Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Perdogg

San Diego.

what went wrong?

are the Chargers in am old stadium,
and the city won’t pay-up for a new one?


25 posted on 01/04/2016 9:18:59 PM PST by RockyTx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RockyTx

Correct.

The San Diego Charger ownership want a fixed or new stadium and wish to remain in SD.

The San Diego city people are upset with the ownership and calling their bluff to move.

The San Diego fans are grieving the loss of their favorite team.


36 posted on 01/04/2016 9:59:44 PM PST by Falconspeed ("Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others." Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-94))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: RockyTx

are the Chargers in am old stadium,
and the city won’t pay-up for a new one?

Fairly old stadium with upgrades along the way, yes they want a new one. My father is tax paying San Diego resident, he says f them let them go.


55 posted on 01/05/2016 4:54:48 AM PST by DAC21 (.z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: RockyTx

1. A 2003 proposal to redevelop the Qualcomm site had drawings and a conceptual $400M financing outline: Chargers to pay half for free land.

2. An offer from National City for the team to develop 52 acres controlled by the Port and railroad that collapsed with no formal team plan.

3. A study of land in Chula Vista paid for by the Chargers that found two possible stadium sites but involved no formal team financing plan.

4. Discussion of building a stadium and office space in Oceanside, an idea that doesn’t pencil out and thus never includes a financing plan.

5. A suggestion from a national developer to build an Oceanside stadium and shopping center, all together now, with no team financing plan.

6. The possibility of buying a bunch of land in Escondido in 2009 to cobble together a stadium site, which quickly falls apart with no plan.

7. A plan hatched in 2009 to transform several East Village sites, including an operating busyard, into a stadium built with team/NFL $400M.

8. The 10th Avenue Marine Terminal site plan pushed most publicly by then-U-T ownership in 2012 without support from city or team officials.

9. Public officials’ new Mission Valley idea, which the team met with opposition, refusing to negotiate let alone consider a financing plan.


68 posted on 01/05/2016 11:46:13 AM PST by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11 HillaryForPrison2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson