Gothamite Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Yeah, but let's be honest. It's only this particular situation that makes it matter. Georgia Frontiere was every bit the same as Jerry or Stan. But St. Louis never minded. Just as Dallas can be forgiven for loving Jerry and Los Angeles fans are right to hail Stan today. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Part of what Jerry Jones was trying to convince other owners was that the Inglewood "campus" could bring each of them a cut of something league operated. His new training facility in Frisco just sold out country club* like memberships. Initiation fee was $4,500 and monthly dues are $350. Credit: Dallas Morning News Quote The club has views from a terrace overlooking the team’s outdoor fields so members can watch practices. The opposite side offers views at the 50-yard line of the indoor stadium, where the team shares the field with Frisco schools and the city of Frisco for football games, band competitions and more. Membership includes access to the Cowboys Fit club, where the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders will train. The Cowboys Club also plans to host talks with the coaches and players as well as the team’s owners. *-He does own his own golf course too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Not much news lately, but the Chargers are going to unveil their new San Diego stadium plan this week. Quote Members of the Chargers’ stadium team on Tuesday night detailed financing plans for a $1.8 billion stadium-convention center that includes a $1 billion stadium with a likely opening in 2022 (a date the team acknowledges is more realistic than its stated goal of 2020). In essence, the team and NFL will pay $650 million of the stadium costs, with the remaining $350 million for the stadium and the cost of building the convention center being raised through a net 4 percent hike in the hotel tax. A joint powers authority (JPA) would own and operate the stadium, with the Chargers receiving only game-day revenues. The team would sign at least a 30-year lease and non-relocation agreement and be responsible for construction cost overruns on the stadium portion as well as desired improvements in ensuing years. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I wonder if the Chargers would have the option to elect to receive 65% of all stadium-related revenue vs 100% of just game-day revenue since they're footing 65% of the tab (probably more since they're responsible for the inevitable overrun.) "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 They must have crunched the numbers and decided they came out ahead with all of football versus 65% of everything, though the inevitable cost overruns could certainly change that. This will probably get done, though. I always thought it would. You're next, Raiders. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 On 3/30/2016 at 8:52 AM, BringBackTheVet said: I wonder if the Chargers would have the option to elect to receive 65% of all stadium-related revenue vs 100% of just game-day revenue since they're footing 65% of the tab (probably more since they're responsible for the inevitable overrun.) Keep in mind that the city's $350M cost does not include the $200M needed to acquire the land needed. The Chargers' portion is eventually be sublet as they'll do the work to acquire the naming rights and use that $$$ for their share of the project. Plus, all stadium revenue would have to be split with the players as well since the CBA uses what is termed total revenue. FWIW, from opening in 2004, the city took a 70% of revenues from non-baseball events at Petco Park. That percentage was reversed in May 2012 in favor of the Padres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Was that shift written into the contract, or negotiated later? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gothamite said: Was that shift written into the contract, or negotiated later? Proposed and passed by city council. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/fm/proposed/pdf/2016/vol2/v2petcopark.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Interesting. Quote In May 2012, the City Council approved a proposal to change the share of the City's revenues from non-baseball events from 70 percent City/30 percent Padres to 70 percent Padres/30 percent City. This change provides an incentive for the Padres to conduct more special events, and therefore, generate more revenue for the City. In exchange for the higher split, the Padres guarantee that the City will receive a guaranteed minimum of $300,000 in special event revenue annually, adjusted upward by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Additionally, instead of making a $250,000 annual deposit into the Ballpark Capital Expenditure Reserve Fund, the Padres also agreed to make at least $1.0 million per year average in capital improvements to Petco Park. The approximately $962,000 residual remaining in the reserve fund will be accumulating interest and returned to the Padres at lease expiration, unless needed by the City for deferred maintenance. The Padres spent $5,366,000 in Fiscal Year 2014 for a state-of-the-art audio system, Park at the Park video board, new concourse flooring, and other capital expenses. They plan to spend over $13 million for a new LED scoreboard/videoboard, control room, left field seating, metal detectors, and other improvements by the end of their Fiscal Year (Oct 31, 2015). The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Hope that gets done, they'd have a pretty rough start to an LA future with all their black clouds. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 In Chargers news, the team unveiled its preliminary proposal for the combined stadium/convention center. To get this passed, the Chargers are starting a signature-gathering drive to put it on the November ballot. They're phrasing it as a "Citizens' Initiative", but the team is also reportedly paying professional signature gatherers up to $12 per. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 I was just in San Diego consulting with a corporate client at a convention taking place in the city. The primary problem with the Chargers' proposed "convadium" - a convention center expansion and new stadium rolled into one building - is that the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau is hearing from both existing and potential clients that anything short of a contiguous expansion of the existing San Diego Convention Center is going to result in both a continued inability to lure events that currently won't consider the SDCC, as well as the loss of existing clients... most notably, ComicCon. As a result, as far as the SDCVB and overall convention industry are concerned, a combined Chargers stadium/convention center is a non-starter. Add to this the fiscally-conservative nature of residents of both the City of San Diego and San Diego County as a whole, NIMBYism on the part of East Villagers who would be caught between both PETCO Park and the proposed stadium, and the fact that an active public transit yard would have to be relocated and its site cleaned of significant contaminants before "convadium" construction could begin. Bottom line? I suppose anything is possible, but I wouldn't bet on this proposal coming to fruition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Even photo galleries that are ostensibly designed to get taxpayers to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars have ads... Way to go, Chargers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 On April 22, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Brian in Boston said: I was just in San Diego consulting with a corporate client at a convention taking place in the city. The primary problem with the Chargers' proposed "convadium" - a convention center expansion and new stadium rolled into one building - is that the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau is hearing from both existing and potential clients that anything short of a contiguous expansion of the existing San Diego Convention Center is going to result in both a continued inability to lure events that currently won't consider the SDCC, as well as the loss of existing clients... most notably, ComicCon. As a result, as far as the SDCVB and overall convention industry are concerned, a combined Chargers stadium/convention center is a non-starter. Add to this the fiscally-conservative nature of residents of both the City of San Diego and San Diego County as a whole, NIMBYism on the part of East Villagers who would be caught between both PETCO Park and the proposed stadium, and the fact that an active public transit yard would have to be relocated and its site cleaned of significant contaminants before "convadium" construction could begin. Bottom line? I suppose anything is possible, but I wouldn't bet on this proposal coming to fruition. 10 hours ago, Cosmic said: Even photo galleries that are ostensibly designed to get taxpayers to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars have ads... Way to go, Chargers. This team is garbage and I'm a bad person for not being able to quit them. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 Apparently Raiders-to-Las Vegas is picking up steam. AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 8 minutes ago, DustDevil61 said: Apparently Raiders-to-Las Vegas is picking up steam. On the surface, Vegas & the Raiders seem a pretty good pairing. Alas, they belong in Oakland. Wonder if the Athletics are taking notes. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 5 minutes ago, DustDevil61 said: Apparently Raiders-to-Las Vegas is picking up steam. It is hard to pick up steam in 2016 when the project wants over $780M in state dollars and the Nevada legislature does not even this year unless it is a special session called. Note, this is the same Majestic Realty project (Ed Roski) which was brought up in 2011 and 2013 disguised as a UNLV project which: 1- Never got out of legislative committee each time. 2- Never got the UNLV share of the funding off the ground. Same stadium...same need of state money...new location. This proposal is also going after the same hotel tax money as the $1.4B renovation/expansion of the Las Vegas Convention Center, which the voters support more in recent polling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burmy Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 OK...if this stadium DOES end up getting built, is UNLV gonna try and join the Pac-12? Because that looks FAR too grandiose to be a Mountain West stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 5 hours ago, MBurmy said: OK...if this stadium DOES end up getting built, is UNLV gonna try and join the Pac-12? Because that looks FAR too grandiose to be a Mountain West stadium. Every Pac 12 school is Tier 1 in terms of Carnegie Doctoral Classification, meaning they confirm more terminal degrees and conduct the most research. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/standard.php In the 90's, UNLV was Tier 4 and are now Tier 2. That's good progress, but far from Pac 12 material plus their medical school is in its infancy and has yet to gain accreditation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh.0 Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 The Las Vegas Raiders © ... I LIKE IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.