The San Diego stadium task force unveiled its plan for financing a new, $1.4 billion football stadium in Mission Valley on Monday afternoon. It's the first hint of what a stadium could cost the Chargers and the people of San Diego and at least provides an initial framework if conversations between the city and team are to commence.
maillot nfl magasin,Unlike the task force proposal in St. Louis, an initial glance at the San Diego financing idea looks to ask for more contributions from the team in the form of upfront payments as well as rent dollars that might normally be used for things like stadium upkeep. The St. Louis stadium proposal more closely resembles the blueprint left by the under construction project for the Minnesota Vikings, which aims for a nearly 50/50 split between public and private dollars.
Here's a breakdown of what San Diego is proposing followed by what St. Louis is hoping to accomplish for its plan on the north riverfront:
San Diego stadium proposal
Team/owner funding: $300 million
Capital from team rent: $173 million (over 30 years)
NFL G4 loan: $200 million
San Diego county: $121 million
San Diego city: $121 million
Gain from sale of Qualcomm stadium land: $225 million
Personal seat licenses: $60 million (of $120 million, split with Chargers)
San Diego State rent: $21.6 million (over 30 years)
Bowl games rent: $21.6 million (over 30 years)
Ticket surcharge: $84.7 million (over 30 years)
Additional funding (naming rights, etc.): $50 million (over 30 years)
Total recommended revenues: $1.4 billion
St. Louis stadium proposal
Team/owner funding: $250 million
NFL G4 loan: $200 million
City and state bond extensions: $250 million
Brownfield and Missouri Development Finance Board tax credits: $150 million
Personal seat licenses: $100-120 million
Total recommended revenues: $950-985 million
A few quick notes worth adding here:
The San Diego stadium proposal clearly asks for more than just $300 million from the Chargers, though the proposal categorizes it as such. The rent money, in particular, looks like a potential sticking point. In St. Louis, there's been no such discussion of rolling rent money into bonds as a way of creating more revenue. As mentioned above, rent money is typically used more for stadium upkeep and things of that nature than a form of revenue to pay off a stadium.
It's unclear how San Diego plans to navigate the public portion of the financing. In St. Louis, there are current bonds already in place that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon believes he has the power to extend without a public vote. There are arguments brewing on whether that can actually happen or not but the possibility remains. In San Diego, the proposal doesn't really specify how that $242 million in county and city money is to be obtained and whether or not a vote will be required.
One thing worth noting is the similar expectation on the personal seat licenses. Remember, neither San Diego nor St. Louis is a major market with the dollars of, say, San Francisco. So estimates of about $120 million in PSL's is probably about right for markets of similar size.
Keep in mind, both of these proposals are fluid and in no way set in stone. The St. Louis plan is much further along than San Diego and it's been estimated that about two thirds of the land has already been acquired in St. Louis via option agreements. But as San Diego sorts through its plans and asks much of the Chargers, the St. Louis proposal is far more reasonable on both sides. That doesn't mean that Rams owner Stan Kroenke will agree to it but clearly, St. Louis is at least offering something more palatable than San Diego is offering the Chargers.