RUMOR
CENTRAL
Rumors from the Web
None currently detected. Come back, there WILL be
some.
What’s wrong with that
Powder Blue
we’ve all grown to know and love?
Now that the NFL has made an agreement with Nike to
become the new jersey provider to the 32 NFL teams
in place of Reebok, it looks like they have decided
to take them all in a new direction. Here’s what
ProFootballTalk
had to say on the subject.
"On the day that the NFL announced
Nike will replace Reebok
as the league’s uniform supplier
in 2012, a Nike official said changes are coming to NFL
jerseys.
Nike Brand
President Charlie Denson told Darren Rovell
of CNBC that the change would be similar to
changes that Nike has made to college
football jerseys.
“We plan on
changing the NFL
jersey dramatically just like we’ve done with the college
programs, using new
thinking and the greatest technology available,” Denson
said. “The NFL program hasn’t had the same type of
advancement in recent years.
After years of Reebok leading the way on NFL
jerseys, it will be interesting to see what dramatic changes
Nike comes up with. I just hope no NFL team follows
the hideous example of
Oregon
in college football."
If these really are what Nike has in store for the
Chargers, I’m a little disappointed. Email me your thoughts:
chargertom@aol.com

STADIUM
By Matthew T. Hall, Reporter -
San Diego Union-Tribune, January 3, 2012
All the stadium
stories you missed:
In San Diego,
where
the season's end was as anti-climactic
as a Raiders win can be, there was no doubt what the big
stadium news of the week was. It was the
death of redevelopment.
Which is funny,
because the day that the California Supreme Court ruled
that the state Legislature's decision to wind down
redevelopment was legal, the story on the ruling wasn't
our website's most popular until late in the afternoon.
Instead, for most of
Thursday, as one politician after another grumbled that
they'd been "raided," the top spot on our site belonged
to news that Chargers center Nick Hardwick might
retire....
The elimination of San
Diego's Centre City Development Corp. and the state's
other 400 redevelopment agencies, threw into question
how the East Village site being studied for a new
football stadium would be cleared of tenants and cleaned
of massive fuel contamination from the buses that
currently call it home.
The cleanup and
relocation of the Metropolitan Transit System bus yard
and other tenants is estimated to cost $150 million, a
tidy sum that's excluded from the Chargers' $800 million
projections for a new downtown stadium.
The assumption had
been that redevelopment funds could cover the site
preparations. Now those assumptions are being revisited.
City officials expect
to release the stadium financing plan they're working on
with Chargers brass by the end of March. Here's the
relevant section of colleague Roger Showley's story on
the court ruling.
Many high-profile
projects, as well as park and sidewalk improvements,
count on redevelopment funding and their future now
is in doubt.
The biggest is the
proposed $800 million Chargers stadium downtown.
"We had assumed
last fall that redevelopment funds would not be
available, and so we proposed a combination
stadium-convention center expansion concept which we
believe could be financed without redevelopment
dollars," said team counsel Mark Fabiani.
However, the city
has rejected a combination as Fabiani sketched out
in favor of moving forward now with a $520 million
convention center expansion.
At the same time,
the Centre City Development Corp., the city's
downtown redevelopment arm, had set aside $150
million in additional funds for site preparation of
the East Village site eyed by the Chargers, now
occupied by the city bus yard.
While that money
for the stadium site and millions more were
identified in a cooperation agreement with the city
earlier this year to secure future funding, it is
not clear how secure that agreement now is.
Fabiani said he
and other Chargers lawyers are "analyzing the
opinion" from the court.
"We are not
prepared at this point to offer anything definitive
on that question" about the $150 million, he said in
an email.
The impact in Los
Angeles is less certain. It's unclear how much
redevelopment money, if any, might have been spent on
infrastructure improvements surrounding the sites of
dueling stadium projects proposed in downtown Los
Angeles and 20 miles away in City of Industry.
