|
Post by Den60 on Sept 20, 2014 7:19:28 GMT -8
Why the hell would the Chargers care who the Q site was sold to if they get approval for a new stadium? If the Aztecs were to want to go it alone and keep playing at the Q it won't matter a whit to the Chargers because the owner of the new stadium will still be the city (if it gets built at all). Were there to be a new stadium built downtown the Q site will be sold to the entity (or entities) that come(s) up with the best proposal for redevelopment. The monetary amount the city can get for the property, though, will be of primary importance and the city will need public approval for the sale of the property. They will likely sell to the one(s) who give them the most money for the property. and yet ... in an effort to get their new stadium, the Chargers have yet to openly and publicly endorse the sale of the Q to SDSU, why not? It supposedly fits with their plans to sell the Q anyway and puts another $300M towards their downtown project. Why aren't the Chargers out there banging the drum for the sale of the Q to SDSU as part of why they (Chargers) should get a Pro stadium for themselves? Most likely because it doesn't fit with their plan. I believe they do care about where the Aztecs play and don't want a competing stadium to their own. First, the Chargers need to get something that can be put on the ballot. That is what they are working on, not the expansion of SDSU for the purpose of providing them an Aztec only stadium. That $300M you talk about comes from Steve Peace, who doesn't have a dog in this hunt. He pulled numbers out of his a$$. When Weber talked about the possibility of buying the Q site he was talking $500M, not $300M. So what is that property actually worth? The city isn't going to do a sweetheart deal with SDSU to sell them the property at a discount. Again, in all the proposals so far (at least those that keep the Chargers in the city limits) have been for the stadium to be owned by the city and the Chargers would pay rent to the city for the use of the stadium. If anyone would have an issue with a "competing" stadium it would be the city, not the Chargers. I don't see much competition coming from the Q if a new stadium was built. The Holiday Bowl would sure move and likely the Poinsettia bowl as well. Who would choose the Q over a new stadium? If the Aztecs were to build a new stadium it would be too small for the Holiday Bowl though it might be attractive for the Poinsettia Bowl. But first they have to come up with a lot of money for the purpose a building a stadium on their own. The CSU system isn't going to provide funding for that purpose. Why hasn't the University come up with a proposal (with funding) to buy the property on their own? Why would the Chargers bang the drum for SDSU to buy the property or, for that matter, anyone else specifically. To whom the property is sold to is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much the property can be sold for and whether the voters would approve any of the funds from that sale to go for the funding of a new stadium (or stadium/convention center expansion). Personally, I would think that the percentage of those funds that would be approved by the voters for building a new stadium would be proportional the the percentage of land that Qualcomm occupies on the existing Mission Valley site. If a convention center expansion was tied into that then the voters might approve more.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 20, 2014 8:44:04 GMT -8
and yet ... in an effort to get their new stadium, the Chargers have yet to openly and publicly endorse the sale of the Q to SDSU, why not? It supposedly fits with their plans to sell the Q anyway and puts another $300M towards their downtown project. Why aren't the Chargers out there banging the drum for the sale of the Q to SDSU as part of why they (Chargers) should get a Pro stadium for themselves? Most likely because it doesn't fit with their plan. I believe they do care about where the Aztecs play and don't want a competing stadium to their own. First, the Chargers need to get something that can be put on the ballot. That is what they are working on, not the expansion of SDSU for the purpose of providing them an Aztec only stadium. That $300M you talk about comes from Steve Peace, who doesn't have a dog in this hunt. He pulled numbers out of his a$$. When Weber talked about the possibility of buying the Q site he was talking $500M, not $300M. So what is that property actually worth? The city isn't going to do a sweetheart deal with SDSU to sell them the property at a discount. Again, in all the proposals so far (at least those that keep the Chargers in the city limits) have been for the stadium to be owned by the city and the Chargers would pay rent to the city for the use of the stadium. If anyone would have an issue with a "competing" stadium it would be the city, not the Chargers. I don't see much competition coming from the Q if a new stadium was built. The Holiday Bowl would sure move and likely the Poinsettia bowl as well. Who would choose the Q over