&ots=Klci55hgMe&sig=e8yih0jCvljJ9jy7tu8e77LoDRE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU-pS20oXQAhXKhlQKHRWFCC4Q6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=river%20basin%20accounting&f=false">River-Basin Accounting</a> which did essentially the same thing with dams, aqueducts, and hydroelectric power-plants.</p>
<p id="Vm4pLI">With that in mind, let’s look at the <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/signforsd/pages/63/attachments/original/1473800145/Chapter_1_-_Demand_and_Impact_8-23-16_rhmm-2v5.pdf?1473800145">study</a> performed by Hunden Strategic Partners for the Chargers, which analyzed the potential impact of the stadium+convention center. I’m not arguing their study was more accurate than the <a href="http://sdhma.com/wp-content/uploads/HVS-Commentary-on-Proposed-Joint-Development-of-a-Stadium-9-22-16.pdf">study</a> performed by HVS, but since it’s the more optimistic scenario of the two, let’s use it as a best-case scenario.</p>
<p id="UO1zO2">Essentially, their study found that the facility would generate an additional $375 million in additional hotel tax revenues over 30 years.</p>
<p id="kIxqU3">Let’s balance that $375 million in new revenues against the following costs to be carried by the TOT: $1.1 billion cost, approximately another $1 billion in bond interest, and then another $1 billion in money slated for maintenance and upgrades.</p>
<p id="8XFzfv">This means even in the best case scenario, taxpayers (approximately) only get $1 back for every $8 invested.</p>
<h4 id="Yto8KL">The Padres are likely to be adversely affected.</h4>
<p id="IXDusd"><a href="https://gwynntelligence.com/">Gwynntelligence</a> has written about this concern a few different times, <a href="https://gwynntelligence.com/2016/10/05/spanos-gives-faulconer-event-revenue-concession-still-may-screw-padres/">recently here</a>. You should read the piece in it’s entirety, but it boils down to this: If the Padres lose Tailgate Park and the revenues which go with it, it has more of a pronounced negative impact on the Padres than it would for teams in other professional sports.</p>
<p id="R1HmST">The reason is because other sports leagues have a salary cap. In particular, the NFL has a hard cap. MLB, on the other hand, has a luxury tax which does very little to discourage large market teams (such as the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, etc.) from spending big money on payroll. </p>
<p id="T9LGPL">Thus, if the Padres want to compete for at least some quality players and retain some of their own top-shelf talent, they need to maximize every possible revenue stream available. Losing the revenues associated with Tailgate Park undoubtedly hurts the Padres revenue streams. As would losing concerts, events associated with Comic-Con, etc.</p>
<h4 id="Z5QcRQ">The opportunity for a new (or relocated) NFL franchise with better management.</h4>
<p id="ZUP3Ha">For arguments’ sake, let’s assume the Chargers are 100% moving to Los Angeles in 2017 if Measure C fails, as has been <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/chargers-view-a-move-to-los-angeles-in-2017-as-increasingly-inevitable/">reported by Jason La Canfora of CBS Sports</a>. Here’s where an interesting (if high-risk) opportunity presents itself to San Diego sports fans (h/t to @ChangeThePadres for <a href="https://twitter.com/changethepadres/status/791414174169563136">sparking this idea for me on Twitter</a>).</p>
<p id="86tNT9">If the Chargers leave, San Diego becomes the most recent city to lose an NFL franchise. In the Super Bowl era, here are the cities which lost NFL teams, and how long it took to get an NFL expansion team or relocating NFL team:</p>
<ul>
<li id="mVBRg2">Oakland. Raiders leave in 1982, Raiders return in 1995. 13 years.</li>
<li id="A8M1mF">Baltimore. Colts leave in 1984, Ravens arrive in 1996. 12 years.</li>
<li id="ldTuGk">St. Louis. Cardinals leave in 1988, Rams arrive in 1995. 7 years.</li>
<li id="Kp5vPH">Los Angeles. Rams and Raiders leave in 1995, Rams return in 2016. 21 years.</li>
<li id="0seSVB">Cleveland. Browns leave in 1996, new Browns arrive in 1999. 3 years.</li>
<li id="VIgDkf">Houston. Oilers leave in 1997, Texans arrive in 2002. 5 years.</li>
<li id="ytevhf">St. Louis. Rams leave in 2016...</li>
</ul>
<p id="ubOL0c">Not counting St. Louis’ second entry on this list, here’s the average amount of time from when a city loses a franchise until they get a new franchise: 10.16 years.</p>