This is how the U-T’s
Tim Sullivan summarized his
current level of concern about the
Chargers moving to Los Angeles: “The threat is
conceivable, but it is not yet close, and it does not
appear to have moved any closer as a result of the
California Supreme Court’s decision upholding the state
legislature’s right to dissolve redevelopment agencies.”
Kinda like that one scene with the security guard in
Austin Powers, he wrote. Yeah,
this one.
Want more on the
redevelopment ruling? San Diego Rostra compiled nearly
two dozen stories from around the state
here.
In other local stadium
news, voiceofsandiego.org’s Scott Lewis continued to
discuss the idea of
potential public ownership of the team,
which would require changing the National Football
League bylaws, i.e. moving Heaven and Earth.
Meanwhile, Pro
Football Talk’s Mike Florio is now (sort of)
charged up about the issue on his (much
larger) platform. In classic, anonymously sourced Florio,
he wrote: “As one team executive told PFT on Wednesday,
plenty of franchises would love to have the ability to
‘print money.’”
In Los Angeles,
ESPN.com's Arash Markazi at least waited until the day
after Christmas to drop this
piece of coal on Chargers’ fans. He
tweeted, “I still think the Chargers make the most sense
to move in 2013 with the Rams moving soon after in 2014
or 2015.” That’s actually no surprise to anyone who’s
following his weekly NFL in L.A. updates, which
continually rank the Chargers as the likeliest candidate
to go all Hollywood. What’s interesting is that even
when the NFL's return to Los Angeles remains a long shot
(based solely on an absence now measuring 17 years),
Markazi maintains not one, but two teams, could play
there. Within three years.
Also in Los Angeles,
the Daily News named Tim Leiweke its sports person of
the year. In big, bold type, (alright, in the
headline....) the paper dubbed the AEG CEO and president
“the
harvester of hope when it comes to NFL’s
possible return to L.A.” Leiweke is the face of the push
to put a team in downtown L.A.
The article includes a
Q and A with Leiweke and features this exchange:
Q: Are you where
you want to be right now in the process, and are you
confident whatever gap still exists between Los
Angeles and the NFL will be closed?
A: I wouldn't say
I am confident but I will say both sides understand
the uniqueness of a private company and a private
citizen like Phil Anschutz stepping up and saying he
is willing to take the risk. But the deal has to
make sense for all involved, including him. He is
going to have to personally own this team. This will
not be an AEG asset. And so, does that get done? I
guess if I was confident it would already be
finished. So we have work to do. But first and
foremost we have to finish the environmental impact
report and our goal is to have that finished and
improved by June of 2012.
In Oakland,
Raiders owner Al Davis’ death last year has some
wondering what will happen to the team when his wife
dies. Footballphds.com offered
a primer on real estate taxes that makes
for good, if dry, reading for fans of the Raiders, the
Chargers and tax law (and also maybe insomniacs….)
In Santa Clara,
with redevelopment over, city officials now must find up
to $40 million in redevelopment money pledged toward the
49ers proposed $1 billion stadium, but city leaders
emphasized it would
not jeopardize the project.
In Minnesota,
the Vikings’ stadium quest finally ended! At least,
that’s what you might assume from what Sports
Illustrated’s Peter King
tweeted and said on national television
Sunday night. But....
Not so fast, a Vikings
spokesman
counter-tweeted ...
repeatedly the following day.
CBS Sports followed
suit with word that King’s "Christmas
miracle" was premature. As premature as
the thought that writers would finally stop using the
holiday trope “Christmas miracle” in their copy.
At Fieldofschemes.com,
Neil DeMause
had some fun after King and Florio said
the Vikings were close to a deal. “A more accurate
headline would probably be ‘Vikings continuing stadium
talks with state officials,’” DeMause wrote. “But since
that's pretty much the same headline that people in
Minnesota have been reading for the past five years, you
can see why King (and Florio) went with the snappier
lede.”
