[Elvis]

From Danial Kaplan:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1so5l6u

Highlights from Chargers relocation proposal :

Walt Disney CEO and Chairman Bob Iger has already begun assembling a branding and marketing team to sell a new shared football stadium in Carson, Calif., the executive summary of the San Diego Chargers relocation proposal said.

The stadium would be shared with the Oakland Raiders. Iger would run the shared stadium if it is approved by owners.

The four page document stresses that the Chargers have tried unsuccessfully since 2003 to secure a new stadium in San Diego, and that when the St. Louis Rams 12 months ago unveiled a proposed stadium in LA, it forced the Chargers hand because a team in LA would eat into their market.

The document, while not expressly naming the Rams appears to try to draw contrasts: the Chargers played by the relocation rules; the Chargers business would significantly suffer with a team in LA; the Chargers lease prevents litigation from San Diego if they relocate. The undercurrent is that is not the same for the competition.

It's unclear what the rest of the relocation report says, but reading from the summary, it certainly would appear not to have the tone of the Rams relocation proposal, which bashed St. Louis, its economy and fans.

NFL owners meet Tuesday and Wednesday to possibly approve a relocation or one or two teams to LA.

[Stranger]

four page document

4 pages?

when the St. Louis Rams 12 months ago unveiled a proposed stadium in LA, it forced the Chargers hand because a team in LA would eat into their market

sorry, but I don't understand this logic

[Elvis]

[bluecoconuts]

four page document

4 pages?

when the St. Louis Rams 12 months ago unveiled a proposed stadium in LA, it forced the Chargers hand because a team in LA would eat into their market

sorry, but I don't understand this logic

They probably feel they don't need much more than 4 pages, because Spanos knows that he has a lot of support from his buddies, so the case doesn't need to be made.

[SoCalRam78]

No surprise, basically this Carson plan is a total sham. Someone should send this to Vinny B and Bernie and tell them to shove it. There's literally nothing here. Why? They can't even design a stadium until the land is prepped. What's to reveal? Oh yeah, Bob Iger and more Spanos whining about San Diego. Anyone who speaks of the Carson site being approved should be mocked and laughed at.

Literally the plan comes down to hoping the NFL risks a potential multi billion dollar deal on a wing and a prayer.

Garbage is all it is. It's comical how this piece of crap was taken seriously.

[Elvis]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... san-diego/

Chargers tell NFL they did ‘everything’ to get S.D. stadium

Team’s relocation application adheres to consistent talking points.

Kevin Acee

The Chargers’ relocation application submitted to the NFL this week declares the team has “demonstrated a firm commitment to San Diego” and has “done everything any reasonable team could ever do to find a permanent stadium solution in San Diego.”

The opening paragraph of the team’s argument to move to Los Angeles concludes: “Now, unfortunately, all alternatives in the Chargers’ home market have been exhausted by the franchise.”

The team quickly walked away from negotiations over a plan advocated by Mayor Kevin Faulconer that calls for $350 million in city and county funds as part of a proposal to build a $1.1 billion stadium on the current Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley.

Document: http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/news/d ... cation.pdf

The Chargers broke off talks in June after only a few discussions with the city’s stadium negotiators.

A four-page executive summary of the team’s application was obtained Friday by the Union-Tribune.

The Chargers, St. Louis Rams and Oakland Raiders on Monday filed for relocation to Los Angeles. The three teams subsequently made presentations to about half the team’s owners in committee meetings Wednesday in New York.

The entire ownership will meet Tuesday and Wednesday in Houston with the intention of voting on which team or teams will be allowed to move to Los Angeles.

The Chargers and Raiders have proposed sharing a new stadium in Carson while the Rams are pursuing one in Inglewood. The owners will choose between the two sites and approve one or two teams for relocation.

League sources said earlier this week that none of the three applications contained significant new information which the NFL had not already heard.

Certainly, the summary of the Chargers’ proposal was along the lines of the team’s well-known talking points.

The entire relocation application was not made available, but the document’s first four pages outline the Chargers’ reasons for desiring to leave and state the positives of the team’s proposed Carson stadium.

The summary lists what the team terms its San Diego stadium “proposals” — from a privately financed stadium in Mission Valley in 2004 to explorations of stadium sites in Chula Vista, National City, Escondido and Oceanside and a 2013 downtown stadium proposal. Most of these ideas didn’t get far beyond the discussion stage and lacked financing plans.

The team estimates it has spent more than $20 million “examining all possible stadium options in the San Diego region.”

The team states its case against an aging Qualcomm Stadium, referring to $200 million in required deferred maintenance and saying the “financially strapped City” has not been able to make repairs to the building.

The city suffered through the recession like many others and before that was hamstrung by a huge pension deficit, but its finances improved and its recent budgets have shown surpluses.

The Chargers mention their efforts over the years to build a fan base north of San Diego County.

“Now, 25 percent of the Team’s season ticket members live in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and the Inland Empire,” the executive summary says. However, the Chargers have never publicly released data to back up that claim.

The teams states that “all available evidence demonstrates that there will not be sufficient support for a significant taxpayer subsidy for a stadium project in San Diego.”

It further says “a two-thirds vote for any stadium-dedicated tax increase is an enormous barrier to ever securing public funding for a new stadium.” The plan backed by Faulconer does not include a tax increase and would require appraval by only a simple majority of voters.

That plan includes $350 million in public money — $200 million from the city and $150 million from the county. The remainder is $200 million from the league, $362.5 million from the Chargers and $187.5 million from seat licenses.

However, the plan requires a public vote, which wouldn’t take place until the June California primary at the earliest.

The application states the Chargers would have to borrow “in excess of $1.2 billion to privately finance” a new stadium and doing so in the San Diego market would “jeopardize the competitive future” of the team.

“In short,” the summary says, “the Chargers’ application for relocation is justified because the franchise’s future financial viability is threatened by circumstances that cannot be changed: The overwhelming opposition of San Diego voters to a significant public stadium subsidy and the likely loss of the greater Los Angeles marketplace to another team.”

At least in the executive summary, there was none of the vitriol directed at San Diego officials that has characterized the Chargers’ dealings with the city and county over the past several months.

“Regrettably, and despite good faith negotiations by both the Chargers and the City of San Diego as well as League office staff throughout 2005, the Team and the City were never able to agree on a viable path forward,” the document says.

The application summary states the Chargers’ version of recent history — their having told the city of their desire to be downtown, their recommendation against the appointment of a task force, the team’s belief San Diego’s environmental report is flawed and the risk of waiting for a 2016 ballot measure.

The summary concludes by noting the team has throughout its 14-year stadium saga “played strictly by the rules set forth by the NFL.” The Chargers noted that under terms of their lease, renegotiated in 2004, the city agreed to not take legal action to block the Chargers’ relocation or seek “injunctive relief” against the team or NFL.

[Elvis]

Link to Document: http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/news/d ... cation.pdf

[OldSchool]

Amazing how he states borrowing $1.2 billion would put to heavy of a burden on the Chargers and their future but he's going to be borrowing more than that for Carson.

[The Ripper]

four page document

4 pages?

when the St. Louis Rams 12 months ago unveiled a proposed stadium in LA, it forced the Chargers hand because a team in LA would eat into their market

sorry, but I don't understand this logic

They probably feel they don't need much more than 4 pages, because Spanos knows that he has a lot of support from his buddies, so the case doesn't need to be made.

That goes to the reason why the NFL will lose in court. The vote is a popularity contest and not a business decision based on merits of the relocation proposal.

[Elvis]

According to Jason LaConfora, NFL wants petitioners to agree not to sue, at least to some extent: