Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 10:40:17 GMT -8
how does the Chargers leaving solve the Aztec football problems ?? Recruiting , Quality QB getting recruited and developed . Image of the SDSU G5 football team , Winning the MW Championship game , Winning G5 Bowl game , Invite to B12 , fans in the stands ? Image of San Diego Football fans , facilities , Recruiting, paying stipends , 4 year scholarships ? Please provide specific answers other then it eliminates the Chargers as the favorite team in San Diego but please do not expect that many Charger fans to say they are going to attend games at SDSU , rather then go to their local HS or travel up to LA for some games . It allows SDSU to take over the Q site and eliminates their top competition in the immediate area. As a Charger fan you don't see that a competiion exists but an economist would laugh at you. It also forces SDSU to either retrofit the Q or build their own stadium eventually. Stan, is this REALLY that hard to understand? It "allows" for no such thing. An SDSU expansion at the Q site is the height of magical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 10:42:03 GMT -8
how does the Chargers leaving solve the Aztec football problems ?? Recruiting , Quality QB getting recruited and developed . Image of the SDSU G5 football team , Winning the MW Championship game , Winning G5 Bowl game , Invite to B12 , fans in the stands ? Image of San Diego Football fans , facilities , Recruiting, paying stipends , 4 year scholarships ? Please provide specific answers other then it eliminates the Chargers as the favorite team in San Diego but please do not expect that many Charger fans to say they are going to attend games at SDSU , rather then go to their local HS or travel up to LA for some games . It allows SDSU to take over the Q site and eliminates their top competition in the immediate area. As a Charger fan you don't see that a competiion exists but an economist would laugh at you. It also forces SDSU to either retrofit the Q or build their own stadium eventually. Stan, is this REALLY that hard to understand? Your premise that the competition is direct is just wrong. Here is an example using UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA. The Rams and Raiders left in 1994. In 1995, UCLA sold exactly 787 more season tickets, an increase of 2.7 percent, and per-game attendance actually decreased to 49,107, a drop of 4.6 percent. sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=6695960The only improvements UCLA and USC saw in attendance were when they made changes to their program and marketing. This proves Stan's point directly. The burden of success at SDSU is on the program, not other entities such as the Chargers. If you are going to play the zero sum game, then you have to support the idea that the football program suffers because of the success of the basketball program. If a fan only has so many dollars and has to choose one event or another then one will suffer. Obviously this has not been the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 10:46:23 GMT -8
Would not be surprised if the NFL told the Chargers to sit tight another year. The NFL is having problems, in that should the Rams move back to LA, Kroenke would build a stadium he doesn't want to share with any other NFL team. The League would rather have 2 teams playing in 1 stadium. Until this problem is straightened out, I wouldn't expect any team to move to LA. Well, there's that and the fact that there isn't any place for them to play in Los Angeles because, you know, they haven't built a new stadium in LA since 1920. No place to play? Uh, wrong. As an example, I can tell you from hearing from an excellent source that although it's doubtful politics would allow any NFL team to play in the Rose Bowl indefinitely, if residents of Pasadena were assured a new stadium was going to be built in downtown L.A. (Farmers Field), in Inglewood (where the Rams' owner has purchased 60 acres next to the Forum) in the City of Industry (where the often discussed site still sits vacant) or elsewhere, an NFL team would be welcomed to the Rose Bowl on a temporary basis. Then there's also the Coliseum if USC would allow it, something I have no knowledge about.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 17, 2014 10:48:42 GMT -8
It allows SDSU to take over the Q site and eliminates their top competition in the immediate area. As a Charger fan you don't see that a competiion exists but an economist would laugh at you. It also forces SDSU to either retrofit the Q or build their own stadium eventually. Stan, is this REALLY that hard to understand? It "allows" for no such thing. An SDSU expansion at the Q site is the height of magical thinking. Sure buddy.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 17, 2014 11:13:34 GMT -8
