|
Post by La Mesa Aztec on Dec 16, 2014 20:01:31 GMT -8
In one of the stupider moves in San Diego sports history, Don Coryell was kicked out of his head coaching job in 1986 by Old Man Alex Spanos. I don't think Don would give a rat's ass about any of the Spanos family if he were still around. The Chargers were 1-7 at the time. Coaches with 1-7 records get fired. The Coryell era had run its course with the Chargers by then. Not saying I agreed with the replacement but it was time for Coryell to retire.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Dec 16, 2014 20:20:41 GMT -8
Having a modern stadium would be a huge asset to the big 12 as far as having conference championship games there or at petco for baseball.
Use your imagination and think about all the events that can be held at a new stadium for the aztecs benefit.
Or camplain about corporate welfare and not about the useless crap our government wastes money on like proposing a trolley line to la jolla. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 16, 2014 22:42:19 GMT -8
You know, it's really kind of pathetic the way that Aztec fans have become so bitter when it comes to the Chargers. Don Coryell would be appalled and saddened by the attitude of many Aztec fans towards his OTHER team. Both the Aztecs AND the Chargers were Don Coryell's teams. He loved and supported both. Too bad Aztec fans can't realize that. When the Chargers made it to the Super Bowl almost everyone in San Diego felt great. It was just like when the Padres made it to the World Series. You can't get that kind of good feeling from a convention center. The Chargers (and Padres, if they ever get their act together) can unify people in town that otherwise have little in common. The Chargers are SAN DIEGO's team. It's an issue of civic pride and good feelings. Frankly, the Aztecs cannot provide that since a majority of people in town have not attended school there and have no connection to it. But you guys go on hating the Chargers and perpetuating the Little Brother syndrome. The Chargers leaving San Diego will NOT be a good thing for the city. That's why EVERY city that lost an NFL team did anything and everything they could to get one back. If the Chargers leave, we're never getting one back because the NFL hates San Diego. They LOVE L.A. and see San Diego as that better looking, smarter little brother. He's a nuisance. Like I said, Don Coryell would be both appalled and saddened by most of your attitudes towards the Chargers. In one of the stupider moves in San Diego sports history, Don Coryell was kicked out of his head coaching job in 1986 by Old Man Alex Spanos. I don't think Don would give a rat's ass about any of the Spanos family if he were still around. Don remained a supporter of the Chargers until his dying day. He understood that the NFL is a results based league, and his results had diminshed consistently over the last 3 years he was on the job. It wasn't his fault, but in the NFL that often has nothing to do with why decisions are made.
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Dec 16, 2014 22:55:21 GMT -8
Having a modern stadium would be a huge asset to the big 12 as far as having conference championship games there or at petco for baseball. Use your imagination and think about all the events that can be held at a new stadium for the aztecs benefit. Or camplain about corporate welfare and not about the useless crap our government wastes money on like proposing a trolley line to la jolla. Lol. I agree...Qualcomm is a dump...but the taxpayers are not about to shell out billions so a chosen few can enjoy a in-person game...period...why should someone who is making a minimum living and who cannot pay a couple hundred dollars for a game be taxed for a venue they can't even get into?...what about people that don't like football?...if billionaires want a stadium...build it...put a good product on the field...and they will come...the NFL or the Spanoses should build the stadium...recoup most of the money...and the city should lease the land for $100 a year...if the Chargers leave I will still be a fan and watch the games like I mostly do...on a big screen tv...plus...SD gets to see all the good games on tv...double headers and such...remember...the city of LA is not breaking the bank to build jack.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 16, 2014 23:12:46 GMT -8
Having a modern stadium would be a huge asset to the big 12 as far as having conference championship games there or at petco for baseball. Use your imagination and think about all the events that can be held at a new stadium for the aztecs benefit. Or camplain about corporate welfare and not about the useless crap our government wastes money on like proposing a trolley line to la jolla. Lol. All the events held at a new staduim for the Aztecs benefit?? Do you really think the Chargers will let SDSU hold events beyond a few Saturdays that the City contract will mandate? The chargers won't let SDSU alone let anyone else get the Chargers shinny new staduim dirty. Hell the Charger's all ready claim hands off huge sections of the Q. Even sections of the asphalt parking lot are off limits to anyone but the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 0:36:04 GMT -8
Go ahead and dislike the ownership and/or disapprove of the proposed financing, but if you're a native San Diegan (let alone a sports fan) and wish the Chargers would move, knowing we'll likely never get another NFL team in most of our lifetimes, that's just idiotic. Well, if you are a diehard Aztec fan and have no interest in the further enrichment of the Spanoses at public expense, then it is just the opposite of idiotic. As I posted in another thread, the fact that the NBA left decades ago has undoubtedly helped the rise of the SDSU men's basketball program. While Charger fans would not immediately start buying Aztec season tickets, over time SDSU football would benefit from being the biggest gridiron program in the county. The worst thing that could happen to Aztec football would be the building of a downtown stadium (plus the refusal by the city to sell the Q's land to SDSU for classroom expansion). The best thing would be for the Chargers to hop the next Greyhound bus headed north, followed by the creation of a campus expansion at the Mission Valley site including a new, more appropriately sized stadium. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Dec 17, 2014 0:57:38 GMT -8
Go ahead and dislike the ownership and/or disapprove of the proposed financing, but if you're a native San Diegan (let alone a sports fan) and wish the Chargers would move, knowing we'll likely never get another NFL team in most of our lifetimes, that's just idiotic. Well, if you are a diehard Aztec fan and have no interest in the further enrichment of the Spanoses at public expense, then it is just the opposite of idiotic. As I posted in another thread, the fact that the NBA left decades ago has undoubtedly helped the rise of the SDSU men's basketball program. While Charger fans would not immediately start buying Aztec season tickets, over time SDSU football would benefit from being the biggest gridiron program in the county. The worst thing that could happen to Aztec football would be the building of a downtown stadium (plus the refusal by the city to sell the Q's land to SDSU for classroom expansion). The best thing would be for the Chargers to hop the next Greyhound bus headed north, followed by the creation of a campus expansion at the Mission Valley site including a new, more appropriately sized stadium. AzWm Agree 100%!
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 1:00:16 GMT -8
You know, it's really kind of pathetic the way that Aztec fans have become so bitter when it comes to the Chargers. Don Coryell would be appalled and saddened by the attitude of many Aztec fans towards his OTHER team. Both the Aztecs AND the Chargers were Don Coryell's teams. He loved and supported both. Too bad Aztec fans can't realize that. When the Chargers made it to the Super Bowl almost everyone in San Diego felt great. It was just like when the Padres made it to the World Series. You can't get that kind of good feeling from a convention center. The Chargers (and Padres, if they ever get their act together) can unify people in town that otherwise have little in common. The Chargers are SAN DIEGO's team. It's an issue of civic pride and good feelings. Frankly, the Aztecs cannot provide that since a majority of people in town have not attended school there and have no connection to it. But you guys go on hating the Chargers and perpetuating the Little Brother syndrome. The Chargers leaving San Diego will NOT be a good thing for the city. That's why EVERY city that lost an NFL team did anything and everything they could to get one back. If the Chargers leave, we're never getting one back because the NFL hates San Diego. They LOVE L.A. and see San Diego as that better looking, smarter little brother. He's a nuisance. Like I said, Don Coryell would be both appalled and saddened by most of your attitudes towards the Chargers. I don't hate the Chargers, I am just totally apathetic towards them in general. Their current ownership, however, does elicit a bit more negative sentiment. However, the issue is the Q site. SDSU needs the Chargers to leave that site. If the residents of San Diego City/County want to support ($$$) a new Chargers stadium downtown as a matter of civic pride... terrific. If not, and the Chargers move, fine.
Please note that we have here a definite difference of opinion between father and son. Erik is indifferent to the Chargers and I hate their guts! Okay, maybe hate is over the top. But I definitely want them out of town. I would want that even if I thought that the Spanos family were as benign as Mother Therea. The reason is simple. The Chargers suck up too much of the football energy in this town, and way too much of the citizens' disposable income.