<p id="0ziRY6">As painful as it would be in the short-term, there’s some merit in considering this as an opportunity. San Diego loses the Chargers, but also loses the Spanos family’s franchise management practices. Over 32+ seasons, the Spanos family has put an overall mediocre product on the field, with a record of 247-272 and no championships.</p>
<p id="2nYLar">Who is to say that San Diego couldn’t hit the sports fan lottery within the next 5-10 years by finding a prospective owner willing to... negotiate a stadium plan with more private financing, spend more money on training staff and assistant coaches, put a consistently competitive product on the field, employ analytics with regards to draft picks, free agency & game management, embrace the fanbase and local media instead of keeping them at arm’s length. </p>
<p id="EhIJd5">On the other hand, you could get the Lerners, followed by Jimmy Haslam. </p>
<p id="kMuGMs">Maybe worse (or better, depending on your perspective), you might not get another franchise at all. </p>
<p id="jOkde8">Like I said, high risk, potentially high reward.</p>
<h4 id="HNJxY5">The danger of an enormous investment in a potentially declining business.</h4>
<p id="IJvwoC">Craig Elsten, in this <a href="http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/casual-friday-the-nfl-is-disgusting/">edition</a> of the Generally Speaking podcast, made a very interesting point as it regards public money for stadiums (starts at 26:00):</p>
<blockquote>
<p id="CZ2l61">“The NFL is on a downward plane, guys. My number one argument against building a giant stadium downtown... is that you are buying into the wrong side of the curve on the National Football League. That you are buying into a league in decline.”</p>
<p id="umWoOF">-Craig Elsten, 10/21/2016</p>
</blockquote>
<p id="rdNd1p">This reminded me of a post I wrote about 1 year ago about <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/12/9/9868984/the-stadium-crisis-on-the-nfls-horizon">escalating stadium costs </a>and the Los Angeles Relocation Derby representing the high-water mark of the NFL’s power and influence. The post also questioned whether future stadium battles and player safety problems could be the main problems which eventually marginalize or ruin the NFL.</p>
<p id="FsCAeI">We’ve got stories this year regarding <a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/sports/football/tv-viewership-falls-in-nfl-and-epl-a-blip-or-something-worse.html">declining ratings for the NFL</a>. We’ve got repeated instances of a new stadium drawing a lot of <a href="http://abc7news.com/sports/concern-grows-over-half-empty-stadium-during-49ers-game/1571690/">empty seats</a> and potential <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/Santa-Clara-threatening-to-take-over-levis-49ers-10423524.php">disputes with their local municipality</a>. There’s the ongoing dramas related to the NFL’s handling of scandals both <a href="http://Deflategate%20-%20Wikipedia">on-the-field</a> and <a href="http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17884851/kicker-josh-brown-released-new-york-giants-abuse-admission">off-the-field</a>.</p>
<p id="ofjEDq">Does this seem like the right time to tie up San Diego’s convention industry with the NFL, especially when there are<a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-spanos-stadium-20160929-story.html"> signals</a> the team might be <a href="http://www.profootballweekly.com/2016/10/25/the-way-we-hear-it-chargers-could-still-remain-in-san-diego-without-approval-of-downtown-stadium/avmtfyr/">willing to consider</a> a less expensive (and risky for the public) option?</p>
<h4 id="DRPIed">The opportunity cost of approving this particular tax hike.</h4>
<p id="GMPMFd">Whether it’s via a tax increase, selling off city land, or issuing bonds backed by the General Fund, any public resource used for construction and maintenance of a sports facility is money which cannot be used for something else.</p>
<p id="rmDkzN">In this particular case, the opportunity cost for Measure C is that the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is off-limits for any increases during the expected life of this project (i.e. 30-40 years). In the case of the TOT, this opportunity cost has to be weighed against the realistic possibility of a) another potential use for the money and b) the likelihood of the tax increase being approved.</p>
<p id="aHAg2t">So, if you want to simply add money to the General Fund, the opportunity cost is high because a general increase requires only a 50%+1 majority. However, a general tax increase provides no guarantees on how the money will be spent, or whether it’s spent efficiently or effectively.</p>
<p id="6QFktR">Now, let’s suppose we want to raise the TOT for a specific purpose, such as San Diego infrastructure improvements. The opportunity cost is lower because the increase for a specific purpose requires a 2/3rds majority.</p>
<p id="Hs4uMo">So while it’s true there is an opportunity cost, you have to weigh the lost opportunity against the actual chances such an opportunity could be realized. Considering there haven’t been any proposals to raise the TOT until this year, I find the opportunity cost to be relatively low.</p>
<h4 id="TTNkpg">In Conclusion</h4>
<p id="AGaVnm">No matter how badly you want the Chargers to stay in San Diego, even the most ardent fan should take the time to consider some of these very important issues.</p>
<p id="ykZuJz">This is a big decision with the potential for big changes to San Diego. Everyone with the opportunity to vote for or against Measure C owes it to themselves and their fellow citizens to consider all the angles.</p>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/11/1/13317814/before-you-vote-yes-on-cJeffrey Siniard2016-10-20T12:33:55-07:002016-10-20T12:33:55-07:00About Any Given Wednesday’s Measure C Piece
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/errh1mGFEp-XuyvikJhZ9Nj-lWA=/128x0:1073x630/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51441089/stadium.0.0.jpg" />
<figcaption><a href="http://www.manicaarchitecture.com/projects/stadia/50-san-diego-stadium-convention-center">MANICA Architecture</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>HBO’s Bill Simmons let loose with a tirade urging San Diegans to vote against Measure C. Should we care?</p> <p id="LKSgD1">Before continuing forward, everyone should <a href="https://twitter.com/AnyGivenWeds/status/789170755342782464">watch the piece</a>.</p>
<p id="7THrff">All Done?</p>
<p id="H3yy3g">Ok, here we go.</p>
<p id="GIxATX">No, we shouldn’t care at all what a Massachusetts sports fanatic transplant to Los Angeles thinks about Measure C. Do your own research, reach your own conclusions.</p>
<p id="jlkpog">While I find the piece mildly amusing, I also found it more than a little self-serving and irritating. </p>
<p id="3uHxk6">Bill Simmons has the general thrust right - in a perfect world, owners would pay for their own stadiums. But let’s look at five reasons why Simmons is not the right person to drive this train, especially as it regards San Diego.</p>
<h4 id="xethvs">Reason Number One: We Can’t All Have Robert Kraft Own Our Franchise</h4>
<p id="K7xMVr">In my opinion, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kraft">Robert Kraft is the best owner in the NFL</a>. Kraft is widely regarded for preventing prior Patriots owners (including Victor Kiam and James Orthwein) from relocating the franchise to Jacksonville or St. Louis. Since purchasing the franchise in the mid-1990s, the Patriots have participated in 7 Super Bowls, winning 4, and featuring arguably the best Head Coach and QB of the Super Bowl era. And yes, in 2000 (after a public subsidy deal with Connecticut fell through), Kraft largely privately financed Gillette Stadium.</p>
<p id="w61Tr7">Look, a lot of us wish the Spanos family would sell the Chargers to a new ownership group, which was both wealthy enough to privately finance a stadium in San Diego while simultaneously maintaining a contending franchise for 20+ years. If Simmons (or anyone else, for that matter) can find such an ownership group, force the Spanos family to sell to that ownership group, and guarantee all this wonderfulness stays in San Diego, I’d rather he spent his time and energy doing just that.</p>
<p id="j6JIaT">In the meantime, there’s a unicorn hunt this weekend and I don’t want to miss it.</p>
<h4 id="SKw3JM">Reason Number Two: Stadiums Can’t Be Built Cheaply Anymore</h4>
<p id="5kT9nU">Gillette Stadium was completed at the cost of<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-your-tax-dollars-paid-for-the-super-bowl-2015-01-29"> $412 million (no more than $72 million covered by the public) in 2002</a>. In today’s money, that translates to about $553 million. As we’ve seen in stadium discussions over the past year, the cost of stadiums has almost doubled even when allowing for inflation - US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, which opened this year, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bank_Stadium">has a cost of about $1.06 billion, of which $498 million is coming from city and state sources</a>. None this accounts for changes in the cost of construction equipment and resources, both of which have increased cost at a rate greater than inflation.</p>