a new stadium? If the Aztecs were to build a new stadium it would be too small for the Holiday Bowl though it might be attractive for the Poinsettia Bowl. But first they have to come up with a lot of money for the purpose a building a stadium on their own. The CSU system isn't going to provide funding for that purpose. Why hasn't the University come up with a proposal (with funding) to buy the property on their own? Why would the Chargers bang the drum for SDSU to buy the property or, for that matter, anyone else specifically. To whom the property is sold to is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much the property can be sold for and whether the voters would approve any of the funds from that sale to go for the funding of a new stadium (or stadium/convention center expansion). Personally, I would think that the percentage of those funds that would be approved by the voters for building a new stadium would be proportional the the percentage of land that Qualcomm occupies on the existing Mission Valley site. If a convention center expansion was tied into that then the voters might approve more. The Chargers are greedy, and want as much as they can get from others without investing anything of their own. The City would be better off investing money in the convention center and the expansion of SDSU ... these economic facts are undeniable. The city will sell the Q to SDSU eventually and the expansions of SDSU and the Convention Center will return more to the city for the investment (or discount) than any investment in a Chargers stadium downtown. These are financial facts that the Chargers can't escape. Why won't the Chargers endorse the sale of the Q to SDSU, because they don't care what is best for the city, they only care what is best for the Chargers and selling the Q to SDSU for $300M does not fit what is best for the Chargers. I personally don't think the Chargers should get anything from the city from the sale of the Q no matter who the the buyer is. Any money from that sale should first go toward paying off the last renovation. Any funds left over would be better served funding other projects in San Diego like desalination or reclamation of water. The Chargers won't be getting any of the convention center expansion funds. The Chargers should accept the fact that they are paying for half the stadium they want to build. The County and City will be providing the land and the initial construction bonds ... the rest is up to the Chargers to get funded. The Chargers should get no preferential treatment regarding this public/private joint venture than any other in the city. If the Chargers want a $1B stadium, then they should be prepared to invest $500M or more.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 22, 2014 13:50:21 GMT -8
First, the Chargers need to get something that can be put on the ballot. That is what they are working on, not the expansion of SDSU for the purpose of providing them an Aztec only stadium. That $300M you talk about comes from Steve Peace, who doesn't have a dog in this hunt. He pulled numbers out of his a$$. When Weber talked about the possibility of buying the Q site he was talking $500M, not $300M. So what is that property actually worth? The city isn't going to do a sweetheart deal with SDSU to sell them the property at a discount. Again, in all the proposals so far (at least those that keep the Chargers in the city limits) have been for the stadium to be owned by the city and the Chargers would pay rent to the city for the use of the stadium. If anyone would have an issue with a "competing" stadium it would be the city, not the Chargers. I don't see much competition coming from the Q if a new stadium was built. The Holiday Bowl would sure move and likely the Poinsettia bowl as well. Who would choose the Q over a new stadium? If the Aztecs were to build a new stadium it would be too small for the Holiday Bowl though it might be attractive for the Poinsettia Bowl. But first they have to come up with a lot of money for the purpose a building a stadium on their own. The CSU system isn't going to provide funding for that purpose. Why hasn't the University come up with a proposal (with funding) to buy the property on their own? Why would the Chargers bang the drum for SDSU to buy the property or, for that matter, anyone else specifically. To whom the property is sold to is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much the property can be sold for and whether the voters would approve any of the funds from that sale to go for the funding of a new stadium (or stadium/convention center expansion). Personally, I would think that the percentage of those funds that would be approved by the voters for building a new stadium would be proportional the the percentage of land that Qualcomm occupies on the existing Mission Valley site. If a convention center expansion was tied into that then the voters might approve more. The Chargers are greedy, and want as much as they can get from others without investing anything of their own. The City would be better off investing money in the