|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 20, 2014 9:23:24 GMT -8
I looked at a map of SDSU from my iPhone map. There is literally no where to built an on campus stadium without buying additional land and destroy some preexiating structures. That's just not going to happen. There are a lot of little strips of land that would fit a football field but would not accommodate the seatings. I also heard on the news last night that one of the MUST for a new Chargers stadium is that the owner does not want the stadium to be built on Q site. He wants it in downtown by the water. There is no other way. We ride this train with Chargers until the end Let's hope the train leaves town in February 2016.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 20, 2014 10:40:54 GMT -8
I looked at a map of SDSU from my iPhone map. There is literally no where to built an on campus stadium without buying additional land and destroy some preexiating structures. That's just not going to happen. There are a lot of little strips of land that would fit a football field but would not accommodate the seatings. I also heard on the news last night that one of the MUST for a new Chargers stadium is that the owner does not want the stadium to be built on Q site. He wants it in downtown by the water. There is no other way. We ride this train with Chargers until the end Word is that is not what SDSU has planned. Btw, the owner doesn't want the stadium to be built on the Q site? So if the city decided they were going to build an all new stadium at the Q site the owner would say nah we won't play there? Just for Sh**s n giggles, Wouldn't it be interesting to see if the City told the Chragers let's go head with a new stadium at the current site.. Chargers kick in thier $250 million, NFL thier $250 Million, and the City and SDSU will each kick in $250 Million. Would the Chargers even look at a proposal? I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 20, 2014 11:44:33 GMT -8
Word is that is not what SDSU has planned. Btw, the owner doesn't want the stadium to be built on the Q site? So if the city decided they were going to build an all new stadium at the Q site the owner would say nah we won't play there? Just for Sh**s n giggles, Wouldn't it be interesting to see if the City told the Chragers let's go head with a new stadium at the current site.. Chargers kick in thier $250 million, NFL thier $250 Million, and the City and SDSU will each kick in $250 Million. Would the Chargers even look at a proposal? I doubt it. The figures have been quoted as follows--Chargers $200 mil. NFL $200 mil loan. The City has committed nothing, nor has SDSU. Where would SDSU get that money? How much could the new stadium get for naming rights, and would that money be over and above what the Chargers or City contribute? How would the City raise their portion? Who will run the stadium and pay for it's upkeep? Everyone has so-called proposals, but there still has not been a singular plan agreed upon showing the drawing of the actual stadium including exactly what the Chargers want, what the City wants, what the Aztecs want (or would like, as they may or may not be involved), and how it will be paid for. The Chargers have (allegedly) been working on their "plan" for 11 years--it's time to show it to the world. Or at least the region.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Dec 20, 2014 11:47:23 GMT -8
Word is that is not what SDSU has planned. Btw, the owner doesn't want the stadium to be built on the Q site? So if the city decided they were going to build an all new stadium at the Q site the owner would say nah we won't play there? Just for Sh**s n giggles, Wouldn't it be interesting to see if the City told the Chragers let's go head with a new stadium at the current site.. Chargers kick in thier $250 million, NFL thier $250 Million, and the City and SDSU will each kick in $250 Million. Would the Chargers even look at a proposal? I doubt it. Oh, but they very much have considered that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 20, 2014 12:18:12 GMT -8
Just for Sh**s n giggles, Wouldn't it be interesting to see if the City told the Chragers let's go head with a new stadium at the current site.. Chargers kick in thier $250 million, NFL thier $250 Million, and the City and SDSU will each kick in $250 Million. Would the Chargers even look at a proposal? I doubt it. The figures have been quoted as follows--Chargers $200 mil. NFL $200 mil loan. The City has committed nothing, nor has SDSU. Where would SDSU get that money? How much could the new stadium get for naming rights, and would that money be over and above what the Chargers or City contribute? How would the City raise their portion? Who will run the stadium and pay for it's upkeep? Everyone has so-called proposals, but there still has not been a singular plan agreed upon showing the drawing of the actual stadium including exactly what the Chargers want, what the City wants, what the Aztecs want (or would like, as they may or may not be involved), and how it will be paid for. The Chargers have (allegedly) been working on their "plan" for 11 years--it's time to show it to the world. Or at least the region. I said for Sh**s n Giggles, it was a hypothetical. I would love to see this proposal put out in public just to see the Chargers reaction... SDSU has estimated $250 Million for on On Campus stadium. SDSU has shown that it can raise that kind of Money fairly quickly, and SDSU has plenty of backing to get the financing. The Chargers have said $200, the NFL $200. They both want the City to pay the rest of the $500 Million, so SDSU allies with the City and gets the rights to the rest of the stadium land. I agree the Chargers have been tossing out proposals for over a decade, and it is time for them to come up with a real proposal, put it out for a vote.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 20, 2014 12:18:58 GMT -8
Just for Sh**s n giggles, Wouldn't it be interesting to see if the City told the Chragers let's go head with a new stadium at the current site.. Chargers kick in thier $250 million, NFL thier $250 Million, and the City and SDSU will each kick in $250 Million. Would the Chargers even look at a proposal? I doubt it. Oh, but they very much have considered that scenario. Who has considered it??? SDSU or the Chargers?