md. I totally understand the economic issues for the fight over entertainment dollars , personal spending / sports events . But that does not mean as you say Chargers fans "default " to being Aztecs fans that will be paying fans in the stands . They need to be earned , a problem that the AD department has not learned . Also SDSU does not just get the Q by default , they have to buy or rent the property , city could take the highest bidder . Money to put the stadium on campus , plus pay stipends and full scholarships for Sports athletes , where is it coming from ? Even if you fill a stadium you need fans that are paying higher prices for tickets to make a lot of money . You need a Championship style team for those prices , ask the Chargers. The Chargers are competition for sports dollars not the improvement of the Aztec FB team , the Football team needs to focus on its own improvement on the field . and in the communities in SD . You have not answered how the Chargers leaving assists the Aztecs on the field , recruiting , coaching , developing players , winning the MW , G5 Bowl , getting B12 bid , facilities , getting fans in the stands , TV deals , MW deals for football money - maybe the competition is BSU . By using the Chargers as the problem you are making it way too easy on the FB coach and AD . Who should be the focus to provide the SDSU and San Diego County fans a MW Championship and G5 Bowl or better . You feel an Aztec Stadium is the solution to the problem . Wish it was, but I feel there are so many more problems with the team . San Diego fans including Charger fans do not support a team unless they feel a relationship and even more important that they are a great not average team . You are a strong Aztec fan but so are those that also like the Chargers . People have different opinions . I just want the focus to stay on the AZTEC FOOTBALL TEAM / AD to solve the problems and not let other issues pretend to be the issue and answer. Some feel a stadium on campus as the key for Aztec revival . I think Aztecs need a Championship team first . Same plan that other schools did .
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Dec 17, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -8
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. [/quote The first sentence in your next to last paragraph pretty much sums up my stance against using public money to build a billionaire a new sandbox. Nobody knows what it will cost the tax payer, the NFL will never disclose those numbers nor will the city government. You keep going back to hosting a SB and what a great way for the city to collect tax money along with and expanded convention center. You forgot a couple of facts about a SB and the convention center. When the NFL grants a city a SB the NFL demands that a certain number of hotel rooms be made available to the NFL at no cost, which also means no taxes are paid. The NFL also demands that a certain number of rental cars be made available at no cost, which also means no tax. I believe the number of rooms is or over a thousand. The convention center has not been taken care of the current convention centers infrastructure, so basically it is falling apart even though there was money to pay for upkeep. The convention center also gives huge cost breaks to certain conventions(comic-Con) to name one. I'm talking about 1/2 off the rental fee and more. Of course with these discounts comes less taxes. San Diego is a destination city, people will flock here rather the Chargers play here in a new stadium or not. The nice climate, the Zoo, Balboa Park, Sea World( maybe not so much lately), the beaches, etc. I think the tourists that want to come to San Diego would also like to see streets that are paved with few pot holes, which is different then the city the tourists come from. The people of San Diego are sick of how this city is governed and how their tax money is given away to the hotel owners, developers, and leasers of city property with no return for their money. They are tired of being lied to and that is why if funding for a stadium comes up for a vote it will lose.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 17, 2014 11:45:41 GMT -8
md. I totally understand the economic issues for the fight over entertainment dollars , personal spending / sports events . But that does not mean as you say Chargers fans "default " to being Aztecs fans that will be paying fans in the stands . They need to be earned , a problem that the AD department has not learned . I'm glad you grasp the concept. I think there will only be a small portion of Charger fans that will default to the Aztecs at first as they'll have 20 additional weekend days per year that no longer require a time and monetary commitment. I understand that there won't be a wave of fans who immediately move over but they'll be much easier to woo without the allegiance to an admittedly better product. BS. SDSU is an entity of the State and could use eminent domain if necessary but it would never come to that as the City wants SDSU to take over as it truly is the highest and best use of the land. Of course they'd have to buy or rent the property and I've never said otherwise. Glad