Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani said that the "key element for securing a downtown San Diego stadium is tying the project to a sports and entertainment district," according to CHARGERS.com. Fabiani said assuming that the California Supreme Court "does not invalidate the new redevelopment laws," San Diego "will not have available redevelopment money until sometime into the next decade -- perhaps as late as 2024 or 2025." He noted as a result, the Chargers "can no longer count on any immediate redevelopment funding for our project." Still, Fabiani said the idea of creating a "new Sports and Entertainment District that would tie closely into the existing Convention Center" is "gaining traction." He added such a district "could give us access to funding sources that are now not available for a simple stand-alone pro football stadium." Meanwhile, he said it "may be possible, with the cooperation of other government entities in the region, to bond against the future redevelopment revenues so that stadium construction can begin before the actual redevelopment dollars are available." Fabiani: "This option increases the cost of the project, but such costs increase may be unavoidable." Fabiani also said the NFL's G-3 program is "now flat out of money as the result of significant expenditures devoted to the new stadiums in Indianapolis, Dallas and the Meadowlands." He said, "For a new G-3 program to be instituted and funded by the League, the players would in the new CBA again have to give the owners some credit for the funds spent on new stadiums. So we will be looking very closely at the new CBA, if the players ratify it, to determine what kind of credits are permitted" (CHARGERS.com, 7/30).
HELP FROM THE PLAYERS: Chargers President Dean Spanos also discussed the CBA's impact on the Chargers' stadium efforts, saying the deal "doesn't create funds, per se, that can be applied to the cost of a stadium." Spanos: "What it basically says is that the players will share in the investment into this new stadium by allowing us to take a credit against the revenues that they use to calculate the salary cap with. Hence, they might in a sense not have as much revenue for the salary cap because some of that money is being used against the cost of the stadium as a credit, and in that sense it’s giving us an incentive to build a stadium. The players are participating with us in the investment." He added of the CBA, "I think it gives us a tremendous incentive to go out and continue to work hard to try to get something done because now the players are truly a partner invested with us in the stadium" (CHARGERS.com, 7/30).
NO BREAK IN PLANNING: In Oakland, Angela Woodall noted city officials "didn't let the NFL lockout stand in the way of their plans to transform" O.co Coliseum "into a new stadium and entertainment district that some supporters are calling Oakland Live." Oakland had "already begun to buy land to 'control the destiny' of the area." But the pace "really picked up when it looked like the NFL deal sealed [last] week could help deliver money for the project." O.co Coliseum, home to the Raiders and A's, also "could be an option for the 49ers" if the team's deal with Santa Clara "falls apart." Oakland City Council member Larry Reid said, "If we don't do something, we might end up losing all our franchises." Woodall noted the A's "may have to be factored into" Oakland's plan if MLB "blocks the team from moving to San Jose." But A's Owner Lew Wolff said, "We've seen nothing." He added that the Coliseum area is a "great site, but a new stadium would not persuade him to stay in Oakland" (OAKLAND TRIBUNE, 7/30).
NFL HOLDS KEYS TO L.A.: In L.A., Michael Hiltzik writes it is "perhaps encouraging to see that the city has refashioned AEG's original proposal" for Farmers Field "to shift more financial risk off the taxpayers' shoulders and onto the company." AEG "will make the deal pencil out by renting the stadium ... to the NFL team that will relocate here and by capturing revenues from other sporting and entertainment events." But the NFL is the "quintessential unreliable partner," and it has "toyed condescendingly with Los Angeles for years." L.A. financial consultant Conventions, Sports & Leisure Int'l indicated that if the league imposes a $500,000 relocation fee on the team's owner, it "could raise costs enough to scuttle the deal economically." Hiltzik: "There are still plenty of points on which the city could be bamboozled or steamrollered. Would another month's delay to provide for careful scrutiny really be fatal?" (L.A. TIMES, 7/31).