convention center and the expansion of SDSU ... these economic facts are undeniable. The city will sell the Q to SDSU eventually and the expansions of SDSU and the Convention Center will return more to the city for the investment (or discount) than any investment in a Chargers stadium downtown. These are financial facts that the Chargers can't escape. Why won't the Chargers endorse the sale of the Q to SDSU, because they don't care what is best for the city, they only care what is best for the Chargers and selling the Q to SDSU for $300M does not fit what is best for the Chargers. I personally don't think the Chargers should get anything from the city from the sale of the Q no matter who the the buyer is. Any money from that sale should first go toward paying off the last renovation. Any funds left over would be better served funding other projects in San Diego like desalination or reclamation of water. The Chargers won't be getting any of the convention center expansion funds. The Chargers should accept the fact that they are paying for half the stadium they want to build. The County and City will be providing the land and the initial construction bonds ... the rest is up to the Chargers to get funded. The Chargers should get no preferential treatment regarding this public/private joint venture than any other in the city. If the Chargers want a $1B stadium, then they should be prepared to invest $500M or more.The last proposal from the Chargers included $400M from them ($200M via a loan from the NFL). Those are actual, undeniable facts. I don't recall the city coming up with "free land" for the Chargers. I do recall the Chargers initially proposed having the city giving land at the Q to the Chargers for them to develop to pay for a stadium that would be built for the city but that never got on the ballot. They are currently proposing using a downtown stadium site as part of the convention center expansion, which has hit a snag of its own. The stadium would have a removable soft cover so it could be used for convention activities. Such a cover would also make San Diego a possible (I'd say probable) final four site. A stadium built to serve both as a site for football as well as a site for convention activity would be more expensive than a stadium only stadium. The public does benefit from having an NFL team and it does benefit from having a facility that can host Superbowls, Holiday Bowls, The Final 4 etc so the inclusion of some amount of public money is warranted. The fact that these taxes are paid via increased TOT taxes As for them getting special treatment that comes from the fact that, unlike many businesses, they perform their jobs in front of 60K fans as well as TV. As for the Q land going to SDSU for $300M being a done deal I think that is wishful thinking. I don't see the city doing anything with that site that serves the university more than it serves itself. SDSU would get to bid on the property just like any other potential buyer would. I expect the party which comes up with the most money will likely be awarded the property. I don't expect the CSU system would approve the use of public money going towards the purchase of a football stadium unless as part of that plan the stadium is demolished and the land used for something else. If part of the university's plan for the property is operating the stadium (or replacing it with a new one) then those funds will have to come from another source (just like Viejas and the new BBPF did). Just the annual operating costs of the stadium exceed that which it will take to build the BBPF. SDSU athletics already runs a deficit and they cannot afford to add another $14M annually to that deficit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 13:58:40 GMT -8
I think the chances of the Fabianis getting the Qualcomm site for free as part of some DT stadium deal are zero.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 22, 2014 14:44:55 GMT -8
The Chargers are greedy, and want as much as they can get from others without investing anything of their own. The City would be better off investing money in the convention center and the expansion of SDSU ... these economic facts are undeniable. The city will sell the Q to SDSU eventually and the expansions of SDSU and the Convention Center will return more to the city for the investment (or discount) than any investment in a Chargers stadium downtown. These are financial facts that the Chargers can't escape. Why won't the Chargers endorse the sale of the Q to SDSU, because they don't care what is best for the city, they only care what is best for the Chargers and selling the Q to SDSU for $300M does not fit what is best for the Chargers. I personally don't think the Chargers should get anything from the city from the sale of the Q no matter who the the buyer is. Any money from that sale should first go toward paying off the last renovation. Any funds left over would be better served funding other projects in San Diego like desalination or reclamation of water. The Chargers won't be getting any of the convention center expansion funds. The