Chat with Mark Fabiani – 5.15.2009

Mark Fabiani Chat – May 15, 2009
15th May 11:01 – sdjase: Welcome to San Diego Stadium Coalition’s live online chat with Mark
Fabiani. We will begin the chat in 5 minutes.
15th May 11:05 – sdjase: First, I want to thank everybody for attending today’s chat as well as
Mark Fabiani for his participation and John Wilson at for pulling
this website and chat together for us.
15th May 11:06 – dbboltsfan17: morning folks
15th May 11:07 – Mark Fabiani: Hi everyone. My clock shows 11 am, so why don’t I kick this
off? First off, thanks to everyone for joining.
15th May 11:08 – dbboltsfan17: Thanks mark, good morning,
15th May 11:08 – sdjase: Everybody can feel free to submit a question
15th May 11:08 – sdjase: Thanks Mark. Let’s begin
15th May 11:09 – Greg: The last I heard most of the effort was being focused onthe Chula Vista
site, is this still the case? If so how do things look with that eye sore of a power plant?
15th May 11:10 – dbboltsfan17: Mark, with on going talks with the city of San Diego, how do
you feel at this time in point about a stadium deal eventually getting done?
15th May 11:10 – Rick Tripp: Mr. Fabiani, About 2 years ago you and I engaged in an
exchange regarding a business plan I have developed to fund the construction of a new stadium
through the capture of real estate brokerage fees. At that time the business plan was not yet
15th May 11:10 – Mark Fabiani: Without that firm shutdown date, we are going to remain
stalled in CV. But we — along with the city, the Port, and a lot of community groups — are
working hard to get some movement out of Sacramento.
15th May 11:10 – Mark Fabiani: Yes. Our work is now concentrated in Chula Vista, as all of
you know. The focus of that work is in one place right now: Sacramento. We are trying to secure
from the state a firm shut-down date for the power plant on the bay front site.
15th May 11:11 – Mark Fabiani: Also, we have gotten inquiries from several developers who
control large parcels of land whose plans have been upended by the economic crisis. They are
interested in perhaps partnering with us.
15th May 11:11 – Mark Fabiani: On other fronts, there is a private development group that is
studying whether redevelopment of the Qualcomm site makes sense, and you may be hearing
more about that idea in the future.
15th May 11:11 – dbboltsfan17: What do you mean by redevelopment? Do you mean
renovating the Q? 15th May 11:12 – Mark Fabiani: And finally, we have a good, open line of communication with
Mayor Sanders, City Attorney Goldsmith, and other top San Diego City officials.
15th May 11:12 – Mark Fabiani: I can’t tell you where those sites are yet, because we are still
early in discussions, except to say that they are well-located within San Diego County.
15th May 11:12 – chargerbacker2: What is the status of Perry Dealy proposal to city to build
over the quaclom site? thank you
15th May 11:13 – Mark Fabiani: All in all, we have a lot going on — all at a time when other
sports team owners and other developers have abandoned their projects because of the
economic situation.
15th May 11:13 – Mark Fabiani: Dean Spanos and his family deserve a lot of credit for sticking
with this project for seven years, and counting.
15th May 11:14 – sdjase: That’s right Mark. A lot of members ask what they can tell their
friends and family who don’t understand why the team needs a new stadium. What do you
15th May 11:14 – Mark Fabiani: The best argument for a new stadium has nothing to do with
football, really.
15th May 11:15 – Mark Fabiani: The best argument for a new stadium is that the City of San
Diego has 166 acres of land, centrally located, that is occupied by a mostly empty stadium and
parking lot.
15th May 11:16 – Mark Fabiani: So for your friends who could care less about football, this is
the best argument for a new stadium.
15th May 11:16 – Mark Fabiani: The land generates very little revenue for the city, and as last
week’s City Auditor report shows, the aging stadium is an increasing financial burden on city
15th May 11:16 – dbboltsfan17: Now i know everyones been thinking this Mark, but how does
Dean feel about the Los Angeles stadium? i live curently about 5 minutes from the proposed
site, has Roski and company approached the Chargers about a possible move?
15th May 11:16 – Greg: Previously the chargers have said they would privatly find the stadium
if the land was given to them. Does that offers stand in the current ecomomic climate?
15th May 11:17 – Mark Fabiani: For your friends who appreciate the value of the Super Bowl to
a tourist-based economy such as San Diego’s, or who appreciate that having an NFL team is
part of the cultural and civic fabric of a large city, the argument for a new stadium is clear.
15th May 11:17 – 1502daddy: what about the ground it’s on? I know it will need to be mitigated
15th May 11:17 – dbboltsfan17: Do you think Sacramento would be willing to go forth with shut
down of the plant? 15th May 11:17 – hayley: what’s the latest with the stadium in the City of Industry?
15th May 11:17 – sdjase: Once member asked “What’s the latest on the stadium in the City of
15th May 11:18 – Mark Fabiani: The City of Industry proposal is moving forward, according to
press reports. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is finished, and a neighboring city
(Walnut) is suing the City of Industry on EIR grounds.
15th May 11:19 – dbboltsfan17: Mark i believe theres talks between walnut and city of industry
to come to a resolution within the next few weeks
15th May 11:19 – Mark Fabiani: Of course nothing will happen in the City of Industry — or
anywhere else in LA — without a commitment from a team. No developer is going to build a
stadium on spec.
15th May 11:19 – Mark Fabiani: That case should probably be resolved by the end of the year,
and assuming the City of Industry prevails –or is able to modify the EIR to satisfy the court — the
stadium project would be ready to break ground.
15th May 11:19 – sdjase: What does that mean to the Chargers?
15th May 11:20 – Mark Fabiani: I don’t know about talks between Walnut and the City of
Industry, except to say that such talks would not be unusual in a dispute such as this. Generally,
these kinds of inter-city EIR disputes are settled by one city agreeing to mitigate impacts.
15th May 11:20 – Mark Fabiani: That may be what happens here — a negotiated settlement.
15th May 11:20 – Mark Fabiani: You are asking the ultimate question.
15th May 11:20 – dbboltsfan17: So what are the chances of a deal NOT getting done in San
Diego that the Chargers would make the move?
15th May 11:21 – Mark Fabiani: And it is a question that ultimately Dean Spanos and his family
will have to answer.
15th May 11:21 – Mark Fabiani: I think Dean has proven beyond any doubt — after seven years
of time and $10 million of spending — that he wants to keep the Chargers right here ini San
15th May 11:21 – chargerbacker2: how far away is San Diego compare to City of Industry in
getting a new stadium?
15th May 11:22 – Mark Fabiani: But at the end of the day, owning an NFL team is no different
than owning any other business. You need to be financially competitive. And over time that will
no longer be possible for the Chargers playing in an aging facility.
15th May 11:22 – Mark Fabiani: The City of Industry is way ahead of us here in San Diego —
except for the most critical factor of all: They have no team! 15th May 11:22 – Tycebrew: Mark, with much of the focus being in Chula Vista, and the power
link looking to take way too much time, is the Gaylord site the top focus?
15th May 11:23 – akasendorf: How many more seasons can the Chargers realistically
“compete” playing in the Q?
15th May 11:23 – Mark Fabiani: At this point, we are deferring to the City of Chula Vista and
the Port. But if there comes a time when they want us to take a hard look at the Gaylord site, we
would certainly do so.
15th May 11:23 – Mark Fabiani: The Gaylord site is of great interest to us and we have made
that clear to the Port Commission and the City of Chula Vista. But both the Port and City have
asked us to stand down while they figure out what they want to do with the Gaylord site.
15th May 11:24 – mgmgadams: So, if there is groundbreaking in the City of Industry, it will be
clear that a team has committed to them, even if no public announcement has been made?
15th May 11:24 – Mark Fabiani: In the mid-90s, the Chargers and the other teams in the
League were on relatively equal financial footing, because most NFL revenues were shared.
Then came the stadium-buliding boom, and now the Chargers are way behind other top teams.
15th May 11:25 – Mark Fabiani: How long can you be $50 or $75 million a year behind in
revenues and continue to compete? There is no obvious answer to this, except to say that at
some point you have to deal with the disparity.
15th May 11:25 – Mark Fabiani: I can’t imagine Ed Roski,or any other developer, breaking
ground without having a team committed to coming.
15th May 11:25 – dgonzals: Any new news on the Downtown location that was talked about a
few months ago on 10news?
15th May 11:26 – Mark Fabiani: Downtown is of great interest to us for one simple reason: The
cost of the project is reduced dramatically because you don’t have to build any infrastructure.
The parking, the roads, the freeway access, the trolley — it’s all downtown.
15th May 11:26 – 1502daddy: I have a question about the land that Qualcomm sits on. What
about the fuel tanks across the way?
15th May 11:26 – akasendorf: thank you mark
15th May 11:26 – dbboltsfan17: Mark, how do you feel by some of the critics in San Diego
refering to you as the spinmaster when it comes to the possible LA site? Some say you are just
delaying the innevitable, i personally think you are doing a great job, but how do you handle it?
15th May 11:27 – Mark Fabiani: So a $1.2 billion project becomes a $900 million project.
15th May 11:27 – Mark Fabiani: The challenge downtown, of course, is finding a site. There are
really only two options: The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (TAMT) and putting together
privately-acquired parcels near Petco. We have evaluated both options in the past…. 15th May 11:27 – chargerchick619: What are some of the roadblocks to the downtown site?
15th May 11:28 – Mark Fabiani: ….and I anticipate that we will continue to evaluate them going
15th May 11:28 – Mark Fabiani: The question about the land under Qualcomm: It is polluted by
leakage from the fuel tanks to the east of the site. Kinder Morgan is a very large conglomerate
that owns the fuel tanks, and they are responsible for the cleanup.
15th May 11:28 – chargerchick619: Thank you Mark.
15th May 11:29 – Mark Fabiani: But the pollution shouldn’t stop development there. In any
urban environment,sites such as Qualcomm are going to be imperfect because of pollution and
other issues. Engineers can deal with these issues pretty successfully.
15th May 11:29 – Mark Fabiani: The City of San Diego and the State of California are now
trying to get Kinder Morgan to clean up the site more quickly.
15th May 11:30 – Mark Fabiani: Your question is right on. If we believed that we were
generating the maximum amount of revenue out of the San Diego market right now, then we’d
be foolish to try to build a new stadium.
15th May 11:30 – clee54: With suites, tickets, and sponsorships still available at Qualcomm
stadium, how it is that a new stadium will generate enough revenue to keep the Chargers
competitive? Isn’t it more about market size than stadium assets?
15th May 11:31 – Mark Fabiani: But we believe that in three areas — luxury suites, clubs suites,
and naming rights/advertising/sponsorhip — individuals and companies will pay more than they
pay now if they had a better product to buy.
15th May 11:31 – 1502daddy: Thanks Mark
15th May 11:31 – sdjase: Why aren’t the local politicians trying harder to get somethig done?
Jerry Sanders said he’s basically waiting on the sidelines. Why do you think that is?
15th May 11:32 – Mark Fabiani: For example, if all of the signage in a new stadium were
electronic, would a company be willing to pay more to have its name flashed on all of the signs
at once for a minute? (I saw something like this at Staples Center a couple of weeks ago.)
15th May 11:32 – Mark Fabiani: In short, we believe that certain individuals and certain
companies will pay more for a better product here in San Diego.
15th May 11:32 – clee54: But those number enter an entire new stratosphere if you enter the
LA market….
15th May 11:33 – Mark Fabiani: And yes, you are absolutely right, the numbers are much
higher in LA because the market there is so much bigger. If this were a simple matter of dollars
and cents, the Chargers would have moved north a long time ago. 15th May 11:33 – Mark Fabiani: But the fact is, Dean Spanos and his family don’t want to move
the team. That’s not to say that a move might not occur, but if it does it will only be because
every other option failed us.
15th May 11:34 – Mark Fabiani: As for the local politicians, first let me say that we have an
excellent relationship with Mayor Sanders, with the new City Attorney, Mr. Goldsmith, and with
many of the new City Council members.
15th May 11:34 – Mark Fabiani: It’s really a matter of finding a deal that makes sense for
taxpayers and the Chargers.
15th May 11:34 – Mark Fabiani: So it’s not a matter of not having good relationships.
15th May 11:34 – sdjase: With the Del Mar Fairgrounds going up for sale, does that or any
other tract of land present any new options?
15th May 11:35 – Mark Fabiani: Given the financial crisis afflicting the City of San Diego, we
know what the Mayor is going through now, and we understand how difficult it is to get
something done.
15th May 11:35 – dbboltsfan17: Mark, with the Chargers inking the marketing deals in LA with
the eventual stadium being built, cause everyone knows Roger Goodell wants a team here, do
the Chargers stop marketing when a team is here? or whats the deal with that?
15th May 11:36 – Mark Fabiani: ….sell such valuable state-owned properties.
15th May 11:36 – Mark Fabiani: The Del Mar question is very interesting. I can’t imagine that a
stadium would be acceptable to the surrounding community there, but let’s not get ahead of
ourselves. The Governor has a lot of work to do before he can persuade the legislature to
15th May 11:36 – chargerbacker2: Ed Roski wants the Chargers, does the people of LA?
15th May 11:36 – clee54: I love the Del Mar Fairgrounds option…would the team be willing to
buy land?
15th May 11:37 – Mark Fabiani: And it makes all the sense in the world for us to expanded
those bases north of here, where there are two very large markets that are un-served by NFL
15th May 11:37 – Mark Fabiani: It’s just smart business.
15th May 11:37 – Mark Fabiani: We are doing more marketing in Orange County and LA for
one simple reason: The NFL and the Chargers are not immune to the economic crisis. We need
to broaden our fan base and our sponsorship base.
15th May 11:37 – chargerchick619: Have the Chargers considered the failure of past NFL
teams in LA in the decision making process?
15th May 11:37 – dbboltsfan17: But if the Chargers dont move to LA, and say the vikings do,
do the Chargers stop marketing’? 15th May 11:38 – Mark Fabiani: I think any team considering LA would have to consider
seriously the history there. I hope we never get to the point of debating why the other teams
failed in LA!
15th May 11:38 – Mark Fabiani: Yes, of course, if there is another team in the LA market, you
would have to re-orient your marketing activities. But that market has been vacant for going on
15 years, so I don’t think people are holding their breaths waiting for a new team there.
15th May 11:38 – akasendorf: I am from San Diego but live in Los Angeles. I don’t know how I
would feel celebrating a victory parade down Figueroa as opposed to hearing about one down
Broadway. Inherent in my statement is the fact that the Chargers WILL BE WINNING A SUPER
15th May 11:39 – chargerbacker2: Have the Padres done or contacted you for any help for a
new stadium?
15th May 11:39 – clee54: I think camp pendelton should shave off a few acres for us…or San
Anaofre…if you can build a nuclear plant so close to a military base you should be able to build
a stadium.
15th May 11:40 – Mark Fabiani: We have a good relationship with the Padres, and Dean
Spanos and I have already met with the team’s new owner several times. We have studied how
the Padres succeeded in 1998 here, and we have learned a lot from their experience.
15th May 11:40 – acsilva81: Why isn’t SDSU becoming more involved in contributing money
towards a new stadium when they benefit from it?
15th May 11:41 – Mark Fabiani: Needless to say, we are in very different times now.
15th May 11:41 – Mark Fabiani: The Padres experience teaches first and foremost that timing
is everything in life: The team was in the World Series, the boom was in full swing,Bill
Clinton had a budget surplus, and the economic possibilities seemed limitless at the time.
15th May 11:42 – Mark Fabiani: SDSU would be an important tenant in a new stadium, as
would the college bowl games (and hopefully a BCS game at some point). But we can’t expect
the state — which has enormous financial problems — to put up much money for a new stadium.
15th May 11:42 – chargerbacker2: do they like the downtown idea?
15th May 11:43 – dbboltsfan17: Mark, what is your personal opinion on the LA site? Not asking
about a move or anything, what do you think of the design and total work that they have put
15th May 11:43 – sdjase: Mark – What’s going on in terms of progress in Chula Vista? What are
the next steps down there and what are the timelines and milestones for them making a
decision on the Gaylord site (which seems to to be one of the better bets right now)?
15th May 11:43 – Mark Fabiani: SDSU would love to stay right where we are now — at
Qualcomm. But for all the reasons you understand, that didn’t work out. I would think the closer to campus we are, the better it will be for SDSU.
15th May 11:44 – clee54: In your stadium studies, have any new NFL stadiums (last 10 years
or so) been deemed a failure?
15th May 11:44 – Mark Fabiani: We are stalled out in Chula Vista for one reason: The state
has not removed the “must run” status from the power plant that sits on our preferred bay front
15th May 11:44 – Mark Fabiani: We hope that we can persuade the state to act, and a lot of
other groups are working to achieve the same result. But there are no guarantees.
15th May 11:45 – Mark Fabiani: It’s hard to think of a stadium in the NFL that has failed. In fact,
a study by the Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia showed that NFL stadiums generate more
for their cities in property tax revenues than the cities put into the stadiums.
15th May 11:45 – Mark Fabiani: The Gaylord site is of interest to us, as I wrote earlier, but the
Port and the City have asked us to give them time to figure out how they want to proceed with
the Gaylord property.
15th May 11:45 – dbboltsfan17: Mark, Chula Vista is the last hope right?
15th May 11:46 – Mark Fabiani: Interestingly, the study did not find that baseball parks or
basketball/hockey arenas had any correlation to increases in property taxes.
15th May 11:46 – Mark Fabiani: My email is — if you email me, I can
send you a copy of the study.
15th May 11:47 – Mark Fabiani: As for Chula Vista being the last hope, at this point it is
certainly our best remaining hope. But as I said at the start of the chat, we do have some other
things going on, just recently, that might evolve into more hopeful possibilities.
15th May 11:47 – Mark Fabiani: The study concluded that having an NFL team was part of
what makes a city a desirable place to live, or relocate your company to, or visit. And those
things increase property values.
15th May 11:47 – acsilva81: The exisiting Qualcomm site is still the best site possible. I don’t
know how the City could be so blind to that fact. It’s accessed by the trolley and several major
15th May 11:47 – sdjase: How much of a benefit is a new stadium to taxpayers in terms of new
jobs, exposure etc.?
15th May 11:48 – Mark Fabiani: But these are only possibilities at this point.
15th May 11:48 – acsilva81: Is there any way the City could declare the Qualcomm area as a
redevelopment area? I highly doubt that since there are many more findings required to do so
than in the past.
15th May 11:48 – clee54: That seems like a terrible excuse from the city and the port on the gaylord site…
15th May 11:48 – mredmondson: The City only charged the Giants $1.00 per year for the use
of Canlestick Park, until they were able to privatel raise the money to build AT–AMPER_SAND–
T pa. Why can’t the Chargers do the same?
15th May 11:48 – mredmondson: I lived in San Francisco, when the city was supposed to lose
the Giats baseball team to the Tampa/St. Petersberg area. That was until Peter Magowan
stepped in at the last minute.
