Is done... ok, sounds good. One less bowl and I'm good with it. This is a casualty of the possibility of Qualcomm Stadium going under due to a certain football team moving to LV
Ponsettia (sp) Bowl
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
The standard for a bowl game should be: net benefit to the team/ school > net benefit to money men/ organizers. Stop whoring our schools out for worthless bowls.
Coug95man2, it is actually a little more complicated than that. The chargers, who enjoy what is arguably the least competent ownership in the NFL (the Spanos family), are now moving to Los Angeles, where they are not wanted. They will ultimately be a tenant in Kroenke's stadium, which he is building for his Rams. Because the raiders now cannot move to LA, since the chargers beat them to it, they are planning a move to Las Vegas. The bay area will still have the 49'ers. San Diego, who refused to subsidize a new stadium for the chargers, gets the shaft after years of loyalty to a defective franchise. The Spanos goofs added about 35-40% to the value of their franchise via the market change, thus rewarding decades of inept ownership. And Las Vegas, which makes Phoenix look like a pleasant place to play football through the end of October and does not have the population base to support a team, gets the raiders. This, in a nutshell, is the NFL.
I personally will watch the Super Bowl and that's really the only NFL game I watch, have outdated "feelings" about teams that I haven't kept up on for over a decade and really... that's about it. I haven't kept up with the NFL in any real way since Bledsoe was in the middle of his career. I keep up with WSU players and generally speaking will root for the team they are on. That's it.
I appreciate the explanation, Cr8zycalif, and for others it might be useful. But for me, it just means we have one less bowl that litters the obligatory street of the NCAA. No disrespect Cr8zy...
I appreciate the explanation, Cr8zycalif, and for others it might be useful. But for me, it just means we have one less bowl that litters the obligatory street of the NCAA. No disrespect Cr8zy...
Don't disagree with anything that Cr8zy wrote. There is another aspect to all of this franchise moving. I read an article years ago, in the 70's or 80's, that stated that the Minnesota Vikings would make a profit even if no one attended their games or purchased tickets. Income from television and t-shirts etc. was higher than their team costs. That was before the dramatic expansion of televised athletic events that we have seen in the past couple of decades. Today an NFL franchise just needs a stadium to play in and a place to put the cameras. There has even been some talk about the Raiders playing in Sam Boyd Stadium, about the size of Martin, until a larger stadium is constructed. The voters in San Diego will not fork out for an improved facility then, O.K., we move to somewhere else. Fan loyalty? That's for suckers and chumps. The lack of a supporting fan base is a problem but not a disqualifying one. The heat of Las Vegas during the late summer/early fall months is also a problem but since the majority of the income comes from showing the game to people sitting in front of their boob tubes, that is also not disqualifying.
Is it a done deal that the Chargers are set to play in the L.A. area? Does this not have to be approved in a vote of the owners? From what I have read it appears that the other NFL owners are pissed about this. They have been using L.A.'s capability to host two NFL teams for years as leverage over cities and voters to extract facility upgrades from them. St. Louis called their bluff and the Rams moved. Now with the Chargers moving, that fills up the L.A. openings and the leverage disappears. There are legal ramifications in all this and the Chargers may be able to move even if the others owners object. These two moves are probably a done deal but not without further complications.
Is it a done deal that the Chargers are set to play in the L.A. area? Does this not have to be approved in a vote of the owners? From what I have read it appears that the other NFL owners are pissed about this. They have been using L.A.'s capability to host two NFL teams for years as leverage over cities and voters to extract facility upgrades from them. St. Louis called their bluff and the Rams moved. Now with the Chargers moving, that fills up the L.A. openings and the leverage disappears. There are legal ramifications in all this and the Chargers may be able to move even if the others owners object. These two moves are probably a done deal but not without further complications.
Cr8zy, I have a question for you. Since you are down there, you may know the answer. San Diego State still needs a facility as do the bowl games. Is Qualcomm acceptable in its current state or will it be demolished and another stadium constructed for local teams. A smaller size stadium with an architecture capable of hosting soccer might be ideal. Curious as to what the plans are in the San Diego area going forward.
What is interesting about the Chargers situation is the NFL was going to give him xx dollars to stay in SD for a stadium. Then he decides to move and pay location fees. If you combined to the two amounts it almost equates for what a new stadium would cost in SD. I don't get it...SD is a beautiful city that deserves to keep it's franchise.
Community ownership yo. Green Bay has it right. Toss out a tax here and there to help with facilities perhaps if necessary, but the community bears the costs and reaps the benefits, which seems like the right way to do it since local sports teams give people something to rally around.
I think that Qualcomm will be demolished to build an MLS size stadium. San Diego State and the Holiday Bowl will probably move to Petco Park.
The Rams new stadium will probably host a bowl game down the road. The new stadium in Las Vegas has already said that they want to host football games similar to the type that Jerry Jones' stadium hosts.
Go Cougs!!!
The Rams new stadium will probably host a bowl game down the road. The new stadium in Las Vegas has already said that they want to host football games similar to the type that Jerry Jones' stadium hosts.
Go Cougs!!!
Community ownership works very well in Green Bay but does so without a tax advantage that private ownership has. When one buys a sporting franchise one can then depreciate the players as if they were machine implements or breeding cattle. This lasts for a five year period. Thus if you paid 500 million for a team you now have 100 million a year in tax write-offs. A city would not be able to take advantage of this for an obvious reason, they are the taxer not the tax payer. Many years ago the owners of the L.A. Rams and the Baltimore Colts traded teams after the five year term expired. Presto! Another five years of tax write-offs! (The Mariners seemed to trade owners every five years of their early life for this reason. The team may have been losing money but the tax benefits outweighed that shortfall.) Thus the NFL can derive more money from private ownership than community ones. It is worth more to private citizens than to a public entity.
This was the way it was forty or fifty years ago and I am aware of no change since.
Interestingly when one bought a team, one then declared to the IRS that the franchise value was nil and all 100% of the value was in the current players. Thus enabling one to obtain those valuable depreciation benefits. Simultaneously, the seller was telling the IRS that the players were crap and that the ownership team had turned a worthless franchise into a valuable one. Thus their profit from the sale was subject to capital gains tax basis, not their higher personal ones. One tells the IRS that the players were 100% of the price and the other tells the IRS that the franchise itself is 100% of the value. And the IRS accepts both. Go figure. It must be nice to be rich and have clever lawyers and accountants.
Last edited:
Kayak, California may be right. One possible scenario has Petco becoming the big football venue in town. But that is a little dicey, for a couple of reasons. First, Petco is a baseball park. Not saying it couldn't hold a football game…Angels stadium did it for several years before the Rams left SoCal. Others have done it. But it is a compromise. The second question is whether the city will pony up funds to demolish Qualcomm to build something else. The pro football option has left the train station for the time being, though San Diego would be near the top of the list for the next refugee team. The only way I see a soccer stadium being built is if the city owns it, because the land alone is worth too much to give away to a private developer for a small stadium, without so many restrictive covenants that it wouldn't be worth developing. I don't think Qualcomm is that bad a stadium. There are a lot worse. Memorial Stadium (think of USC/moneybags) makes Qualcomm look like a palace, and if you wanted to dump some money into cosmetics, better women's restrooms and some modern dining options, you could freshen it up quite a bit. Parking is a bigger issue; I suspect that if Qualcomm remains a football stadium for the long term, some sort of parking garage(s) will be needed. With the attendant security required to keep the homeless out. Because San Diego is way behind the curve from a public transit perspective, and more parking is probably a necessity for the long term…unless it is acceptable to do what has been the chargers norm for years, which is poaching residential neighborhood parking and walking a mile.
That is not quite correct. I have been a Charger fan for 38 years and tecynically the Chargers could have moved to LA a year ago and chose to stay another year and get a new stadium deal done in San Diego, which is what the Spanos family preferred. San Diegans have nobody to blame but themselves for being without a NFL team. The last plan that was voted down by the voters would have included zero general funds. the remaining 300 million not covered by the NFL and the Chargers would have come from a hotel tax much like they used at Safeco. I am not sure what they thought was going to happen, but now they are gone. I wouldn't put this on the Spanos family alone. Not saying I am a Spanos fan, but local government officials and the people of San Diego have a large part in this as well.
I have listened to several sportswriters from San Diego and the story you tell is not what they have said. Many, many years ago there was a good deal on the table that the politicians fumbled. But, this last deal was designed by the Chargers to fail because they wanted out.
This was in the Spokesman the other day. All about a group trying to bring an MLS team to SD.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jan/23/investors-want-mls-stadium-on-site-of-chargers-for/
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/86909930/?client=ms-android-verizon
Not to beat a dead horse, but here is a brief explanation. Basically a 4% increase to the hotel tax. I have followed the Chargers attempts to get a new stadium for the last 15 years hoping for them to stay, but definitely cannot blame them for the move. The locals will definitely feel the loss and we will miss the yearly trips to SD, but at some point you quit fighting the politics and take the easy route that increases your value by 40%.
In my opinion, the chargers could/will move back to San Diego once the NFL realizes that LA won't be a huge passionate NFL market. It might have to take a move -- say for 10 years -- to get San Diego to support a stadium. Or, you could see a developer put something north of San Diego (Del Mar?), and do what Kronke is doing
I'm not sure what you are saying about Vegas at all. Phoenix is generally warmer (hotter?) than Vegas year round so the comment comparing it to Phoenix seems silly to me. In terms of population base, the Las Vegas MSA has a population of 2.2 million people and cheap flights for Raiders fans from around the country. I have a cohort here in Wichita who has had the bad taste to be a Raiders fan for years and he is pumped up and talking about buying season tickets and flying out for games. I did a quick search and Vegas is bigger than the following NFL cities:
Green Bay
Buffalo
New Orleans
Jacksonville
Nashville
Charlotte
Indianapolis
Kansas City
They don't have a huge population within a short drive of the city like some of those do, but there is no reason why Vegas should have trouble filling a 60,000 stadium on a regular basis. If 10% of the population jumps on the bandwagon, they'll be fine.
Similar threads
