Last Word On Pro Football, Derek Helling
The failure of the San Diego Chargers stadium vote made an already poor situation for the franchise even worse, as the team now has little time to decide between several undesirable options. In addition to that, the decision will shape the future of the Chargers for decades to come.
San Diego Chargers Stadium Vote Gives Team Poor Options
According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Measure C got only 41 percent of the 66.7 percent approval vote that it needed to pass. That measure would have authorized the city to raise the hotel tax by four percent. The funds created would have been used to pay off bonds totaling $1.15 billion, which would have been used to fund construction of a new stadium for the Chargers.
Measure Failure Puts Chargers in Time Crunch
The major result is that the Chargers are now on the clock. The franchise has a deadline imposed by the National Football League of Jan. 15, 2017 to make a decision on the future of the team. The options include:
- Joining the Los Angeles Rams in the new stadium currently being constructed in Inglewood, Calif.
- Trying to work out a new stadium funding deal with the City of San Diego before the Jan. 15 deadline
- Staying in Qualcomm Stadium indefinitely and pushing for a new stadium deal along the way
The big problem for the Chargers is that none of these options are all that great for the team.
Why Staying in Qualcomm is the Most Terrible Option
Ranking the options for the franchise from most to least terrible becomes clear when all the aspects of the situation are considered.
The possibility that the team will simply stay put in Qualcomm and hope for a funding deal at some point is very slim. The stadium has seen eight sitting United States Presidents, and it has become obsolete in terms of allowing the Chargers to compete with their sister NFL franchises in the money game. The antiquated digs can’t have the fact that the Chargers rank as the 21st-most valuable team in the NFL solely placed on them, but they aren’t helping. A few more years of playing in Qualcomm could put even more hurt on the Chargers’ bottom line.
The other reason why the hopes are slim for this option is how badly the stadium vote failed. Not only did it fall far short of the required 2/3 vote that it needed to pass, the measure didn’t even carry a simple majority. To add insult to injury, Measure D, which would have authorized a smaller hotel tax hike without a designated purpose, also failed to get a simple majority of the vote.
Additionally, with media questioning the actual economic benefit of public funding for stadiums and the United States government trying to ban tax-exempt, public-funds-backed bonds being used to fund stadium constructions, the likelihood that a future version of Measure C would get the necessary voter approval has shrunk.
Lastly, staying in Qualcomm would free the spot in Inglewood up for the Oakland Raiders to take, putting three NFL franchises within 120 miles of southern California. The Chargers already had trouble drawing fans when the Rams were in St. Louis. Add a Raiders franchise to the Los Angeles market, and those problems could become worse. The details of the staying in Qualcomm option make the option of relocating the franchise to Inglewood much more appealing, but even that has its serious drawbacks.
Becoming the Little Brother in Los Angeles
There’s little question about whether or not the Los Angeles market is able to support two teams in the eyes of the NFL, which is why the Chargers have already been given approval to move their team to Inglewood.
A brand new stadium and significantly larger population both sound like wins for the Chargers, and the fact is that the Chargers’ revenue and valuation could both go up as a result of moving to Inglewood. The devil is in the details, however.
That move would also put the Chargers into a market where they are already falling behind, as the Rams will have had a head start in building a fan base. That’s on top of the challenges of entering a greater Los Angeles market which already has two major college football/men’s basketball programs and eight other major professional sports franchises, most of which have been in the market for decades. That could be viewed as proof that the two-team model works in Los Angeles, but that’s a lot of well-entrenched competition to deal with.
Then there’s the matter of the stadium situation. The Chargers would be the second tenant in the Inglewood stadium, partially owned by Stan Kroenke, who also owns the Rams. Giving control of such a crucial element of your business to a competitor is bad business strategy. These facts make moving to Los Angeles better than staying in Qualcomm, but still not that appetizing. The better option is pulling a rabbit out of a hat before Jan. 15.
The Best Option for the Chargers is Pretty Much Impossible
The option of getting a new stadium financing deal in place before the Jan. 15 deadline is head-and-shoulders above the other two options, but it will probably take a miracle.
This is the best option for the Chargers because it would allow the franchise to theoretically stay in San Diego, as team owner Dean Spanos says is his desire. It’s a practical desire. It would save the Chargers from having to deal with all the work involved in relocation and building a new fan base.
Additionally, it would allow the Chargers to keep their leverage of portability. There’s a clause in the Chargers’ permission to relocate the team granted by the NFL that says if the franchise has a stadium funding deal in place before the Jan. 15 deadline, that deadline gets pushed back to Jan. of 2018. That would give the Chargers an additional year to work out the details of a new stadium in San Diego or more favorable terms for a lease in the Inglewood stadium.
The best-case scenario would be that the Chargers still get a new stadium in San Diego. The worst-case would be that the team relocates to Los Angeles under more favorable lease terms.
The problem is that state law requires public funding in such a large amount to be passed by public referendum, and there isn’t going to be another election before Jan. 15. The Chargers’ only real hope for this option is to find some way around these legal regulations, or find enough private funding to put the need for public funds below the threshold at which they can be approved by the city’s government, not public referendum.
Private investors aren’t lining up to throw money at a stadium which may never be built, however. Additionally, any potential legal loophole found by the Chargers could easily be challenged in court and the time to settle that potential litigation simply doesn’t exist.
Those are the options for Spanos. He can stay put and mortgage the team’s future on an unlikely future payday, move his team and become the little brother, or invoke magical charms in the hopes that a miracle will manifest. To make it all the more interesting, the decision that will most determine the future of the franchise has to be made in about two months’ time.
MAIN PHOTO: November 22, 2015 – San Diego Chargers faithful fans during the NFL football game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Diego Chargers at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, California (Photo by Tom Walko/iconSportswire) (Photo by Tom Walko/Icon Sportswire/Corbis via Getty Images)