15th May 11:49 – Mark Fabiani: If you look at it from the City and Port perspective, they were
counting on the Gaylord project to generate huge amounts of hotel tax revenue (big hotel, big
convention facility). They seem reluctant to give up on the hotel idea at this point.
15th May 11:49 – Mark Fabiani: Qualcomm IS the best site! That’s why we spent the first four
years, and most of our $10 million, working on the site. But the numbers for a private
development don’t work there anymore, in our view.
15th May 11:49 – chargerchick619: Is there any way we can apply pressure to the City of
Chula Vista and/or the Port to get things going?
15th May 11:49 – Greg: not to mention, its non football uses… id hate to go through anotehr big
fire without that well located stie to use for evacuation
15th May 11:50 – Mark Fabiani: ….the Qualcomm site.
15th May 11:50 – Mark Fabiani: But if the Chargers vacated the Qualcomm site, the City of
San Diego would be the big winner: The city would no longer spend the $19 million it now
spends on the stadium, and it could generate hundreds of millions from the sale and
development of..
15th May 11:50 – Mark Fabiani: The cost of our project has doubled, and the real estate
market has declined. So, without another funding source, Qualcomm just doesn’t work for a
stadium and a development.
15th May 11:50 – acsilva81: Have you and the Chargers worked with the Urban Land Institute?
There are some very knowledgeable and powerful players in real estate and land use within that
15th May 11:50 – clee54: I mean more successful for the team, not the city….the goal seems to
be to keep the Chargers competitive, and with all of the revenue sharing and salary cap
restrictions, I have a hard time figuring out how much more the team can make
15th May 11:51 – Mark Fabiani: Your salary cap question is great. The salary cap is
determined by overall League revenues, so when new stadiums come on line, League revenues
go up, and the salary cap goes up.
15th May 11:51 – chargerbacker2: whats the status of the Perry Dealy report to the mayor?
15th May 11:51 – sdjase: Not to mention additional tax dollars and thousands of jobs 15th May 11:52 – Mark Fabiani: $5 million — just like that — even though you haven’t signed
one more player or coach, or lost one customer.
15th May 11:52 – Mark Fabiani: This coming season, with new stadiums opening for Dallas,
New York Jets and New York Giants, the salary cap will increase — because of the new
stadiums alone — by $10 million. That means that if you were making $5 million, now you are
15th May 11:52 – Greg: is that likely to change with the upcoming CBA talks?
15th May 11:53 – acsilva81: The jobs that a new stadium produces aren’t very significant.
They’re are mainly low-paying part-time jobs.
15th May 11:53 – Rick Tripp: If Qualcom is the best site and an additional funding source is
what you need to make it work, are you open to a new proposal?
15th May 11:53 – Rick Tripp: If an additional funding source is what is needed to make the
Qualcom site work, are you open to a new proposal?
15th May 11:53 – Mark Fabiani: That’s why, in the end, if you want to be financially competitive,
you need to have a competitive stadium.
15th May 11:53 – Mark Fabiani: We are always open to new proposals. I say to the community
groups I speak to all the time: There is nothing we would like better than to hear something we
haven’t thought of , or tried. We want to find a solution.
15th May 11:54 – mattgully23: Mark, matty g here, hope all is well with you my friend…..wanted
to ask you, have you and/or Dean had discussions with Mayor Cox and the Chula Vista City
Council about putting a stadium on the former Gaylor Hotel –AMPER_SAND– Convention
Center si
15th May 11:54 – Rick Tripp: If Qualcom is the best site and an additional funding source is
what you need to make it work, are you open to a new proposal?
15th May 11:54 – Mark Fabiani: I invite all of you to stay in touch with me as this process
moves forward — email is , and phone is 858.551.2818 — and if anyone
has ideas, we encourage you to let us know about them.
15th May 11:55 – Mark Fabiani: Hey Matty G. Good to hear from you. Yes, we have met with
both the Port and Chula Vista officials about the Gaylord site. For now, both entities have asked
us to give them time to sort out what they want to do with the site.