When the Aztecs were really good and sometimes nationally ranked, the Chargers were indeed here. But they were not nearly as dominant in terms of fan support. I can't explain that kind of allegiance. Makes no sense to me. I support the Aztecs, good or bad, since I am an alumnus and, due to being third in a list of family members to graduate from here, have a very long interest in the school. The pros? I shrug my shoulders. I shrug my shoulders about Burger King and Jack-in-the-Box, too. Yes, I eat there, but if one location closes, I don't fret over it. They are a business and I am a customer.
With SDSU, I have a different relationship. I think it was the great UCLA coach Red Sanders who said (speaking of the UCLA/USC game) that it was not a matter of just winning. . . it was, he said, much more important than that! How can I feel that way about players who are paid huge amounts of money and who will feel not a moment's anxiety if some other team pays them more to play there next season? So the crazy allegiance the Charger fans have for that team baffles me. I do know this; SDSU has been here since 1897. I fully expect the school to be here 100 years from today.
If the Chargers leave, many will go into mourning. Not me, because what really matters to me about football locally is the SDSU football program. That program will benefit in the long run if the NFL decides it can make even more billions of dollars with the Chargers back in the city where they started.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 17, 2014 5:23:36 GMT -8
Let me address some of the above.
First off, the pro game is better than the college game. The players are more skilled and more experienced. You get fewer mismatches like you get in college. You don't see 63-10 scores in the NFL.
Second, most San Diegans have not attended SDSU. The Chargers are a source of civic pride and are a unifier - a common interest that all sports fans in San Diego can share. It is something that can bring disparate people together. Many groups have little in common, but the Chargers can be that common interest and a common source of pride. There is nothing else in San Diego that can unify as many people as the Chargers can. The Aztecs will NEVER be that source of civic pride or a common interest among nearly as many people as the Chargers are.
The Chargers are SAN DIEGO's team. I don't care who the current ownership is. The current ownership is not the same as the ownership in the 60's or 70's, and at some point in the future new owners will take over the team. Wanting to penalize San Diegans because of the current owner's handling of the team is silly and short sighted.
And losing the Chargers will likely have a small impact on recruiting - in a negative way. Imagine coaches from other teams saying, "Do you really want to play in San Diego where they don't care about football? They let the Chargers leave without a fight. You won't get the kind of community support there that you'll get here." That may not resonate with a majority of recruits, but it only takes one or two a year to really impact the program. The last thing this program needs is a reputation in town for being lousy football fans.
And if the Chargers leave can SDSU really get a new stadium built? I mean, is there really a guarantee that they can get it done before the city says, "We've been spending tens of millions each year for upkeep on a stadium that is hardly being used and we just can't do that anymore." The Q either needs tens of millions of dollars in renovations/repairs or it needs to be torn down. They've been putting those repairs and renovations off for about a decade. They can't do that forever, either.
SDSU will NOT benefit from the Chargers leaving. Most football fans in San Diego will not change their minds about SDSU football just because the Chargers are gone. The NFL is a higher level of football. That's like saying that local high schools will see a surge in attendance when the Chargers leave. Yes, SDSU may get a small bump, but nothing significant. SDSU is not USC. It is not, "Big time," college football. The Aztecs don't play in the Pac 12 or Big 12. Let's not wildly assume that people will suddenly accept MWC football as big time just because the Chargers are gone.
The Chargers are San Diego's team and have been for over 50 years. To lose them would most certainly NOT be a good thing for San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Dec 17, 2014 5:45:05 GMT -8
The spanos want the Aztecs in the new stadium because it would bring cash into their pockets.
Like Erik said the Aztecs minimallly affect the chargers bottom line.
But having conference championship games at a new facility could bring in wealth to both the Aztecs and chargers.
Having a better stadium could make for a stronger bowl.
You would be more likely to bring a p5 team.
And ultimately it would make us a much stronger candidate to the b12 knowing the modern day stadium can be used for events and thusly the chargers would be benefit by people buying crap at these events . Parking at these Evente. Buying tickets at thee events and so on.
A new stadium would be a boon economiically to a lot of people that from all events held at the future stadium and not just from chargers games.