<p id="kNgqCa">It’s easy for me (or anyone else) to say that if the Spanos family can only afford $650 million, then that’s what they should build. Unfortunately for everyone involved, that’s not the way the current stadium market works - see the <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/10/17/13307934/raiders-secure-funding-for-a-stadium-in-las-vegas">Raiders recent stadium news</a> as a reference. I wish it were. But like I said a moment ago... there’s a unicorn hunt this weekend and I don’t want to miss it.</p>
<p id="Ya1hq2">Lastly to this point, regardless of how much I favor or disfavor Measure C, Qualcomm Stadium is 50 years old and needs to be replaced.</p>
<h4 id="SaDPgx">Reason Number Three: Los Angeles is Anomalous</h4>
<p id="Yz0TQD">Simmons’ transplanted home, Los Angeles, is one of only two markets in the United States (New York being the other) which currently allows professional sports owners to privately finance stadium construction at current market requirements. Therefore, <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/12/9/9868984/the-stadium-crisis-on-the-nfls-horizon">the financing methods available to a team in Los Angeles simply are not available in San Diego</a>, both due to market size and lack of corporate presence.</p>
<h4 id="vtIchA">Reason Number Four: Who Gives a Shit About Nick Cannon?</h4>
<p id="BQrgp9">I found it amusing that Simmons searched for a celebrity which could articulate his predetermined talking point, and which hailed from San Diego to give it a patina of legitimacy. So, did he choose someone like Bill Walton, Phil Mickelson, or any other current or former Chargers (or Padres)? Nope, he chose skating legend, Tony Hawk.</p>
<p id="k0wCAu">I have nothing against Hawk. He’s a true legend and from everything I’ve seen, represents San Diego with class and dignity. However, Hawk is a curious choice to represent San Diego sports interests, considering the only thing he needs to pursue his passion is a quality skateboard and safety gear.</p>
<p id="ZtPBQE">Furthermore, the idea that San Diego is just fine without the Chargers reeks of “Arrogant East Coast Big City Sports Fan” telling the West Coasters simultaneously that they aren’t real fans (because who cares if the Chargers leave, amirite?), and even if they do leave, the beach is free, and we still have Nick Cannon. Actually, the beach isn’t free (taxes on the local, state and federal level help maintain them), and anyone who tells another sports fan that they’ll get over their team leaving just by watching America’s Got Talent deserves every fist they get in return.</p>
<h4 id="ILFKO8">Reason Number Five: Get off the Bandwagon</h4>
<p id="TGDG2p"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs">John Oliver did it funnier, better, and smarter</a> on the same network, and he did it without singling out San Diego voters. <a href="http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/8/12/12458874/podcast-lt-gates-are-hypocrites-for-the-chargers">Craig Elsten did it with much more passion and concern for the fans and voters of San Diego in this podcast</a>.</p>
<h4 id="0V1yZk">In Closing</h4>
<p id="Xt06tN">To be completely honest, this video felt like a Boston-transplanted to-Los Angeles sports fan telling San Diego fans that they should take a stand for the real sports fans against greedy team owners because they aren’t real sports fans and won’t be hurt so bad if the team leaves.</p>
<p id="vU9b9b">As I’ve said repeatedly, I have no issue with people who oppose Measure C based on the idea public money spent on sports facilities is poor policy.</p>
<p id="zATFqM">If you want the Chargers to stay in San Diego, but want a different stadium plan/deal and are possibly willing to gamble on Spanos exercising his Los Angeles option following this season, that’s fine as well.</p>
<p id="USelQl">If you think Measure C solves the stadium/convention center issue in one fell swoop, or simply want the Chargers to stay no matter what, then vote Yes.</p>