Chargers should accept the fact that they are paying for half the stadium they want to build. The County and City will be providing the land and the initial construction bonds ... the rest is up to the Chargers to get funded. The Chargers should get no preferential treatment regarding this public/private joint venture than any other in the city. If the Chargers want a $1B stadium, then they should be prepared to invest $500M or more.The last proposal from the Chargers included $400M from them ($200M via a loan from the NFL). Those are actual, undeniable facts. I don't recall the city coming up with "free land" for the Chargers. I do recall the Chargers initially proposed having the city giving land at the Q to the Chargers for them to develop to pay for a stadium that would be built for the city but that never got on the ballot. They are currently proposing using a downtown stadium site as part of the convention center expansion, which has hit a snag of its own. The stadium would have a removable soft cover so it could be used for convention activities. Such a cover would also make San Diego a possible (I'd say probable) final four site. A stadium built to serve both as a site for football as well as a site for convention activity would be more expensive than a stadium only stadium.The public does benefit from having an NFL team and it does benefit from having a facility that can host Superbowls, Holiday Bowls, The Final 4 etc so the inclusion of some amount of public money is warranted. The fact that these taxes are paid via increased TOT taxes As for them getting special treatment that comes from the fact that, unlike many businesses, they perform their jobs in front of 60K fans as well as TV. As for the Q land going to SDSU for $300M being a done deal I think that is wishful thinking. I don't see the city doing anything with that site that serves the university more than it serves itself. SDSU would get to bid on the property just like any other potential buyer would. I expect the party which comes up with the most money will likely be awarded the property. I don't expect the CSU system would approve the use of public money going towards the purchase of a football stadium unless as part of that plan the stadium is demolished and the land used for something else. If part of the university's plan for the property is operating the stadium (or replacing it with a new one) then those funds will have to come from another source (just like Viejas and the new BBPF did). Just the annual operating costs of the stadium exceed that which it will take to build the BBPF. SDSU athletics already runs a deficit and they cannot afford to add another $14M annually to that deficit. 1. The Chargers will not get that site for $0, If that land is going to the highest bidder ... that takes the Chargers out of the equation, if they can afford to bid, they can afford to pay for more of the downtown stadium themselves. 2. Expenses for the downtown stadium keep going up the more they try to include with what it is supposed to be able to do ... no leverage for the Chargers there. 3. The City would benefit more from an expanded SDSU, and from a contiguous convention center expansion ... this out performs any value of an investment by the city in the Chargers. 4. The expansion of SDSU serves BOTH the interests of the city and the university ... the current stadium on the site could be retained or demolished, but that would be up to SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by pbbroker on Sept 22, 2014 14:46:02 GMT -8
NOT
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 22, 2014 20:20:05 GMT -8
The last proposal from the Chargers included $400M from them ($200M via a loan from the NFL). Those are actual, undeniable facts. I don't recall the city coming up with "free land" for the Chargers. I do recall the Chargers initially proposed having the city giving land at the Q to the Chargers for them to develop to pay for a stadium that would be built for the city but that never got on the ballot. They are currently proposing using a downtown stadium site as part of the convention center expansion, which has hit a snag of its own. The stadium would have a removable soft cover so it could be used for convention activities. Such a cover would also make San Diego a possible (I'd say probable) final four site. A stadium built to serve both as a site for football as well as a site for convention activity would be more expensive than a stadium only stadium.The public does benefit from having an NFL team and it does benefit from having a facility that can host Superbowls, Holiday Bowls, The Final 4 etc so the inclusion of some amount of public money is warranted. The fact that these taxes are paid via increased TOT taxes As for them getting special treatment that comes from the fact that, unlike many businesses, they perform their jobs in front of 60K fans as well as TV. As for the Q land going to SDSU for $300M being a done deal I think that is wishful thinking. I don't see the city doing anything with that site that serves the university more than