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Dec 17, 2014 7:40:23 GMT -8
Having a modern stadium would be a huge asset to the big 12 as far as having conference championship games there or at petco for baseball. Use your imagination and think about all the events that can be held at a new stadium for the aztecs benefit. Or camplain about corporate welfare and not about the useless crap our government wastes money on like proposing a trolley line to la jolla. Lol. I agree...Qualcomm is a dump...but the taxpayers are not about to shell out billions so a chosen few can enjoy a in-person game...period...why should someone who is making a minimum living and who cannot pay a couple hundred dollars for a game be taxed for a venue they can't even get into?...what about people that don't like football?...if billionaires want a stadium...build it...put a good product on the field...and they will come...the NFL or the Spanoses should build the stadium...recoup most of the money...and the city should lease the land for $100 a year...if the Chargers leave I will still be a fan and watch the games like I mostly do...on a big screen tv...plus...SD gets to see all the good games on tv...double headers and such...remember...the city of LA is not breaking the bank to build jack. Tax money was used to help build the downtown library but I have no need for it and will never go there so how is that fair to me? Sometimes tax money is used on things that interest you and sometimes not. Nothing would ever get built if every single person in the city had to have a use for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 8:03:26 GMT -8
False analogy. Building a library is very different than taxing citizens to help a wealthy business owner in his attempts to generate greater profits. The Chargers are not a major employer in the region. Spanos already has a sweetheart deal on land use so let him build his own stadium.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 8:48:14 GMT -8
Having a modern stadium would be a huge asset to the big 12 as far as having conference championship games there or at petco for baseball. Use your imagination and think about all the events that can be held at a new stadium for the aztecs benefit. Or camplain about corporate welfare and not about the useless crap our government wastes money on like proposing a trolley line to la jolla. Lol. I agree...Qualcomm is a dump...but the taxpayers are not about to shell out billions so a chosen few can enjoy a in-person game...period...why should someone who is making a minimum living and who cannot pay a couple hundred dollars for a game be taxed for a venue they can't even get into?...what about people that don't like football?...if billionaires want a stadium...build it...put a good product on the field...and they will come...the NFL or the Spanoses should build the stadium...recoup most of the money...and the city should lease the land for $100 a year...if the Chargers leave I will still be a fan and watch the games like I mostly do...on a big screen tv...plus...SD gets to see all the good games on tv...double headers and such...remember...the city of LA is not breaking the bank to build jack. What you are describing is nothing like what has been discussed in the past. First, any city contribution would not be billions, it would be in the $200-$300 million range. Second, the funding would come from tourism taxes, which would be taxing out of visitors, not the low income people you describe. The best part of that is the facility is paid by tourists and the City reaps the tax income and exposure provided by the stadium. Last, a stadium would be for San Diego, not just for the Chargers. Using the Q (or the Murph as I still refer to it) as an example, I have far more memories in that facility of events other than Charger games. The new stadium would be an asset for the community, not dedicated to the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Dec 17, 2014 8:48:21 GMT -8
False analogy. Building a library is very different than taxing citizens to help a wealthy business owner in his attempts to generate greater profits. The Chargers are not a major employer in the region. Spanos already has a sweetheart deal on land use so let him build his own stadium. How many people does the library employ? I guessing less than the Chargers, not to mention all the independent businesses (i.e. restaurants & merchandise stores) that gain revenue from the city having a team.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Dec 17, 2014 9:03:48 GMT -8
I am just putting out the facts about what type of taxes are being considered. They are TOT taxes, not property or income taxes. As you point out the approval of such would be suject to a public vote. I didn't make any claims otherwise. As to your question about why should the city put up any funds it would be because, like it or not, they do realize financial benefits from having an NFL team here. They also benefit from having conventions here. They also benefit from having Qualcomm here, and they (well, actually the county) benefits from me having my business here. I would say that the economic benefit of an NFL stadium trumps having a state of the art central library but we found a way to spend $300M on that. Every time someone comes here and uses the airport, rents a car, rents a hotel room, goes to a local attraction or has dinner at a restaurant the local government (county or one of the various cities in the region) benefits because each one of these activities is taxed. Having a stadium that hosts an NFL team as well as things like the Holiday Bowl, Super Bowls, MM (if the downtown option is used) benefits our #2 biggest economic industry (tourism) immensely. And I am not just talking about who shows up for the games, it is about the type of exposure the region gets when people at home see all those wonderful blimp shots of San Diego (especially since most of those events happen in the winter, when people in much of the country are shoveling snow). While they are suffering through yet another cold winter they turn on the TV and see people playing golf at Torrey Pines or taking a walk on the beach at the Hotel Del and that is going to have an influence on them the next time they plan a vacation. If we didn't need the publicity then why does the city pay to advertise us as a tourist destination? The SB is a two week commercial for the city of San Diego, all without having to pay for the TV time. So, I would argue that the city should be involved in some portion of the cost of building a new stadium. The only point, in my opinion, to consider is how much that should be. Did I miss something and they stopped showing blimp shots when the Chargers play? What does Torrey Pines have to do with the cost of a new stadium paid for by the tax payers. So for 8 weeks a year and maybe once in a generation SB we should forsake our infrastructure and pay for a billionaire's new sandbox? Can you show us the numbers? I don't mean made up BS propaganda numbers that the hotel owners, city government and pro give away tax payers money proponents numbers, but real numbers that show what it costs a city to build a new stadium and host one SB, and what the city actually takes in. If there is money to be made who makes out the most? I'll bet it isn't the tax payer. A tax is a tax regardless of what it is called TOT or DOT or what ever, paying for a convention center expansion or a stadium it has already been ruled illegal, to pay for it that way it must be voted on by the citizens. You say you have a business here in San Diego are the tax payers paying for a new building to house your business? Just wondering. If the Chargers were to leave, no more of those blimp shots, eh? Also, SBs would be more than "once in a generation." Arizona is getting its second SB in 7 years since building a new stadium, and Glendale AZ isn't actually a tourist hot spot. San Diego would get a few SBs out of a new stadium, not just one or two. The NFL likes having their fans enjoy more than just the game, so they prefer a place where the weather is warm and there are things to do and see when in town. Same can be said for college bowl games. You may like the idea of freezing your ass going to the Idaho Potato Bowl but most people would prefer that their team play somewhere where it isn't snowing. Again, I point out that tourism is the second largest industry in San Diego and we all benefit from people coming here and spending their money. I bring up Torry Pines because it is a popular "blimp shot" when events here are televised. For the Super Bowl advertising goes for something like $8M per minute. Those shots are giving back a lot of value in free advertising. And, for the record, when people look at how profitable a SB is they only look at the direct impact - how much is spent in the region during the the SB window. They don't look at the income generated later on with increased tourism. For a place like Detroit or even Dallas that type of boost is minimal compared to places like San Diego or Miami. I guess you are against using public money to expand the convention center as well. Sure, it benefits the hotel owners, restaurants, bars, shops, rental cars and a whole host of people that support those businesses but when it comes right down to it, government doesn't make money. They need to take money from the private sector and in order to do that they need the private sector to be profitable. I don't know why you keep bringing up voting on a tax. I have already said that any use of public funds would be subject to a vote. The funny thing about the funding for the convention center is that it was those hotel owners you seem to hate that voted on a levy against their own businesses. Why did they want to do that? Because they know in order to make money you have to spend it. Most people, when properly informed, will differentiate the taxes they are responsible and taxes that are paid by others. People are more inclined to raise someone else's taxes and not their own. Of course, they are not always properly informed (See Jon Gruber). We pay a "sunshine tax" in San Diego which manifests itself in an overall higher cost of living. TOT taxes are a way to pass off this "sunshine tax" on those who come here for the, um, sunshine. I'm gong to mention a story about Fred Rohr. Many years ago he wanted to expand his production facility in Chula Vista. Local officials were hesitant to give him approval and one asked him what he did for the benefit of the community. So the very next week he paid all his employees in silver dollars. Those silver dollars circulated through the community for years afterwards. I can't tell you what the cost to the city would be since there have been various proposals tossed around. The Chargers have proposed to ante up $400M. The proposed downtown site with convention center expansion makes the cost higher than a stadium only plan. The Chargers first proposal only asked for the Q site to build a stadium (which would be city owned) which would be owned by the city on the Eastern portion of the site while using the rest of the land for development to pay for the cost of the stadium. No, the county hasn't come around to build me a building. They do maintain the airport my building sits on, though. The county owns the land and leases it to "Master Lease Holders" who then lease to others. I am a subleasee to a subleasee. The country does oversee and make improvements to the property in general (lengthened a runway to allow for larger jets be one of them, improvements for drainage done most recently) and every 15 years or so I am asked to contribute money ($50-70K) to some improvement to the property as well. While I can be entertaining as hell I don't think I could get 60-70K people to show up and watch what I do nor do I think there is much of a market for it for even a TV reality show.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 17, 2014 9:08:24 GMT -8
The spanos want the Aztecs in the new stadium because it would bring cash into their pockets. Like Erik said the Aztecs minimallly affect the chargers bottom line. But having conference championship games at a new facility could bring in wealth to both the Aztecs and chargers. Having a better stadium could make for a stronger bowl. You would be more likely to bring a p5 team. And ultimately it would make us a much stronger candidate to the b12 knowing the modern day stadium can be used for events and thusly the chargers would be benefit by people buying crap at these events . Parking at these Evente. Buying tickets at thee events and so on. A new stadium would be a boon economiically to a lot of people that from all events held at the future stadium and not just from chargers games. An NFL stadium does not make SDSU more likely to get into a P5 conference or bring a P5 team to play the Aztecs. The Big XII, Pac 12 or any other conference will not hold annual conference championship game in SD no matter what. The Chargers will not allow any events to be held in the stadium, EVER. There will never be a soccer game, concert or anthing else as long as the Spanos have rights to the stadium. An NFL stadium is not a boon economically. Erwin Jacobs founding Qualcomm was a boon economically... a new stadium will not bring new jobs, it will not bring high paying jobs. I worked in the in seat service concessions so I could go to Charger games when I was going to SDSU. At best I made an extra $150 to $200 in tips for spending money and only 8 Sunday out of the entire year. The other event I worked at the stadium I was lucky to walk out with $20. On the other hand, the Chragers made several hundred thousand and the concessions company based in Delaware made millions for the year.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Dec 17, 2014 9:08:50 GMT -8
Having a modern stadium would be a huge asset to the big 12 as far as having conference championship games there or at petco for baseball. Use your imagination and think about all the events that can be held at a new stadium for the aztecs benefit. Or camplain about corporate welfare and not about the useless crap our government wastes money on like proposing a trolley line to la jolla. Lol. I agree...Qualcomm is a dump...but the taxpayers are not about to shell out billions so a chosen few can enjoy a in-person game...period...why should someone who is making a minimum living and who cannot pay a couple hundred dollars for a game be taxed for a venue they can't even get into?...what about people that don't like football?...if billionaires want a stadium...build it...put a good product on the field...and they will come...the NFL or the Spanoses should build the stadium...recoup most of the money...and the city should lease the land for $100 a year...if the Chargers leave I will still be a fan and watch the games like I mostly do...on a big screen tv...plus...SD gets to see all the good games on tv...double headers and such...remember...the city of LA is not breaking the bank to build jack. Billions? Talk about hyperbole. If those people who are making a minimal living shouldn't be taxed maybe they should pick a cheaper city to vacation in. How about Detroit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 9:10:37 GMT -8
False analogy. Building a library is very different than taxing citizens to help a wealthy business owner in his attempts to generate greater profits. The Chargers are not a major employer in the region. Spanos already has a sweetheart deal on land use so let him build his own stadium. How many people does the library employ? I guessing less than the Chargers, not to mention all the independent businesses (i.e. restaurants & merchandise stores) that gain revenue from the city having a team. The library is a public service not a for profit business. It's services are free to all. Therefore, the people "choose" not to use it. On the other hand, many of our citizenry cannot afford to pay billionaires the required fees to use this thing built with their tax dollars. I choose to believe that you are being disingenuous when you state that you don't recognize the distinction.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 9:10:42 GMT -8