<p id="1bJYEV">There are meaningful and worthwhile discussions still to be had about Measure C. But don’t vote against Measure C because a transplanted Boston fanatic with no dog in this hunt (except his own bloated ego) told you to.</p>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/10/20/13347778/about-any-given-wednesday-bill-simmons-measure-c-pieceJeffrey Siniard2016-10-17T14:48:07-07:002016-10-17T14:48:07-07:00Raiders Secure Funding for a Stadium in Las Vegas
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5m7mmIILI3nURfgp5o18x6_Gre8=/598x0:1996x932/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51390673/Screen_20Shot_202016-10-17_20at_2012.25.19_20PM.0.png" />
<figcaption>A rendering of the Raiders proposed stadium in Las Vegas | MANICA Architecture</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The rumors and speculation were all confirmed today, when Nevada formally approved $750 million in public money for a new Raiders stadium in Las Vegas</p> <p id="GlFHKR">The Raiders leaving Oakland for Las Vegas has become much more likely over the last week. </p>
<p id="nEANMm">Last week, both houses of the Nevada State Legislature <a href="http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nfl-vegas/oakland-raiders-owner-mark-davis-praises-historic-day-nevada">voted to approve a tourism tax increase</a> which would put $750 million in public money towards a<a href="http://www.manicaarchitecture.com/projects/stadia/52-las-vegas-nfl-stadium"> proposed $1.8 billion stadium in Las Vegas</a>.</p>
<p id="ClY65x">Earlier today, <a href="http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/stadium/gov-brian-sandoval-signs-football-stadium-bill-video">Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed the bill into law</a>.</p>
<p id="ElbGFF">There are few things NFL Ownership likes more than getting a significant public subsidy, and there’s simply no understating the value of an approved $750 million subsidy backed by taxes generated from hotels along The Strip.</p>
<h4 id="8abFSI">What Happens Next?</h4>
<p id="SolxOc">The question for the Raiders now is whether they have 24 votes from NFL Owners to approve their relocation from Oakland to Las Vegas.</p>
<p id="LDR3Oq">Here’s what Raiders’ Owner <a href="http://www.csnbayarea.com/video/raiders-owner-mark-davis-i-made-commitment-governor-nevada">Mark Davis had to say</a>, regarding whether he could be swayed to pursue an alternative in Oakland (or anywhere else):</p>
<blockquote>
<p id="q65uel">I’ve already made a commitment to the Governor of Nevada, the State of Nevada, and the City of Las Vegas.</p>
<p id="irFep4"><em>- Raiders Owner Mark Davis</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p id="Hg0rjW">There’s also the matter of a relocation fee, although it shouldn’t be anywhere near the <a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000613870/article/los-angeles-relocation-fee-to-be-550-million-per-team">reported $550 million needed for Los Angeles</a>.</p>
<p id="ad9Af0">Jason Cole of Bleacher Report reported concerns regarding the nature of the private financing in the deal - specifically the <a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2668914-insider-buzz-raiders-could-take-big-step-towards-vegas-with-stadium-funding?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=web-des-art-top-16">revenue sharing between the Raiders and partner Sheldon Adelson</a>. Cole and Jason La Canfora of CBS Sports also reported some <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-why-a-raiders-move-to-vegas-is-still-no-sure-thing-after-stadium-vote/">NFL owners might try to take advantage of the deal</a> to <a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2669606-insider-buzz-raiders-vegas-move-could-give-nfl-leverage-to-force-out-mark-davis?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=web-des-art-top-157">force Raiders’ Owner Mark Davis out</a> of his controlling interest in the team.</p>
<p id="K1MFPN">Vincent Bonsignore of the LA Daily News has reported he believes the <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyNewsVinny/status/787735419693641728">Raiders will get the required 24 votes for relocation</a>. I imagine there are at least 5 Yes votes already in place from the 49ers, the Rams, and the Chargers, as well as the Cowboys and Texans - who don’t want to see the <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2016/07/20/nfl-expert-san-antonio-better-economic-gamble-for.html">Raiders pursue San Antonio</a> as a future option.</p>
