In response to what many have heard as the Chargers’ plans to announce to NFL owners that the team has determined the financing plan being developed by the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group (CSAG), the group’s spokesman Tony Manolatos released the following statement…
That plan won’t be released until the end of May, so anyone suggesting they know what it is going to include is mistaken. That said, CSAG has been clear that the financing plan it forwards to Mayor Kevin Faulconer for his consideration will include a number of different revenue streams from multiple sources. See below for more info.
It’s important to note a few other things.
First, Mark Fabiani’s primary audience has been and continues to be NFL owners. If the Chargers are allowed to move to LA, Mr. Fabiani has to convince the league office and 24 of 32 NFL owners that a deal can’t get done in San Diego and the team has exhausted all of its options here.
Second, Mr. Fabiani also has to convince that same group of people that if a team is allowed to move to LA it should be the Chargers and not the Rams. Stan Kroenke’s plans for a new stadium in Inglewood are driving this. Kroenke owns the Rams and is one of the wealthiest owners in the league.
It’s important to view the narrative Mr. Fabiani is selling about the Mission Valley site through that prism. Mr. Fabiani knows if Downtown could have been achieved, it would have taken longer, cost more, and been far more complicated. The team’s plans for Downtown include a tax increase, which CSAG views as a non-starter given the fact that voters rejected similar tax increases for increased fire protection following the 2003 and 2007 wildfires.
On Thursday, CSAG Chair Adam Day told a City Council committee:
“The Chargers plan in 2005 and 2006 relied entirely on maximizing development of the existing Qualcomm site to pay for a new stadium. Our plan will not do that.”
On Tuesday, CSAG member Jim Steeg, a former NFL executive and executive vice president of the Chargers, told KUSI:
“I’ve always thought this was different than the plan that was put forth in 2004 and 2005 (by the Chargers), which was going to paid for by housing development and property taxes,” Steeg said. “This is — give me 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 ideas that all come together to make it possible. This isn’t going to have a magic elixir…We’re going to have a combination of things.”
Last Sunday, Day and CSAG Co-chair Jason Hughes put it this way in the U-T:
“The committee is looking at everything. That includes bonding against the team’s annual rent payments, partnering with the county, naming rights for the stadium and areas within of the stadium (like a “Bud Zone” for example), personal seat licenses, bonding future property tax revenue from accompanying site redevelopment, creating an infrastructure district, contributions from other tenants and vendors, ticket surcharges and other options.”