Go ahead and dislike the ownership and/or disapprove of the proposed financing, but if you're a native San Diegan (let alone a sports fan) and wish the Chargers would move, knowing we'll likely never get another NFL team in most of our lifetimes, that's just idiotic. Well, if you are a diehard Aztec fan and have no interest in the further enrichment of the Spanoses at public expense, then it is just the opposite of idiotic. As I posted in another thread, the fact that the NBA left decades ago has undoubtedly helped the rise of the SDSU men's basketball program. While Charger fans would not immediately start buying Aztec season tickets, over time SDSU football would benefit from being the biggest gridiron program in the county. The worst thing that could happen to Aztec football would be the building of a downtown stadium (plus the refusal by the city to sell the Q's land to SDSU for classroom expansion). The best thing would be for the Chargers to hop the next Greyhound bus headed north, followed by the creation of a campus expansion at the Mission Valley site including a new, more appropriately sized stadium. AzWm AW, I couldnt disagree with you more on this one. First, the rise of the men's basketball team has everything to do with Fisher and nothing to do with the NBA leaving town. MBB couldnt draw flies for the decades San Diego was left without the NBA. Fisher brought the success and Viejas would have 12414 NBA or no NBA. Next, assuming Charger fans would start buying SDSU FB tickets is a stretch. The NFL is the king sport in the land. If SDSU played in a conference that had some sort of relevance like the PAC 12, then I could give you partial credit. The fact is we are in the MWC and will be playing the same uninspiring crappy teams for the foreseeable future. As Stan said in a previous post, Aztec football (as basketball did) will succeed or fail on its own merit. An NFL team does nothing to hold SDSU back. SDSU is the only ones holding themselves back. Win and they will come. Your argument suggests that if the Chargers left and SDSU dropped football that people would begin to buy tickets to USD. Sorry, that just doesn't hold water. Lastly, this truly is a crossroads decision for San Diego. Do we want to be Seattle with a great sports environment and a relevant college team, or do we want to fall into obscurity like Portland? Seriously, there are a lot of bridges and a rose garden there, but that doesn't make me want to visit Portland. When was the last time you SAW Portland on TV? Seattle has tons of exposure through it's sports teams. Since San Diego's main economic engine is tourism, we should be looking to be more like Seattle; having the exposure and events to draw people to our city. A reasonable participation by the City in a stadium would be an investment in our economy, not the enrichment of the Spanoses you suggest. Keep in mind that if money was the only issue for the Spanoses they would be in LA already. They can make far more money off of the Chargers by moving them to LA then keeping them in San Diego. They want to be part of the community, so they have spent the past 14 years and millions of dollars working to find a solution to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Dec 17, 2014 9:16:24 GMT -8
The spanos want the Aztecs in the new stadium because it would bring cash into their pockets. Like Erik said the Aztecs minimallly affect the chargers bottom line. But having conference championship games at a new facility could bring in wealth to both the Aztecs and chargers. Having a better stadium could make for a stronger bowl. You would be more likely to bring a p5 team. And ultimately it would make us a much stronger candidate to the b12 knowing the modern day stadium can be used for events and thusly the chargers would be benefit by people buying crap at these events . Parking at these Evente. Buying tickets at thee events and so on. A new stadium would be a boon economiically to a lot of people that from all events held at the future stadium and not just from chargers games. An NFL stadium does not make SDSU more likely to get into a P5 conference or bring a P5 team to play the Aztecs. The Big XII, Pac 12 or any other conference will not hold annual conference championship game in SD no matter what. The Chargers will not allow any events to be held in the stadium, EVER. There will never be a soccer game, concert or anthing else as long as the Spanos have rights to the stadium. An NFL stadium is not a boon economically. Erwin Jacobs founding Qualcomm was a boon economically... a new stadium will not bring new jobs, it will not bring high paying jobs. I worked in the in seat service concessions so I could go to Charger games when I was going to SDSU. At best I made an extra $150 to $200 in tips for spending money and only 8 Sunday out of the entire year. The other event I worked at the stadium I was lucky to walk out with $20. On the other hand, the Chragers made several hundred thousand and the concessions company based in Delaware made millions for the year. The proposals I have seen ends with the city owning the stadium. Even if Spanos were to build his own stadium why would he limit the use of it? Doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense, does it?
|
|