it serves itself. SDSU would get to bid on the property just like any other potential buyer would. I expect the party which comes up with the most money will likely be awarded the property. I don't expect the CSU system would approve the use of public money going towards the purchase of a football stadium unless as part of that plan the stadium is demolished and the land used for something else. If part of the university's plan for the property is operating the stadium (or replacing it with a new one) then those funds will have to come from another source (just like Viejas and the new BBPF did). Just the annual operating costs of the stadium exceed that which it will take to build the BBPF. SDSU athletics already runs a deficit and they cannot afford to add another $14M annually to that deficit. 1. The Chargers will not get that site for $0, If that land is going to the highest bidder ... that takes the Chargers out of the equation, if they can afford to bid, they can afford to pay for more of the downtown stadium themselves. 2. Expenses for the downtown stadium keep going up the more they try to include with what it is supposed to be able to do ... no leverage for the Chargers there. 3. The City would benefit more from an expanded SDSU, and from a contiguous convention center expansion ... this out performs any value of an investment by the city in the Chargers. 4. The expansion of SDSU serves BOTH the interests of the city and the university ... the current stadium on the site could be retained or demolished, but that would be up to SDSU. 1. Right now, the MV site isn't part of the current plan. I just point out that you don't seem to realize that the "free land" comment you made previously didn't get any traction with the city when it was initially proposed. 2. The "expenses" of a downtown stadium are going up because now it includes a convention center expansion. 3. Do you have any actual numbers as to how selling the Q site to SDSU brings in more revenue for the city than selling it to someone else? 4. Again, the CSU system is not likely to furnish any funds for the procurement of a stadium for SDSU. And I don't expect the students are going to approve increasing their enrollment costs to even pay for the maintenance of keeping the Q as it is, much less renovating it or building new stadium. If SDSU can provide such a boost to the economy why aren't they being a player now and make a public bid for the Q site? I mean, isn't it the goal of folk like you to get the Chargers out of San Diego so those fans will then flock to Aztec games? You do seem to be one that blames the Chargers for keeping Aztec football down. I'm sure that is the real plan of the Spanos family. You have a problem with using public money to fund a stadium unless that public money is used to fund a stadium for SDSU. I find that hypocrisy comical. The stadium isn't keeping the SDSU football program down. That fault lies in the program itself, which has done little to garner interest in the region. If you take out Marshall Fault we haven't done squat since the 70s. Sorry, but that is an undeniable truth. I was at SDSU when we first made the move to the WAC and remember the talk of how we would dominate that conference because we could get better recruits. Guess what? We didn't. We haven't in the MWC either. Yeah, we've made a few bowl appearances of late but pretty much anyone that wins as many as they lose get to go to some bowl each year. IF the Aztecs want to move into the big time they should first get to the point where they win their conference consistently, and that hasn't happened since the 70s. During that time other schools have used the very same conferences we've been in to move up and we have been left behind and, if we get the changes that the P5 players want, we are likely quickly running out of time. You can't blame the stadium for that. You can't blame the conference we are in for that. The blame falls squarely on the program which has consistently under-performed for over 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 22, 2014 20:57:12 GMT -8
While there is no evidence to support the assertion that the Chargers contribute to the overall economic vitality of the community, that does not mean concessions are not warranted. If the task force concludes that the Charges are an asset to the “life” of San Diego, an argument can be made to grant concessions. However, it is not clear such a mandate exists. I would suggest that the decision makers take a very hard, and skeptical, look before accepting any claim of contributions to civic pride, etc. The lack of economic contribution, however, should frame the types of revenue streams offered to the Chargers. Since it is clear that the Chargers are not an economic engine in San Diego, it is not justifiable to increase or institute broad based taxes, such as a sales tax increase, to lessen the Chargers financial burden, or to provide them with a new or renovated stadium. It should be remembered that since the direct beneficiaries of these tax are franchise owners and players, and perhaps fans (if