Of the outlets I
checked out, NFL.com played the story the
most down the middle. The league's site
also included the full King quote for those who missed
it: "Look for the Vikings to sign a long-term deal and
build a new stadium in Minnesota so that they will not
be a candidate to move to Los Angeles," King said.
"Everybody had been rumoring that they were going to
L.A. The Vikings are going to stay in Minneapolis."
What did expire
in Minnesota, the team insists, is its lease. The key
word there is insists because there is language in the
lease that
a extends it for a year if the team
doesn't play a full season in it and everyone remembers
the rupture in the roof of the Metrodome last season
that led to a temporary relocation. Again, Fieldoschemes
broke it down nicely.
In a personnel change
(we’ll be hearing about a few of those in coming days,
ey?), the Minnesota senate Republicans named themselves
a new majority leader, appointing someone whom stadium
supporters expect to be a boost to their efforts. The
Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported that
Sen. Dave Senjem (I mean, could a
senator have a better surname?!?) “is a supporter of
expanded gambling, which could become crucial in
negotiations for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium.”
In St. Louis,
a blogger pieced together a progression of comments from
the Rams’ front office about the team’s lease and future
home to show that the Rams' only movement in the team's
future would be climbing up in the standings. On
Twitter, @losangelesrams (whose bias is there for all to
see) linked to the story
with editorial whimsy, saying, “And the
Winner for the most delusional article yet out of St.
Louis...”
With deadlines looming
large that should indicate the team's desire to stay,
one St. Louis broadcaster put the odds that the Rams
could leave at
50-50.
In Jacksonville,
an Associated Press report became the latest to declare
a Jaguars' move “unrealistic,”
at least for now. It surely had football fans there
breathing easier (though maybe not smiling, after this
season) as longtime owner Wayne Weaver moves on. An
interesting excerpt from the story:
Weaver would have
liked to have a few more years before walking away.
But he had been looking for an exit strategy in
recent years, and (new owner Shahid) Khan seems to
be a suitable successor.
They have known
each other for years, so familiar that the $770
million agreement was initially drawn up on a
cocktail napkin. It included a sale price of $660
million plus $110 million in debt.
The final
paperwork also included a stability agreement that
essentially guarantees that the team will remain in
Jacksonville for at least five years. NFL.com has
reported that Khan would have to pay $25 million to
a Jacksonville charity of Weaver's choice if he
moves the team within five years.
The stability
agreement coupled with the team's stadium lease and
the NFL's hefty relocation fee make a move
unrealistic — at least in the short term. The
stadium lease runs through 2027 and would have to be
bought out for the team to move. That would cost
about $65 million right now. And the NFL's
relocation fee could top $100 million.
Regardless, Khan
has insisted he has no plans to leave Jacksonville.
"We're committed
to this community and we are going to keep on
carrying the work that was started here in
perpetuity and hopefully move it up a notch," Khan
said.
Also, the Jags
lifted a TV blackout for the team’s last
game of the season. Pro Football Talk noted, “It’s not
known how many tickets the Jaguars bought themselves, at
34 cents on the dollar, in order to get the game on
local TV.” Commentators on the post noted this makes two
years straight with zero blackouts in Jacksonville.
That's five fewer than
the Chargers had in those two years, for those keeping
score.
Lastly,
here are the season-ending
attendance
figures for teams linked to a potential
new stadium in Los Angeles at one time or another. (Only
San Francisco is currently pursuing a new, local stadium
on its own.)
Buffalo's attendance
plummeted in its final game, pushing San Diego and
Minnesota up a spot in average attendance and pushing
the Bills down to the bottom of the list in stadium
capacity though not much behind the Chargers. In San
Diego's case, the team averaged its fewest fans per game
since 2004.
