|
|
Post by ab on Apr 15, 2014 13:43:10 GMT -8
Pretty much what Arizona did for the Cardinals and ATL is doing for Falcons... I've been saying this for years....use hotel/motel taxes and even car rental taxes to pay for the new Chargers/Aztecs stadium.
"The Falcons are funding the majority of the $1.2 billion stadium construction costs, including taking on the risk of construction overruns. $200 million of public funding will come from the existing Atlanta hotel-motel tax, which is paid primarily by visitors from outside the state of Georgia. This is the same tax that was used to fund the debt on the Georgia Dome. We expect that the portion of construction funding through PSL sales will be a relatively small piece of the total cost."
newstadium.atlantafalcons.com/
________________________________________________
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and U.S. Bank have agreed to an $850 million loan with the city's stadium authority and the 49ers.
The money will cover the bulk of the estimated $1 billion project.
Funding from the National Football League, a hotel tax and city redevelopment funds is expected to make up the difference.
espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7310317/san-francisco-49ers-santa-clara-secure-funding-stadium
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 15, 2014 16:59:03 GMT -8
Or... We can wave goodbye to the Chargers and get a stadium more suitable for us, all our own, no playing 2nd fiddle to the greedy local NFL affiliate -- and able to rent it out as SDSU sees fit.
Yeah, I like that model much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Top of the Pyramid on Apr 15, 2014 17:36:52 GMT -8
Or... We can wave goodbye to the Chargers and get a stadium more suitable for us, all our own, no playing 2nd fiddle to the greedy local NFL affiliate -- and able to rent it out as SDSU sees fit. Yeah, I like that model much better. Are you trying to tell me you don't like having 30,000 empty BLUE seats in a stadium that's too big, a stale corporate atmosphere, and a disinterested student population that doesn't travel to the games? |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 15, 2014 17:53:05 GMT -8
Pretty much what Arizona did for the Cardinals and ATL is doing for Falcons... I've been saying this for years....use hotel/motel taxes and even car rental taxes to pay for the new Chargers/Aztecs stadium.
"The Falcons are funding the majority of the $1.2 billion stadium construction costs, including taking on the risk of construction overruns. $200 million of public funding will come from the existing Atlanta hotel-motel tax, which is paid primarily by visitors from outside the state of Georgia. This is the same tax that was used to fund the debt on the Georgia Dome. We expect that the portion of construction funding through PSL sales will be a relatively small piece of the total cost."
newstadium.atlantafalcons.com/
________________________________________________
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and U.S. Bank have agreed to an $850 million loan with the city's stadium authority and the 49ers.
The money will cover the bulk of the estimated $1 billion project.
Funding from the National Football League, a hotel tax and city redevelopment funds is expected to make up the difference.
espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7310317/san-francisco-49ers-santa-clara-secure-funding-stadium
The Santa Clara Stadium Authority is made up of the city council, mayor, city attorney, and other big-wigs of the city of Santa Clara. They (the taxpayers) will probably be ending up paying more for their stadium than San Diego would be for a new Chargers stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 15, 2014 21:45:07 GMT -8
Aztec football is not, at present, on life support. But with moving up to a better conference something that will probably happen just before pigs fly, the future is anything but certain. The program would be much, much better off staying in the Q than having to move downtown to a new charger stadium. And that's just what it would be . . . a CHARGER STADIUM.
We need two things. First a genuine signature win over a well-regarded, and highly ranked, Power Conference school. Second, an on-campus stadium that would almost certainly put the program on a firm footing for the next 50 years. The school gambled, no doubt without realizing it, that hooking the Aztec star to the Chargers' lightening bolt was the way to go. Bad decision, though I can understand why it seemed like a good idea at the time. I should also add that destroying Aztec Bowl when Cox/Viejas could have been located somewhere else on campus was perhaps the worst decision of all.
