Chargers stadium vote fails, opens door for move to Los Angeles

Who will attend Chargers games?

Fans of the visiting team who are currently living in LA. That's who.

Much cheaper than a Rams game I'm sure.

 

You're talking about a metro area of 13 million people. They can get fans there. It'll take a few years to build a fanbase but thats to be expected.

 

I can't see it happening. Spanos is going to be openly campaigning for his own stadium is his own market from the moment he lands in LA.

Who in their right mind, other than displaced San Diegans and fans of the visiting teams, would go to a Chargers game?

That would be like throwing your money away.

It'll be amazing if they can post sellouts despite all the factors working against them.

 

Playing in a 30k stadium is actually pretty neat.

 

That is absolutely not going to happen. LA is not going to give public money for a stadium especially when a giant one is already being built. The NFL would never put money into it and the agreement worked out last year was that they would play in the new Rams stadium.

We're not talking about the clippers. They won their division 5 out of 6 years not long ago. They've only made the playoffs once in the last 7 years but it doesn't make them a bad franchise. They've only had losing seasons in 3 of the last 13 seasons so they're at least competitive every year which is more than you can say for a lot of teams. Fan bases only grow and they'll start small but they'll start winning people over if they start winning. You're acting like the Browns or Lions are moving to LA.

It just takes time and winning will help too.

 

Spanos is not going to be lobbying for his own LA stadium. He is going to want to move to his own stadium in his own city.

 

The Chargers switched logos 3 times in their first 2 days in LA.

LOL. This is going swimmingly.

 

It depends on the city and how many events are at the stadium. I haven't pulled any numbers but find it very hard to believe Houston gets no economic benefit from NRG, especially with the Rodeo being there.

 

The issue is that there is literally NOTHING around NRG that Houstonians make use of that boosts the overall economy (other than that Pappasitos across the freeway).

Everything consumed and bought on NRG property goes to either the team or to the rodeo. The city doesn't get a cut of any of that. Rights fees for the NRG brand also go to the teams/tennants, not the city.

As opposed to baseball and basketball arenas, that are built more into the fabric of the city themselves... thus you can put up surrounding hotels, restaurants, entertainment complexes and have those venues add to the overall economy simply based on the volume of baseball/basketball home games a year.

8 regular season football games + a month of rodeo + occasional big-time concerts really take up a fraction of dates/year... and as mentioned, these stadiums are pretty isolated away from the general city.

The one caveat that having a tremendous football stadium brings... is that it gives you a chance to host the Super Bowl. Does one Super Bowl every 15 or so years do enough for the overall economy to outweigh the isolated economic lack of benefit of football stadiums?

 

That's not true. Per the Rodeo (haven't verified outside of looking at their site), their annual tax revenues is $27M, and they have a 30 year lease. Everytime an event is at NRG some employee is getting a paycheck and likely spending that money locally. NRG Park has hundreds of events per year.

I don't know how many events every stadium has per year, but there is stuff at NRG all the time. And a month of rodeo, alone, brings in a ton of money.

 

Taxes and employee wages? I suppose, although those were being collected even when the astrodome was the venue.

When most people are referring to the economic benefits of a new, fully paid by taxpayers dollars stadium... they typically are referring to a boost in the surrounding area infrastructure, real estate value, possible tourist dollars, attraction of marquee events, etc.

While building NRG did allow the NFL to come back here (the rodeo was never in danger of leaving), and has led to 2 Super Bowls... it's still a helluva deal (steal) for the team and the city/surrounding area is pretty much the same since the days of the Astrodome.

 

Taxes and employee wages matter. I'm sure every person employed is happy for their wages. IF the Rodeo truly has an annual $27M tax impact then that event alone more than doubles what it cost us to build NRG over the life of their lease. Yes, the Astrodome was the venue but it's not suitable any longer and you have to have the rodeo somewhere.

And that's a mistake, because taxes and jobs matter.

The owner is getting over for sure, but that doesn't mean there is no economic impact. At least as far as NRG is concerned. Other stadiums may not have something like the Rodeo or host hundreds of other events throughout the year.

 

The impact of all stadiums is limited... but football stadiums are far more limited than any other sports/concert venue.

NRG does have the rodeo... but that's still not necessarily absolving the cost of the taxpayers burden, since you don't need a $1 billion dollar retractable roof football palace to host a rodeo (hence, why I said their tax wages would be present via the Astrodome... it probably could have been retrofitted to continue to accommodate the rodeo, at a far reduced rate).