15th May 11:55 – sdjase: What type of progress do you think Dean needs to see and by when
to consider that this is moving in the right direction?
15th May 11:56 – Mark Fabiani: But we would be very interested in a serious discussion about
the Gaylord site.
15th May 11:56 – Mark Fabiani: I don’t think it’s strained things in CV, or with the Port. Mayor Cox aside, we have great relations all around Chula Vista and with the Port — and we are trying
to work with Mayor Cox. So no strain…
15th May 11:56 – dbboltsfan17: Does the City f Industry site interest Dean Spanos? how does
he feel about it?
15th May 11:56 – mattgully23: Does that put a little strain on things down there or not really?
15th May 11:56 – Tycebrew: mark, is there any advice you can give to our group as we move
forward to help facilitate things moving forward?
15th May 11:57 – Mark Fabiani: Absolutely, I have lots of advice!
15th May 11:57 – Mark Fabiani: First, do what you’re doing. Your group has already done a
tremendous job — great website, making your presence known in the community. So keep it up –
– you’ve made remarkable progress in a very short time.
15th May 11:57 – mattgully23: Does that put a little strain on things down there or not really?
15th May 11:57 – sdjase: So Mark – the escape clause opens up again early next year. So,
what needs to happen before that time for the Chargers organization to be happy?
15th May 11:58 – Mark Fabiani: It doesn’t take much time to comment, and your comments will
both influence the on-line discussion and be read by elected officials, reporters and editors.
15th May 11:58 – Mark Fabiani: It doesn’t
15th May 11:58 – Mark Fabiani: Second, weigh in with the media. SignonSanDiego, Voice of
San Diego, North County Times — all of these publications give you a chance to comment when
stories on this topic are written. Weigh in!
15th May 11:59 – Mark Fabiani: Third, talk to your friends and associates about this. Let them
know what you think — and educate them about the money that they, as taxpayers, are losing
under the current arrangement at Qualcomm.
15th May 11:59 – mattgully23: well put Mark, I agree that when people talk to the media, and
call talk shows and bring up this discussion, the leaders will hear us
15th May 12:00 – Mark Fabiani: And finally, keep in touch with us. Let us know where we need
to do better — how we can better frame our arguments — what ideas we are missing. I have
benefited greatly over the years from the advice we have received from the community.
15th May 12:00 – dbboltsfan17: Mark, how does Dean feel about the City Of Industry site?
Does it interest him in the least bit?
15th May 12:00 – mattgully23: Mark, one final question from me, is there anything also to
report on possibly having a stadium downtown?
15th May 12:00 – mattgully23: believe me, and you can probably attest to this Mark, at XTRA
Sports, the whole front office and personnel there listen to the station, as I am sure they do at XX 1090
15th May 12:01 – Mark Fabiani: And that remains our position today.
15th May 12:01 – Mark Fabiani: In the end, we told Ed that we were still committed to finding a
solution in San Diego County.
15th May 12:01 – Mark Fabiani: The Spanos and Roski families have known one another for
years, so Dean and Ed Roski are no strangers. And we said this publicly last Spring: Ed briefed
us on his proposal, and we listened.
15th May 12:01 – chargerbacker2: is 2009 or 2010 the make or break year to find out whats
going to happen with the chargers? thank you for your time
15th May 12:01 – sdjase: So, what do you need to see by the time the escape clause window
opens up again next year?
15th May 12:02 – Mark Fabiani: Having said all of that, Roski has an interesting proposal: He
controls the land already; he has the city paying for his infrastructure; he has a construction
technique that will reduce the stadium costs; and he has a cooperative city government.