they are able to see a game instead of not seeing a game if the team relocates in another city), any broad based tax used for a subsidy will be regressive in nature. Similarly, a tax on visitors who are not attending a Chargers’ game (a general hotel tax or car rental tax) could be counter productive by forcing those who are visiting San Diego to see Sea World or the Animal Park to pay for the construction of a stadium. This might in the long run reduce the number of tourists, thus reducing the income, and employment, generated from those who visit San Diego and bring in “outside money”. -Estimating the Impact of the San Diego Chargers on the Local Economy www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/pdf/baimcomments.pdfHigh Magnitude Economic Impactcalstate.edu/impact/factsheets/SanDiego_FS.pdfSan Diego State’s annual impact on the San Diego region and the State of California is enormous: • Annual spending related to San Diego State ($893 million) generates a total impact of $1.07 billion on the regional economy, and more than $1.5 billion on the statewide economy. • This impact sustains nearly 10,500 jobs in the region and statewide more than 13,000 jobs. • Per year, the impact generates nearly $76 million in local and more than $105 million in statewide tax revenue.• Even greater—nearly $4.2 billion of the earnings by alumni from San Diego State are attributable to their CSU degrees, which together with campus spending creates an additional $6.7 billion of industry activity throughout the state.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Sept 22, 2014 21:01:36 GMT -8
1. The Chargers will not get that site for $0, If that land is going to the highest bidder ... that takes the Chargers out of the equation, if they can afford to bid, they can afford to pay for more of the downtown stadium themselves. 2. Expenses for the downtown stadium keep going up the more they try to include with what it is supposed to be able to do ... no leverage for the Chargers there. 3. The City would benefit more from an expanded SDSU, and from a contiguous convention center expansion ... this out performs any value of an investment by the city in the Chargers. 4. The expansion of SDSU serves BOTH the interests of the city and the university ... the current stadium on the site could be retained or demolished, but that would be up to SDSU. 1. Right now, the MV site isn't part of the current plan. I just point out that you don't seem to realize that the "free land" comment you made previously didn't get any traction with the city when it was initially proposed. 2. The "expenses" of a downtown stadium are going up because now it includes a convention center expansion. 3. Do you have any actual numbers as to how selling the Q site to SDSU brings in more revenue for the city than selling it to someone else? 4. Again, the CSU system is not likely to furnish any funds for the procurement of a stadium for SDSU. And I don't expect the students are going to approve increasing their enrollment costs to even pay for the maintenance of keeping the Q as it is, much less renovating it or building new stadium. If SDSU can provide such a boost to the economy why aren't they being a player now and make a public bid for the Q site? I mean, isn't it the goal of folk like you to get the Chargers out of San Diego so those fans will then flock to Aztec games? You do seem to be one that blames the Chargers for keeping Aztec football down. I'm sure that is the real plan of the Spanos family. You have a problem with using public money to fund a stadium unless that public money is used to fund a stadium for SDSU. I find that hypocrisy comical. The stadium isn't keeping the SDSU football program down. That fault lies in the program itself, which has done little to garner interest in the region. If you take out Marshall Fault we haven't done squat since the 70s. Sorry, but that is an undeniable truth. I was at SDSU when we first made the move to the WAC and remember the talk of how we would dominate that conference because we could get better recruits. Guess what? We didn't. We haven't in the MWC either. Yeah, we've made a few bowl appearances of late but pretty much anyone that wins as many as they lose get to go to some bowl each year. IF the Aztecs want to move into the big time they should first get to the point where they win their conference consistently, and that hasn't happened since the 70s. During that time other schools have used the very same conferences we've been in to move up and we have been left behind and, if we get the changes that the P5 players want, we are likely quickly running out of time. You can't blame the stadium for that. You can't blame the conference we are in for that. The blame falls squarely on the program which has consistently under-performed for over 30 years. aztecmesa.proboards.com/post/715627/thread Chargers pitch plan for new stadium ($800 to $900 Million, Feb 2014) Stadium proposal by year-end sought ($1 Billion, May 2014) JMI Realty's $1.4B double-facility one of many options before the city ($1.4 Billion, Sep 2014)
|
|