By the way, I'm just waiting for the pro-Chargers fans to declare that the entire county should help the Spanoses operate in the grand style to which they aspire. That means that my wife and I, Fallbrook residents for two decades, will be asked to cough up money for a stadium that will be great the the NFL but a serious blow . . . possibly a death blow . . . to SDSU's football program. Thanks, but not thanks. If the Spanos family wants it own Taj Mahal, let them pay for it.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 15, 2014 22:24:48 GMT -8
Aztec football is not, at present, on life support. But with moving up to a better conference something that will probably happen just before pigs fly, the future is anything but certain. The program would be much, much better off staying in the Q than having to move downtown to a new charger stadium. And that's just what it would be . . . a CHARGER STADIUM. We need two things. First a genuine signature win over a well-regarded, and highly ranked, Power Conference school. Second, an on-campus stadium that would almost certainly put the program on a firm footing for the next 50 years. The school gambled, no doubt without realizing it, that hooking the Aztec star to the Chargers' lightening bolt was the way to go. Bad decision, though I can understand why it seemed like a good idea at the time. I should also add that destroying Aztec Bowl when Cox/Viejas could have been located somewhere else on campus was perhaps the worst decision of all. By the way, I'm just waiting for the pro-Chargers fans to declare that the entire county should help the Spanoses operate in the grand style to which they aspire. That means that my wife and I, Fallbrook residents for two decades, will be asked to cough up money for a stadium that will be great the the NFL but a serious blow . . . possibly a death blow . . . to SDSU's football program. Thanks, but not thanks. If the Spanos family wants it own Taj Mahal, let them pay for it. AzWm You haven't heard them yet? They have been coming out of the woodwork. I think even Fabiani has mentioned a county-wide vote. |
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Apr 16, 2014 7:37:12 GMT -8
Or... We can wave goodbye to the Chargers and get a stadium more suitable for us, all our own, no playing 2nd fiddle to the greedy local NFL affiliate -- and able to rent it out as SDSU sees fit. Yeah, I like that model much better. A middle of the road Mountain WAC program that draws its biggest crowd when playing second fiddle to fireworks should never have to play second fiddle to a professional team that actually packs the stadium (even during blackouts). Maybe your president and athletic director should make a move instead of waiting on the greedy local NFL affiliate. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 16, 2014 7:39:32 GMT -8
Or... We can wave goodbye to the Chargers and get a stadium more suitable for us, all our own, no playing 2nd fiddle to the greedy local NFL affiliate -- and able to rent it out as SDSU sees fit. Yeah, I like that model much better. Note that if you're talking about local government money to help fund the Aztecs, you can bet that we would be sharing the place with other tenants as well. We don't. But then we can ask a couple of other questions like... Why do a lot of Charger honks insist on dragging us into their nefarious plans? Or put another way... Why do the Chargers insist on confusing the issue by dragging us into it? I think it's because, otherwise, they know they don't have the local support to get what they want, which tends to happen when you charge exorbitant tickets prices, parking, concessions, etc, and then hold the town for ransom (and, conveniently enough for them, the local school that plays in the same stadium). Tends to turn a few people off here and there. And did we use "local government money" for the building of Viejas?? |
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 16, 2014 7:45:06 GMT -8
Or... We can wave goodbye to the Chargers and get a stadium more suitable for us, all our own, no playing 2nd fiddle to the greedy local NFL affiliate -- and able to rent it out as SDSU sees fit. Yeah, I like that model much better. A middle of the road Mountain WAC program that draws its biggest crowd when playing second fiddle to fireworks should never have to play second fiddle to a professional team that actually packs the stadium (even during blackouts). Maybe your president and athletic director should make a move instead of waiting on the greedy local NFL affiliate. Aside from a couple of minor factual issues (conference affiliation for one, the definition of a "packed" stadium for another) I agree with everything you just said! Let's roll! |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 16, 2014 9:06:18 GMT -8
Aztec football is not, at present, on life support. But with moving up to a better conference something that will probably happen just before pigs fly, the future is anything but certain. The program would be much, much better off staying in the Q than having to move downtown to a new charger stadium. And that's just what it would be . . . a CHARGER STADIUM. We need two things. First a genuine signature win over a well-regarded, and highly ranked, Power Conference school. Second, an on-campus stadium that would almost certainly put the program on a firm footing for the next 50 years. The school gambled, no doubt without realizing it, that hooking the Aztec star to the Chargers' lightening bolt was the way to go. Bad decision, though I can understand why it seemed like a good idea at the time. I should also add that destroying Aztec Bowl when Cox/Viejas could have been located somewhere else on campus was perhaps the worst decision of all. By the way, I'm just waiting for the pro-Chargers fans to declare that the entire county should help the Spanoses operate in the grand style to which they aspire. That means that my wife and I, Fallbrook residents for two decades, will be asked to cough up money for a stadium that will be great the the NFL but a serious blow . . . possibly a death blow . . . to SDSU's football program. Thanks, but not thanks. If the Spanos family wants it own Taj Mahal, let them pay for it. AzWm It should be a county wide decision. But where above in the Atlanta or Santa Clara financing plans does it take money out of anybody's pockets except the tourists? |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 16, 2014 9:08:05 GMT -8