NFL average attendance
with rank
San Francisco 69,732
(12)
San Diego 65,392 (19)
Minnesota 62,816 (23)
Buffalo 62,694 (24)
Jacksonville 62,331
(25)
Oakland 59,242 (29)
St. Louis 56,394 (31)
NFL average stadium
capacity with rank
San Francisco 99.3
(10)
Minnesota 98 (14)
Oakland 94 (22)
Jacksonville 92.8 (24)
San Diego 91.7 (25)
St. Louis 86.3 (27)
Buffalo 85.8 (29)
STADIUM
VIDEO

Chargers Get Bolt of Inspiration
The design is inspired by the
Chargers' iconic lightning-bolt branding
By Gene Cubbison, Sports
Analyst, NBC News, San Diego, March 8, 2011
Nobody's "shown them the money" yet. But the
Chargers have just been shown a radical new way of
planning their proposed downtown stadium.
This novel approach came to the Chargers
unsolicited, no money asked.
It's a labor of civic love on the part of a
three-member, local design team that wants to keep
the Bolts local and put a bold, classy stamp on an
unfinished side of East Village.
"There's about 12 acres of 'public experience'
around the site, and that actually connects to the
existing buildings," says Gaslamp Quarter architect
Paul De Bartolo. "It's a stadium that's embracing
its city around it."
And it's an approach its creators hope will be
embraced in some form by the Chargers, the city and
the constituents of both.
Australian-born De Bartolo and his fellow Aussie
business partner Ivan Rimanic began collaborating on
it late last year with San Diego landscape architect
David McCullough.
They finally presented it to the Bolts' brass last
week, and posted the schematic renderings on their
website.
Their civic message, in part: "The Gaslamp has
really transformed with Petco Park, but it's missing
something vital, in our opinion," said McCullough.
"And if something doesn't happen, like what we're
proposing, then it's probably going to remain
parking lots and train tracks into eternity."
The stadium itself would be shaped like a volcanic
dome -- design inspired by the Chargers' iconic
lightning-bolt branding.
"By taking the Chargers logo and mirroring it, you
do create a circular coliseum setup for a stadium,
and by extruding the form, you start to generate the
sides of the stadium, and how it can work in these
different wings," explained De Bartolo.
Meantime, the overall site concept -- featuring a
vast stretch of green open space with an iconic
structure, and elevated trolley tracks -- is
erupting in a lot of imaginations as it goes viral
online.
"It was extremely important for us to really explore
the linkages into the city for this site," De
Bartolo said.
While this team of dreamers has no illusions about
the difficulties of turning the concept into a
reality, they want to jump-start the brainstorming
process in hopes that the project makes it farther
down the road.
"We feel that we're so close in San Diego to having
a city that's comparable to some of the greatest
cities in the world. And it's one area that I think
we could have this," De Bartolo said.
Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani has forwarded
the design package to the team's architects; so far,
no feedback.
The principal partner and namesake of London Group
Realty Advisers said the new proposal helps focus
discussion on enhancing the proposed stadium's
visual appeal and connection to its surroundings.
"This throws down the gauntlet," says Gary London,
who's worked with the Chargers. "Unless that
aspect of the project is really addressed, (the
stadium) probably doesn't get very far."

- OR -


Webmaster Note:
Want to have YOUR editorial comments posted on this page? Send your
article/comments to
chargertom@aol.com and if they are well written and applicable, they will be
posted and you will be given credit. Send in your articles NOW.

This Web Site is Copyright
©
1984-2012, all rights reserved. All names, logos,
images, and pictures displayed on this site are the
copyrights and trademarks of their respective owners and
they retain the ownership and credit unless designated
as public domain. This site is not endorsed by the San
Diego Chargers, Padres, Gulls, or any other organization
mentioned or linked. ChargerTom.com considers the term
"Raider Hater" an adjective describing a fan who
dislikes the Raiders and their fans and has no
intentions of competing for sales with the Oakland
Raiders and items should not be construed to be
sanctioned by the NFL. It is the intent of these
pages to express positive enthusiasm and support for the
teams, the organizations, the leagues, the city, and the
sports, from the perspective of a loyal fan. Comments or
suggestions regarding this Web Site should be addressed
to:
chargertom@aol.com

|