|
|
|
Post by Montezumas Revenge 88 on Dec 20, 2014 12:22:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Dec 20, 2014 12:30:11 GMT -8
Oh, but they very much have considered that scenario. Who has considered it??? SDSU or the Chargers? The Chargers have considered adding SDSU to the mix and have had discussions with them. But that knowledge is from 4 years ago. I have no information beyond that. SDSU had a different AD and president at that time. The current bunch seem to have little or no interest in pushing the football program---unless it's out the door. The last time I saw Sterk having a good time at a football game, was when he was laughing and scratching with an old PAC-12 buddy on the field after we lost. The most recent was on the football field spooning with the basketball team. Hirshman is a ghost.
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Dec 20, 2014 13:03:50 GMT -8
Can we stick to facts? We would have 90% less to read.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Dec 20, 2014 13:10:44 GMT -8
The figures have been quoted as follows--Chargers $200 mil. NFL $200 mil loan. The City has committed nothing, nor has SDSU. Where would SDSU get that money? How much could the new stadium get for naming rights, and would that money be over and above what the Chargers or City contribute? How would the City raise their portion? Who will run the stadium and pay for it's upkeep? Everyone has so-called proposals, but there still has not been a singular plan agreed upon showing the drawing of the actual stadium including exactly what the Chargers want, what the City wants, what the Aztecs want (or would like, as they may or may not be involved), and how it will be paid for. The Chargers have (allegedly) been working on their "plan" for 11 years--it's time to show it to the world. Or at least the region. I said for Sh**s n Giggles, it was a hypothetical. I would love to see this proposal put out in public just to see the Chargers reaction... SDSU has estimated $250 Million for on On Campus stadium. SDSU has shown that it can raise that kind of Money fairly quickly, and SDSU has plenty of backing to get the financing. The Chargers have said $200, the NFL $200. They both want the City to pay the rest of the $500 Million, so SDSU allies with the City and gets the rights to the rest of the stadium land. I agree the Chargers have been tossing out proposals for over a decade, and it is time for them to come up with a real proposal, put it out for a vote. Link?
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 20, 2014 13:12:43 GMT -8
Not surprising, since the Rams (owner Kroenke) have already said if he builds a stadium, it is for the Rams and Rams only, which isn't what The League wants. They want 2 teams in one stadium. The talks continue...
|
|
|
Post by smoothcat on Dec 20, 2014 13:16:16 GMT -8
Chargers aren't going to win a 2/3 vote, they know that.
I am one of those who is opposed to a large public subsidy for a Chargers stadium, much as I want the team to stay.
It seems to me the Chargers want too grand of a stadium at the numbers they are throwing out on the downtown idea.
Better idea is to use the current site and build one for $500 million or so, not the kind of figures Fabs is throwing around on the downtown idea.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 20, 2014 13:36:08 GMT -8
Chargers aren't going to win a 2/3 vote, they know that. I am one of those who is opposed to a large public subsidy for a Chargers stadium, much as I want the team to stay. It seems to me the Chargers want too grand of a stadium at the numbers they are throwing out on the downtown idea. Better idea is to use the current site and build one for $500 million or so, not the kind of figures Fabs is throwing around on the downtown idea. Even if they use the current site, the cost for an open-air stadium of sufficient size will be much closer to $1 billion than $500 million.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 21, 2014 7:22:13 GMT -8
And if the city had just gotten their act together earlier a state of the art stadium would have only cost $400 million 10-12 years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 8:04:11 GMT -8
Chargers aren't going to win a 2/3 vote, they know that. I am one of those who is opposed to a large public subsidy for a Chargers stadium, much as I want the team to stay. It seems to me the Chargers want too grand of a stadium at the numbers they are throwing out on the downtown idea. Better idea is to use the current site and build one for $500 million or so, not the kind of figures Fabs is throwing around on the downtown idea. Even if they use the current site, the cost for an open-air stadium of sufficient size will be much closer to $1 billion than $500 million. The downtown development is a combined stadium/ convention center expansion. The problem the little tin pot, unelected Port Dick-Taters have with the plan is that the expansion wouldn't be on Port controlled land. That means that revenue would flow to city coffers instead of enriching their little fiefdom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 9:08:52 GMT -8
And if the city had just gotten their act together earlier a state of the art stadium would have only cost $400 million 10-12 years ago. And now, ten years later, they would be crying that the stadium lacks modern amenities and they need 300 million more for an upgrade or no more super bowls. F 'em.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 21, 2014 9:21:18 GMT -8
And if the city had just gotten their act together earlier a state of the art stadium would have only cost $400 million 10-12 years ago. Why is it the City's fault? The Chargers never put together a decent proposal for the public to see. The only one they put a little effort into was for the City to hand them a massive amount of land for free. They never made a push for it and then ran away from that as soon as they realized the redevelopment subsidies weren't avaliable and the real estate market dropped. Since then they have pretty much just tossed crap on the wall while threatening to go to LA unless the City agreed to pay $500 Million, but the Chargers have never put togeather a legitimate proposal for the people of San Diego to look at.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 21, 2014 9:27:06 GMT -8
So no one is going to LA for 2015 . Maybe we table this as the Chargers , Rams , Raiders all see what they can propose to see what they can do to stay or leave after the 2015 season.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Dec 21, 2014 9:47:02 GMT -8
I'm not sure how the Chargers could build a stadium on the Q site if the land still belongs to the city. If the Chargers pay for it, isn't it their property? I guess if that were to happen it would not be the worst of all scenarios. The problem is, the Aztecs would still be the barely-tolerated step children. One other question. How big would such a stadium be? I would hope that it would be smaller, maybe the low '60s in seating capacity. Anything to make an Aztec crowd of 25,000 to 30,000 look not quite as skimpy. AzWm The Chargers original plan would have had the city give them the land at the Q site (166 acres). The Chargers would build the new stadium on the East portion of the site, using around 60 acres, keeping the Q in place until completion. That plan would not have included any other public funding other than the land donation. Once the stadium was built the Q would have been demolished and the rest of the site would have been redeveloped to pay for the stadium. The new stadium would have been funded by the Chargers but owned by the city. I believe some tax breaks were also part of the proposal for the redevelopment portion of the plan. IIRC that plan was for a 70,000 seat stadium. The parking lot would be downsized but likely would still include areas for tailgating. The current downtown site includes a convention center expansion which increases the cost of the stadium. That stadium would have permanent seats of 62,500 (expandable to over 70,000 with temporary seating), have a retractable soft cover roof for convention center use and for events like March Madness. Again, the stadium would be city owned. Public contributions would be via an increase in TOT taxes. Originally, redevelopment money was to be used for the Q site downtown but the state took away those funds. Those funds, which would not have been available for the Q site, made downtown site attractive. Also, freeing up the Q site for sale and development makes downtown more attractive financially for the city. Without those funds the major reason the downtown site is attractive is if the stadium was tied in with a convention center expansion. I have read or heard nothing about the Q site being off the table. I think the big dream would be to build both a new stadium and a sports arena at the Q site (allowing the city to sell off the current sports arena site for redevelopment) but that is likely way too big a dream for the city of San Diego to consider (and getting either a NHL or NBA tenant would not have the support of the LA franchises). I would say that if a new stadium were to be built on the Q site now it would likely be more of the size of the proposed downtown site, 62.5K that could be expanded for large events. I'm not sure that a retractable soft cover would be considered in that scenario which would allow San Diego to be considered (and likely chosen) for future MM events.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 10:02:08 GMT -8
Another sports arena? For a city which has no NBA team and has lost three professional basketball franchises and which is only an hour and a half from the nearest NHL franchise?
|
|