Why would we need the Chargers to leave in order to accomplish what you propose above?Note that if you're talking about local government money to help fund the Aztecs, you can bet that we would be sharing the place with other tenants as well. We don't. But then we can ask a couple of other questions like... Why do a lot of Charger honks insist on dragging us into their nefarious plans? Or put another way... Why do the Chargers insist on confusing the issue by dragging us into it? I think it's because, otherwise, they know they don't have the local support to get what they want, which tends to happen when you charge exorbitant tickets prices, parking, concessions, etc, and then hold the town for ransom (and, conveniently enough for them, the local school that plays in the same stadium). Tends to turn a few people off here and there. And did we use "local government money" for the building of Viejas?? How are the Chargers dragging "us" into anything? Hell, I asked Sterk if he's met with the Chargers to work together and he seemed more interested in sitting back and waiting for something to happen. Pro-Active he ain't. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Apr 16, 2014 10:21:21 GMT -8
We don't. But then we can ask a couple of other questions like... Why do a lot of Charger honks insist on dragging us into their nefarious plans? Or put another way... Why do the Chargers insist on confusing the issue by dragging us into it? I think it's because, otherwise, they know they don't have the local support to get what they want, which tends to happen when you charge exorbitant tickets prices, parking, concessions, etc, and then hold the town for ransom (and, conveniently enough for them, the local school that plays in the same stadium). Tends to turn a few people off here and there. And did we use "local government money" for the building of Viejas?? I don't know of a single Charger fan outside this board who gives a rip about the Aztecs. I can easily see why someone would oppose the Chargers' "plans," but what makes these plans "nefarious"? I don't know. But it seemed like good enough usage, given this thread has placed the Aztecs as a "mid-grade WAC football team"... |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 16, 2014 10:47:39 GMT -8
How are the Chargers dragging "us" into anything? Hell, I asked Sterk if he's met with the Chargers to work together and he seemed more interested in sitting back and waiting for something to happen. Pro-Active he ain't. Shocking I tell you simply shocking Ah yes, Sterk the Sea Cucumber. |
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Apr 16, 2014 11:47:50 GMT -8
Shocking I tell you simply shocking Ah yes, Sterk the Sea Cucumber. I don't know what kind of Div I AD sits on the sidelines waiting for other people to tell him what his stadium plans are going to be, but Sterk has to get a clue. With storm clouds brewing over college football we need our own home fast. Colorado State obviously gets that; so must we. And we must take action independent of whatever the Chargers do. I still have to think some movement is already going on behind the scenes, simply because Sterk couldn't be so blind as to not see what is happening and what our needs are. If any of us were the SDSU AD, we would be all over this problem 24/7. |
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 17, 2014 12:14:40 GMT -8
Here's what they are doing in Minnesota www.vikings.com/stadium/new-stadium/faq.html#costNEW VIKINGS STADIUM COST AND FINANCING How much will the new stadium cost? The total project cost will be $975 million, which includes a Guaranteed Maximum Price of $763 million toward the cost of construction. Additional costs include land acquisition and remediation, administrative fees, contractor fees, etc. The Vikings have also already committed an additional $26.4 million in contingency funding and announced they will cover $15 million in costs of playing at TCF Bank Stadium. The Vikings have agreed to this additional financial commitment in order to ensure that design elements related to the fan experience are kept in the final project. How is the project being financed? Of the project’s $975 million upfront capital costs, $477 million, or 49% of the stadium cost, will be paid by private funds made up of a combination of Vikings private financing and equity and the MSFA’s sale of Stadium Builder’s Licenses (SBLs). The Vikings private financing and equity includes certain NFL financing in the form of a loan repaid by stadium revenues. The Stadium Builder’s Licenses program was authorized by the Minnesota legislature in the 2012 stadium legislation (for more on SBLs, click here). The remaining $498 million public contribution will be split between the City of Minneapolis ($150 million) and the State of Minnesota ($348 million). The State has issued appropriation bonds in an approximate amount of $462 million and will finance the remainder of the $498 million public contribution with available State funds. The stadium legislation provides that the City’s $150 million contribution will be advanced to the MSFA through the issuance of the appropriation bonds and will be repaid by the City to the State by redirecting a portion of the current “Convention Center Taxes.” The remaining amount of the appropriation bonds will be repaid to the bondholders from other sources available to the state, including the modernization of state-authorized charitable gaming that includes electronic pull-tabs and bingo and a one-time inventory tax on cigarettes, which raised approximately $36 million. |
|
