[RedAlice]

As to the end result. I want the Chargers to stay in San Diego because all my friends love them.

But, as a Rams fan. I'd rather have the Chargers in LA than the Raiders.

So. Odd pickle.

[RedAlice]

As to the end result. I want the Chargers to stay in San Diego because all my friends love them.

But, as a Rams fan. I'd rather have the Chargers in LA than the Raiders.

So. Odd pickle.

I want neither in LA. lol

Ha! Well, obviously.

That is our WISH.

[Elvis]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... financing/

Chargers unveil NFL stadium financing plan

Tax hike would support bonds, tourism and general fund

By Dan McSwain and Lori Weisberg | 9:46 p.m. March 29, 2016


Chargers owner Dean Spanos looks on before a game against the Broncos. — K.C. Alfred

A hotel-tax hike the Chargers want to pitch to voters in November would finance a $1.8 billion stadium and convention center downtown, with money left over for operations, tourism marketing and San Diego’s general fund, said advisers to the team in a briefing for reporters late Tuesday.

As reported last week, the team’s plan would raise the city’s tax on hotel stays to 16.5 percent from 12.5 percent. Some hotel owners worry that the higher rate could deter visitors, while others note comparable taxes in competing cities such as Anaheim and San Francisco.

Document Chargers Initiative Download .PDF: http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/news/d ... -30-16.pdf

In San Diego, the proposed tax hike would support $1.15 billion in publicly issued bonds, with $350 million for the city’s contribution to building a football stadium near Petco Park, $600 million for an adjoining convention center, and $200 million to buy land. No money is planned to upgrade nearby roads.

The remaining funding — $650 million — would come from the Chargers and National Football League. The team would contribute $350 million, presumably raising some of that money by selling “seat licenses” to fans and stadium naming rights. The NFL would kick in $300 million, made up of a $200 million loan and $100 million grant.

The Chargers released the full text of their proposed ballot initiative Wednesday morning, which will be followed by publication in Thursday’s print editions of The San Diego Union-Tribune as a legal notice. The publication triggers a 21-day waiting period, after which the team can begin gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot.

Less clear is what percentage of the electorate would be required for passage.

On March 18, a state appellate court ruled that a citizens initiative to tax marijuana dispensaries in Upland needed approval by a simple majority (50 percent plus one vote), potentially lowering the two-thirds requirement that has doomed many similar initiatives over the years in California.

However, the team is proceeding on the assumption that the old rules will apply. “We’re operating as if it’s two-thirds,” Fred Maas, a development consultant to the Chargers, said Tuesday.

Chargers stadium: Complete coverage

Winning approval at either threshold will be difficult without political support from a variety of San Diego’s key opinion makers, Chargers advisers have freely acknowledged. Major potential opponents and supporters, including Mayor Kevin Faulconer, have declined to comment until the team released the final initiative.

After a vote last week, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Board said it was open to the Chargers’ concept of a combined downtown stadium and convention center, but it wanted a closer look at the details. City Councilman David Alvarez expressed skepticism, saying the plan as outlined “will not put the public first.”

Chargers advisers described the financing plan as conservative, with “shock absorbers” designed to assure bond investors of repayment during economic downturns, as well as provide $25 million a year (in 2017 dollars) to operate and maintain the complex, plus $4 million for a capital fund for future upgrades or major repairs. The team would contribute $15 million for stadium operations and maintenance.

The initiative also proposes to generate revenue for tourism marketing, replacing a 2 percent surcharge on room rates that is being challenged in court as an illegal tax hike because it was approved by hoteliers and not the general public.

A city-controlled tourism marketing fund would get the first 1 percent of the tax on room rates. The second 1 percent would be available only after a reserve for “debt coverage” was established.

Team advisers said the risk of shortfall is low for the hotel industry’s tourism fund, because the tax money would start to flow on Jan. 1, 2017, and build up quickly in the years before construction started.

[Hacksaw]

As to the end result. I want the Chargers to stay in San Diego because all my friends love them.

But, as a Rams fan. I'd rather have the Chargers in LA than the Raiders.

So. Odd pickle.

Think Las Vegas Raiders. I'm getting a better feeling about San Diego's chances.

Raiders will pay major rent increase to stay at O.co Coliseum

The Oakland Raiders will pay $3.5 million for their one-year lease deal with O.co Coliseum and a training facility in Alameda County, a major increase from the $925,000 the franchise paid last year, according to the Oakland Tribune.

The deal was reached at a meeting between the team and the Oakland-Alameda Coliseum authority on Friday. It still needs to be approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and Oakland City Council.

The deal includes an option for the team to stay two additional seasons.

The increase in rent comes from the coliseum authority passing along costs for things like game day security to the Raiders.

The team is still looking at possible relocation after its bid to move to Los Angeles failed. Among the cities that reportedly have interest in becoming the home of the Raiders, Las Vegas and San Antonio have received the most attention.

Owner Mark Davis met with officials in Las Vegas last week to discuss the possibility of his team relocating to Nevada.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/03/27/oaklan ... o-coliseum

[OldSchool]

Vegas Raiders would be amazingly good for everybody involved.

[The Ripper]

Vegas Raiders would be amazingly good for everybody involved.

It would be the show of all shows on the strip.

[Elvis]

The Raiders in Vegas does sound pretty cool.

The potential downsides are:

Bad for Oakland fans, obviously.

Las Vegas is a much smaller TV market than the bay area, so might be bad for TV deals.

And of course if it impacted NFL betting in Vegas in any negative way, that would be a deal breaker...

[BuiltRamTough]

Vegas Raiders would be amazingly good for everybody involved.

I'm down for that. A team in Las Vegas adds some sizzle.

[The Ripper]

The Raiders in Vegas does sound pretty cool.

The potential downsides are:

Bad for Oakland fans, obviously.

Las Vegas is a much smaller TV market than the bay area, so might be bad for TV deals.

And of course if it impacted NFL betting in Vegas in any negative way, that would be a deal breaker...

Smaller market but more viewers from the numerous tvs in the casinos and the individual rooms. That's definitely an item for discussion during the next round of contracts. People don't watch top tv shows in Vegas but they do watch football.

[OldSchool]

The Raiders in Vegas does sound pretty cool.

The potential downsides are:

Bad for Oakland fans, obviously.

Las Vegas is a much smaller TV market than the bay area, so might be bad for TV deals.

And of course if it impacted NFL betting in Vegas in any negative way, that would be a deal breaker...

Smaller market but more viewers from the numerous tvs in the casinos and the individual rooms. That's definitely an item for discussion during the next round of contracts. People don't watch top tv shows in Vegas but they do watch football.

And until you've actually experienced it you have no idea how many viewers there will be in sports books in the casino's and in sports bars around the city. TV viewership will be just fine in Vegas.