Beacon on the Hill Sports Marketing

Back to All Pages » | Back to Pages on Stadiums As Anchors for Revenue » | Back to Pages on Save the Chargers Stadium »

Saving the Chargers Stadium Campaign for the National Football League
Part 7 of 7: Media Analysis and Arizona Cardinals Model

Media Analysis

July 8, 2002 Union Tribune Articles analyzed (5 pages regarding the 3 articles’ 14 pages): (1) "A Bolt of Skepticism," (2) "The Q Factor," and (3) "Brewers latest to demonstrate that new stadiums draw long as you field a winner." The key issues are land use and who pays. In summary, there will be a positive cash flow to the City of San Diego as well as the team and other tenants.

Articel #1: "A Bolt of Skepticism" July 8, 2002 Union Tribune: ALL need to be reminded that this is the SAN DIEGO stadium, NOT the Chargers Stadium; the Chargers are just one, albeit an important, part of the solution. The Chargers are the linchpin that makes it all happen. All proposing a stadium solution want housing included (except the one "give it back to nature"), regardless of with or without the stadium. Its the Chargers’ call: everyone will follow their lead.

Articel #2: "The Q Factor" July 8, 2002 Union Tribune: The second article calls for lead agency to head the development. This is not a good idea. A major developer reporting to an agency, perhaps, but a government group managing the development is, as always, amateur hour. Let them be government, etc., but let real developers do the actual developing Mixed-use football complex with housing would fit into Mayor’s "City of Villages" growth-management plan touted by the Mayor.

Chargers need to consider putting up the $5 million planning monies to show good face re staying and re working it out with all the other stakeholders, and to demonstrate they have a stake and will pay their fair share.

The team revenue from the DGSM solution would generate a minimum of $200 – 300 million a year, which is greater than the Forbes magazine estimated Charger’s 2001 revenues of $119 million/year, with a payroll of $71.8 million and operating profits of $8.9 million.

Chargers need a full throttle PR campaign (its lack suggests either that they haven’t made up their minds about L.A. or whether to stay or they think the city will rescue them). The reality is that L.A. won’t take them without their selling control of the team if done by AEG, and San Diego will facilitate but not put up the money they need for financing but not funding.Additional revenue should be put into operations and profits, not all into player salaries.

Chargers need to put on table, NOW, a plan to become competitive in the future, and to field great games even if they lose, working their way to their wins (great games, win or lose, fill seats, but poor team looking minor league will not).

Articel #3: "Brewers latest to demonstrate that new stadiums draw long as you field a winner" July 8, 2002 Union Tribune: This article on Miller fields shows need to truly appreciate fans (not just raise ticket prices) and plan to accommodate THEIR pocket books with stadium design and fiscal plan, not the designer’s. Teams without solid PR plans will lose the perception battle in the eye of the public. Fans want their teams; they want a show of commitment from team to commit back. Solid PR can generate fans in the seats Re: "A Bolt of Skepticism." Economic arguments seem based on previously held pro or con NFL, not economic facts, and whether or not pro or con NFL or pro or con public $$. Old paradigms prevail; 21st century is ignored.

Diverts from Other Spending Myth

Too often "some economists" are used without mentioning names.

More Theories

Theories range from great economic value to amenity/livable/quality of life value only:

Raising question of whether Chargers cause companies to move or stay is giving to the Chargers BOTH credit it deserves and doesn’t deserve; the answer is in the middle.

Notion that creative types of new economy would prefer arts and hiking trails to stadiums goes against the empirical reality that most people like to sit to be entertained; we didn’t become half obese because people are out hiking and enjoying nature. This is a real leftist bias statement with no empirical base in fact.

Notion that biotech and telecoms would come and flourish without the Chargers is a false argument, as it claims they would have moved here anyway because of the weather. IF the weather is ALL important, then why haven’t all the rest of the country’s biotech firms and telecoms moved to San Diego? Why does wretched weather cities (year round wretched) New York City and Washington DC claim many more people than San Diego?

Fasle Focusses

False Focus on Money for the Tteam Rather than for the Public-Private Partnership

False Focus on Ability of Stadium to Generate Monies for the Team

False Focus on Football as an Amenity

Super Bowl Should Not Be Discounted

Re: "The Q Factor"

Arizona Cardinals as Relevant Model for the City of San Diego and the San Diego Chargers

  1. Arizona Cardinals offer yet another model and story that can relate to San Diego. They are planning a public partnership that could be overlayed on Mission Valley.
  2. Their stadium site will be selected at the end of August 2002 by their Sports Authority. Construction could then begin immediately.
  3. Glendale is in the lead (3 communities are vying for the right to build it).
  4. Glendale’s proposed stadium features a retractable roof, a retractable side and a retractable field that moves in and out of the structure so that the grass will be able to absorb more sunlight.
  5. The Glendale proposal also figures a park, tail gating area, etc.
  6. The Glendale web site states that the stadium is seen as a
    1. "catalyst for the continued economic development of the West Valley with new hotels, restaurants and retail shopping anticipated to be built on the land surrounding Glendale’s proposed site." This would fit well with San Diego.
    2. Another quote: "The proposed facility definitely has numerous regional benefits and enhances our current investment in developing the Western area. Glendale is the best home for the Cardinals."
    3. AND: "Creates a unique, world-class sports, entertainment, and business destination."
    4. "In a strong show of solidarity, all 11 mayors of West Valley cities and WESTMARC, a regional coalition representing western Maricopa County, are pledging their support for Glendale’s proposal to the Tourism and Sports Authority (TSA) to build the new Arizona Cardinals football stadium next to the planned Phoenix Coyotes hockey arena."
    5. Financing is to be done through issued bonds and parking and other narrow, site related revenue.
    6. The Glendale stadium web page, an excellent site, has more:
      1. Power point presentation at
      2. Additional web site features re stadium at

Page content written / posted: 06-12-02, 01-20-03

Back to All Pages » | Back to Pages on Stadiums As Anchors for Revenue » | Back to Pages on Save the Chargers Stadium »