15th May 12:02 – chargerbacker2: is 2009 or 2010 the make or break year to find out whats
going to happen with the chargers? thank you for your time
15th May 12:03 – dbboltsfan17: Something the Chargers don’t have lol
15th May 12:03 – Mark Fabiani: ….to the end of this process than we are to the beginning. Put
another way, I would be surprised if we were at this for another seven years and another $10
15th May 12:03 – Mark Fabiani: We have been careful — at Dean’s direction — not to ever put
any deadlines on anyone here in San Diego. And I don’t have a crystal ball here. So I hesitate to
make a prediction, except to say that I think we are a lot closer….
15th May 12:04 – br14n22: If the Chargers were to leave San Diego in favor of the City of
Industry, has there been any talk of reclassifying the Chargers as representing Southern
California, much like the New England Patriots?
15th May 12:04 – chargerchick619: But hasn’t he also eluded to wanting partial ownership in
whatever team plays there? How do the Spanos family feel about that?
15th May 12:04 – dgonzals: NFL salary cap rises to $128 million for 2009 just reported on
15th May 12:04 – sdjase: But all of that requires political support and there appears to be very
little sense of urgency
15th May 12:04 – Mark Fabiani: The path might take several years to traverse, but if it is a
clear path, with a supported site and a viable financing plan, then I think we will be on our way.15th May 12:04 – Mark Fabiani: We are at the point, in my view, where we need to come up
with a site that people can support, and a financing plan that works, and then show Dean and
his family a path to a solution.
15th May 12:05 – sdjase: Among our local leaders.
15th May 12:05 – Mark Fabiani: In the absence of that, at some point, the owners of the team
would be abandoning their responsibility to the franchise if they didn’t consider other options —
but thankfully we are not at that point yet.
15th May 12:06 – chargerbacker2: with the City of Industry closer to a stadium then San Diego
and CV holding on to the Gaylord site, is there any news that Chargers fans can rally around for
staying in San Diego?
15th May 12:06 – sdjase: Thanks for your time Mark. I believe we have a minute for one last
15th May 12:06 – Mark Fabiani: ….increase local — stadium — revenues.
15th May 12:06 – Mark Fabiani: The news of the salary cap increases reinforces the point we
discussed earlier: The cap is going to keep going up and up and up as long as League
revenues do. And the only way a team in a medium-sized market can compete is to….
15th May 12:07 – Mark Fabiani: As for the sense of urgency, or lack thereof, among local
leaders, again, we are sympathetic to the Mayor and members of the City Council who are
dealing with a horrendous budget crisis and terrible economic situation.
15th May 12:07 – Mark Fabiani: We all have to be realistic about what is possible in this
environment — and then find a creative way to get something done even in spite of the crisis.
15th May 12:08 – Mark Fabiani: The best news for Charger fans is this: The team has an
owner — Dean Spanos — who wants to keep the team here. He’s proven that over the years,
and he continues to prove that every day he pays me to work on this.
15th May 12:09 – Mark Fabiani: again, my contact info: or
15th May 12:09 – Mark Fabiani: I really do encourage all of you to stay in touch after this
chat…call or email anytime….our contacts throughout the community are invaluable to us, and
your support is critical.
15th May 12:09 – Mark Fabiani: It was my pleasure! I am happy to do it anytime.
15th May 12:09 – chargerchick619: And thanks to the members
15th May 12:09 – chargerchick619: Thank you again Mark.
15th May 12:09 – sdjase: Thanks again to Mark Fabiani and everyone who participated in
today’s discussion. Please feel free to email Mr. Fabiani directly or any of us at the SDSC with
additional questions. We WILL get this done and I thank you all again for your support! 15th May 12:09 – Tycebrew: thanks all
15th May 12:10 – chargerbacker2: thank you
15th May 12:10 – dbboltsfan17: Thank you Mark, i appreciate your time!
15th May 12:10 – Greg: yes thanks for your time
15th May 12:10 – sdstadium: We would like to thank you for taking your time
15th May 12:10 – Mark Fabiani: It was really my pleasure. Anytime!
15th May 12:10 – Mark Fabiani: That’s the goal!