The Rodeo needs the grounds... moreso than the actual stadium itself. And at the end of the day, the rodeo was not going to threaten to leave Houston for Los Angeles, Tennessee, or some other location.

 

But it's not for NRG, because there are hundreds of events hosted there every year. It depends on how much use taxpayers get from the stadium. We get tons of use from NRG.

It seems like the goalposts are shifting. All I'm arguing is that NRG does have an economic impact. If the Rodeo numbers are true then over 30 years the taxpayers would have been paid back just from tax dollars, and then some. I'm not arguing that taxpayers should be absolved of cost. Taxpayers receive an entertainment benefit from these facilities as well as an economic one. I'd be fine with only the entertainment benefit (supply and demand for professional sports teams), but I love sports.

The rodeo needs the grounds for outdoor activities and a venue to hold concerts and other events. Sure, you likely could've fixed up the Astrodome for less, but if you are recouping your cost at the end of the day why not pay more for a new building so you can get the extra benefits that come with it? And we likely wouldn't have saved that much to renovate the dome. In 2012 the renovation plan was expected to cost around $600M. Last year a plan was approved to spend $100M just to make it into a parking lot. NRG cost $449M and taxpayers paid 43% of it.

 

Your entire argument hinges on the rodeo... which as I said, never needed a state of the art tax-payer funded football stadium to hold their venue.

Also, there would have been even LESS pressure for the taxpayers to ante up for a rodeo-only venue, since there was little to no threat of the rodeo moving. If the rodeo needed a new venue, or a retrofitted Astrodome to survive, they would have been forced to pay for it. I think they're just as big a "winner" in these shenanigans as anybody... I guarantee you a public vote to approve tax-payer dollars for rodeo-specific (not NFL) ventures would not have done so well back in 1999.

The only way the taxpayers were forced to get involved here was to make a football stadium to entice an NFL team... and future super bowls. In addition to keeping the Astros.

The economic impact is mitigated by not only having a fully tax-payer funded stadium... but there are less events (there are not 'hundreds' of events at NRG yearly... including the rodeo-inflated concerts), and virtually zero surrounding development impact thanks to a huge-ass parking lot (and useless Astrodome) surrounding the grounds.

 

You may not like taxes or jobs, but the govt likes receiving tax dollars and employees like receiving paychecks. The Rodeo just happens to be a mega event where the tax revenue and jobs cover what we invested in the stadium alone. No, the rodeo didn't need NRG. It needed some venue though. Even turning the Dome into a parking lot costs significant money ($100M).

As far as the other Rodeo comments, I'm sure the Rodeo would've won a city wide vote too. They wouldn't have been forced to pay for anything.

So we are finally in agreement that NRG does have a positive economic impact? Surrounding development is not the only type of economic impact. Taxes and wages do count.

 

And they had the Astrodome... and would have continued to have the Astrodome if no NFL team decided to come here.

Are you serious? On what planet would the rodeo be entitled to public funding for a stadium that they get to keep all the profits? The only way sports teams get away with that sort of extortion is due to the threat of relocation, and cities are finally wising up to that thereby forcing owners to pay for their own damn stadiums.

Where is the Houston LS&R going to threaten to relocate to?

The Rodeo was creating taxes/wages prior to NRG. The taxpayers had to fund the entire stadium and are continuing to pay for improvements... the economic impact is negligible for the 30+ dates of events there over a full calendar year (minus the Super Bowl, which is more a city event, but still needs a great venue).

 

The Astrodome needed, and still needs, repair. To simply make it a parking lot costs $100M today. Two years ago the plans to make it something else cost $600M. We paid 43% of $352M ($151M) for a brand new facility. One where one event recoups the cost. Pay for the new stadium. Those numbers are from Wiki. The Chron says we paid 43% of over $450M.

http://www.chron.com/sports/texans/...ing-for-NRG-Stadium-6382098.php#photo-7865690

Either way, taxpayers are paying $$ no matter what.

In a planet where their lease and other revenues they bring in outpace what it costs to build the venue, same with the Texans. But it looks like we partially funded the Astroarena expansion for the Rodeo in 1983. And look at the 2000 and 2010 sections. We are getting more attendance and events (and $$) with the bigger facility. Economic impact.

http://www.rodeohouston.com/About-Us/History

Any place with the venue and space for them. You don't think Dallas would want the rodeo?

The taxpayers funded 43% of the stadium, not the entire thing. The economic impact is not negligible. The Rodeo covers the costs alone.

http://www.rodeohouston.com/about-us/who-we-are/economic-impact