[SanDiegoDave]

While I don’t think that the city should (or can) pay for a new stadium, I’m not against some minimal element of taxpayer involvement. San Diego is one of only a handful of cities that is a good destination for a Super Bowl. The financial advantages of that are tremendous. And IF they were to build a stadium in a central location there at Qualcomm, the multi-use advantages are huge as well.

In general, though, I don’t think the public should fund stadiums at all. To your point creechrr, as rabid as the fans are in the Midwest, they still raped money from the public to finance new stadiums. Totally upside down logic.

[SanDiegoDave]

While I don’t think that the city should (or can) pay for a new stadium, I’m not against some minimal element of taxpayer involvement. San Diego is one of only a handful of cities that is a good destination for a Super Bowl. The financial advantages of that are tremendous. And IF they were to build a stadium in a central location there at Qualcomm, the multi-use advantages are huge as well.

In general, though, I don’t think the public should fund stadiums at all. To your point creechrr, as rabid as the fans are in the Midwest, they still raped money from the public to finance new stadiums. Totally upside down logic.

[SanDiegoDave]

While I don’t think that the city should (or can) pay for a new stadium, I’m not against some minimal element of taxpayer involvement. San Diego is one of only a handful of cities that is a good destination for a Super Bowl. The financial advantages of that are tremendous. And IF they were to build a stadium in a central location there at Qualcomm, the multi-use advantages are huge as well.

In general, though, I don’t think the public should fund stadiums at all. To your point creechrr, as rabid as the fans are in the Midwest, they still raped money from the public to finance new stadiums. Totally upside down logic.

[SanDiegoDave]

While I don’t think that the city should (or can) pay for a new stadium, I’m not against some minimal element of taxpayer involvement. San Diego is one of only a handful of cities that is a good destination for a Super Bowl. The financial advantages of that are tremendous. And IF they were to build a stadium in a central location there at Qualcomm, the multi-use advantages are huge as well.

In general, though, I don’t think the public should fund stadiums at all. To your point creechrr, as rabid as the fans are in the Midwest, they still raped money from the public to finance new stadiums. Totally upside down logic.

[SanDiegoDave]

While I don’t think that the city should (or can) pay for a new stadium, I’m not against some minimal element of taxpayer involvement. San Diego is one of only a handful of cities that is a good destination for a Super Bowl. The financial advantages of that are tremendous. And IF they were to build a stadium in a central location there at Qualcomm, the multi-use advantages are huge as well.

In general, though, I don’t think the public should fund stadiums at all. To your point creechrr, as rabid as the fans are in the Midwest, they still raped money from the public to finance new stadiums. Totally upside down logic.

[SanDiegoDave]

Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.

[SanDiegoDave]

Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.

[SanDiegoDave]

Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.

[SanDiegoDave]

Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.

[SanDiegoDave]

Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.

[SanDiegoDave]

I’m a pay-in-full every month guy too. If any of my cards start pulling this stuff I won’t use them. It’s that simple. And what most people don’t understand is: that is EXACTLY what the credit card companies want.

Pay-in-full customers are known in the CC industry as “deadbeats”. “What’s that?!?” you ask. Yeah, I saw a documentary on these guys a few years back. The ones who carry heavy balances, pay late, etc. are the most profitable customers that CC companies have. Unless the user completely defaults on the debt, the true “deadbeat” is the one who pays in full every month because the CC company only makes money on the merchant fee. That’s why they refer to pay-in-full people as “deadbeats”.

This move is risky on the part of the industry though. It’s classic game theory. If they all go to a “no grace period model + annual fee model”, then they all make out. But if just one of them pulls back and keeps the grace periods and no fees, then the savvy users like me will gravitate to those other cards.

[SanDiegoDave]

I’m a pay-in-full every month guy too. If any of my cards start pulling this stuff I won’t use them. It’s that simple. And what most people don’t understand is: that is EXACTLY what the credit card companies want.

Pay-in-full customers are known in the CC industry as “deadbeats”. “What’s that?!?” you ask. Yeah, I saw a documentary on these guys a few years back. The ones who carry heavy balances, pay late, etc. are the most profitable customers that CC companies have. Unless the user completely defaults on the debt, the true “deadbeat” is the one who pays in full every month because the CC company only makes money on the merchant fee. That’s why they refer to pay-in-full people as “deadbeats”.

This move is risky on the part of the industry though. It’s classic game theory. If they all go to a “no grace period model + annual fee model”, then they all make out. But if just one of them pulls back and keeps the grace periods and no fees, then the savvy users like me will gravitate to those other cards.

[SanDiegoDave]

I’m a pay-in-full every month guy too. If any of my cards start pulling this stuff I won’t use them. It’s that simple. And what most people don’t understand is: that is EXACTLY what the credit card companies want.

Pay-in-full customers are known in the CC industry as “deadbeats”. “What’s that?!?” you ask. Yeah, I saw a documentary on these guys a few years back. The ones who carry heavy balances, pay late, etc. are the most profitable customers that CC companies have. Unless the user completely defaults on the debt, the true “deadbeat” is the one who pays in full every month because the CC company only makes money on the merchant fee. That’s why they refer to pay-in-full people as “deadbeats”.

This move is risky on the part of the industry though. It’s classic game theory. If they all go to a “no grace period model + annual fee model”, then they all make out. But if just one of them pulls back and keeps the grace periods and no fees, then the savvy users like me will gravitate to those other cards.

[SanDiegoDave]

I’m a pay-in-full every month guy too. If any of my cards start pulling this stuff I won’t use them. It’s that simple. And what most people don’t understand is: that is EXACTLY what the credit card companies want.

Pay-in-full customers are known in the CC industry as “deadbeats”. “What’s that?!?” you ask. Yeah, I saw a documentary on these guys a few years back. The ones who carry heavy balances, pay late, etc. are the most profitable customers that CC companies have. Unless the user completely defaults on the debt, the true “deadbeat” is the one who pays in full every month because the CC company only makes money on the merchant fee. That’s why they refer to pay-in-full people as “deadbeats”.

This move is risky on the part of the industry though. It’s classic game theory. If they all go to a “no grace period model + annual fee model”, then they all make out. But if just one of them pulls back and keeps the grace periods and no fees, then the savvy users like me will gravitate to those other cards.

[SanDiegoDave]

I’m a pay-in-full every month guy too. If any of my cards start pulling this stuff I won’t use them. It’s that simple. And what most people don’t understand is: that is EXACTLY what the credit card companies want.

Pay-in-full customers are known in the CC industry as “deadbeats”. “What’s that?!?” you ask. Yeah, I saw a documentary on these guys a few years back. The ones who carry heavy balances, pay late, etc. are the most profitable customers that CC companies have. Unless the user completely defaults on the debt, the true “deadbeat” is the one who pays in full every month because the CC company only makes money on the merchant fee. That’s why they refer to pay-in-full people as “deadbeats”.

This move is risky on the part of the industry though. It’s classic game theory. If they all go to a “no grace period model + annual fee model”, then they all make out. But if just one of them pulls back and keeps the grace periods and no fees, then the savvy users like me will gravitate to those other cards.

[Author]

Posts