<p id="S45jX7">Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Ed Graney (formerly of the San Diego Union-Tribune) had these things to say in an <a href="http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/ed-graney-on-viability-of-raiders-to-la-power-struggle-between-goodell-jerry-jones/">interview with Mighty 1090’s Kevin Acee today</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p id="eej1FL">He (Davis) got the largest public funding in the history of stadiums... Every casino will have a suite there, every player will have tickets.</p>
<p id="ounAlv"><em>-Ed Graney of the Las Vegas Review-Journal</em></p>
</blockquote>
<h4 id="fhSjUG">So How Does This Affect the Chargers?</h4>
<p id="yY7PB0">Any realistic chance of the Chargers staying in San Diego beyond 2016 rested on the Raiders closing this deal with Las Vegas. </p>
<p id="dYYfpO">If you recall, when the Stan Kroenke and the Rams won the great NFL relocation derby, <a href="http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/14558668/st-louis-rams-relocate-los-angeles">both the Chargers and Raiders were granted options</a> to potentially become the 2nd team in Los Angeles. The Chargers were given the 1st option, which would need to be exercised by the end of January 2017. If the Chargers chose not to exercise the option (for whatever reason), the option would then revert to the Raiders until January 2018.</p>
<p id="hhFes2">The Chargers option could be extended by one year, in the event of any legal challenges to an approved stadium deal in San Diego.</p>
<p id="AbZ93t">Now, time for some WILD! AUTHOR! SPECULATION!</p>
<p id="uUql4A">Assuming the Raiders deal in Las Vegas is approved by NFL Ownership next winter, the Chargers get at least one break, in that they are no longer in a position where they have to use their option or lose it. </p>
<p id="MpfypX">Theoretically, if <a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/dan-mcswain/sd-fi-mcswain-chargers-nfl-stadium-measures-20161006-htmlstory.html">either Measure C or Measure D</a> get at least 50% at the ballot box in November, the option could be extended pending the outcome of the <a href="http://norcalrecord.com/stories/510963300-supreme-court-to-review-exemption-of-vote-on-california-cannabis-coalition-initiative">California State Supreme Court’s ruling in CCC vs. Upland</a> - the ruling which would determine if a tax increase proposed by Citizen’s Initiative is subject to the 2/3rds affirmative vote requirements outlined by state law.</p>
<p id="fYnsLd">Either way, it shifts the strategy to working out a deal which could be put before the public in November 2018, the next available General Election. The Chargers would still have a favorable lease at Qualcomm Stadium, their lease exit fee would be reduced even lower, and they would avoid being the 3rd team at the Los Angeles Coliseum.</p>
<p id="U88qYv">Simply put, (and assuming the Chargers haven’t run a scam campaign to simply show San Diego they tried before moving to Los Angeles) there now exists the possibility and (more crucially) time, for the Chargers and San Diego to try and work out a new stadium deal which most everyone feels comfortable with.</p>
<p id="gSM4ch">I imagine the Chargers’ option to join the Rams in Inglewood would have to be modified by NFL Ownership, especially as it pertains to certain revenue streams the Rams would like to start accessing (such as naming rights for the Inglewood stadium), but <a href="http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/14752649/the-real-story-nfl-owners-battle-bring-football-back-los-angeles">given the Chargers’ documented reluctance to join the Rams in Los Angeles, and the Rams perceived reluctance to share Los Angeles with anyone</a>, it seems a deal could be reached relatively easily.</p>
<h4 id="WNsrNT">In Closing</h4>
<p id="7qka89">The Raiders closing the financing deal with Nevada is a crucial milestone for their attempts to relocate to Las Vegas, as it means the NFL would have to walk away from a public subsidy of $750 million to prevent a move.</p>
<p id="6RRzsn">For our purposes in San Diego, and assuming the Raiders’ relocation is approved, it gives the Chargers another opportunity to try and work things out in San Diego if Measure C and Measure D fail to get the necessary votes to pass in November.</p>
<p id="06J6cE">Like always, just when you think you know how this plays out...</p>
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2016/10/17/13307934/raiders-secure-funding-for-a-stadium-in-las-vegasJeffrey Siniard