to see a Charger fan on this board finally admit this. If the Chargers leave there are around 60K charger fans that are going to have a couple hundred bucks (minimum) to spend each weekend. It not crazy to think that some of them might enjoy tailgating and watching the next best hometown team if their #1 option no longer is available to them. WTF are you talking about? No, Stan, the Chargers leaving won't help the Aztecs develop better QB's. I think the Chargers leaving gives SDSU the Q site, improves attendance over time, and helps us settle our stadium situation. I'm not "making it way to easy on the FB Coach and AD" I'm just a message board poster talking simple economics. You seem to think I that I think the Chargers leaving magically makes SDSU a national championship contender or something. As mentioned previously, I think it helps us take over the Q site, helps us figure out our long term stadium situation and will improve attendance over time. I think these things make it easier to improve our program over time. Agreed. Don't be surprised that some people on the Aztec message board you are posting on don't give a $#!+ about the Chargers and have the Aztecs best interests in mind.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 11:53:38 GMT -8
We need to clarify our thinking on the issue of the future of SDSU football. Really, it's the future of the entire university that should be our focus. SDSU has made great strides academically in recent years and has the potential to make even greater strides in the coming years. That despite the ill-will and obstructionism of the University of California system. Among other challenges that stand in the way of SDSU's rise in the world of American universities one stands out in my mind.
I refer to the limited land available to the university. Practically speaking, SDSU has expanded about as much as it can at its present site. But there is one way that this problem could be solved with enormous benefit to the school and to the community at large. That would be SDSU's taking over the Qualcomm site. Such a move would offer endless possibilities, both for San Diego State's academic mission as well as for Aztec athletics. I won't bother to discuss in any detail those possibilities since the issue has been discussed at some length on AztecMesa in the past. Suffice it to say that expansion of SDSU to Mission Valley represents one occasion when the expression The Chance of a Lifetime is appropriate. Such an opportunity, if not taken advantage of, will never come again. Not in this city.
Clearly, making this happen would not be easy. On the contrary, it would require inspired, persistent leadership on the part of the school's administration as well as influential local citizens . . . many of whom are SDSU grads. As challenging as the project would be, we should not let this chance of a lifetime slip through our fingers.
On another point, let me tell you that if there were a county-wide vote to hand millions to the Spanos gang, I would personally lead an effort to defeat that proposition. If the Spanoses want to build a new stadium, they should buy land and build it at their own expense. I do not want to have to pay taxes to help people who are worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.
And let's not kid ourselves. In terms of a playing venue, SDSU football needs either an on-campus stadium or a rebuilt Qualcomm Stadium. A downtown stadium far from campus and in which we will be play the role of the unloved stepchild would be a very bad deal.
Finally, on the question of what impact on Aztec attendance the absence of the Chargers would play, it must be said that it would only help us. No, the vast majority of current Charger fans would not immediately sign-up for Aztec season tickets. But over time, SDSU would be seen as the #1 football program in San Diego County. Of course, the quality of Aztec teams would be crucial; if we go into another 11 year drought, nothing can save us. But as young kids grow up seeing SDSU win championships and going to bowl games, they will, at least many of them, become Aztec fans.
And, yes, SDSU has to do a much better job marketing the team. But if, out of 60,000 who pay an arm and a leg to watch the Chargers, only 10% become Aztec fans, we will have been given a huge boost. Do you not think that 5,000 or 6,000 more fans attending the games would be a plus? Of course it would. And those 5K or 6k might not actually be current Charger fans. They would be people who are very young at present or not even born; people who would grow up in a community in which the Aztecs would be the big show in town.
One more thing. As far as recruiting is concerned, I'm sure that other schools' recruiters are not telling H.S. seniors that they would be foolish to play college football in Norman, Tuscaloosa, State College, Lincoln, or Eugene on the grounds that those cities lack an NFL franchise.
We should think of San Diego State's priorities, and not those of billionaires who dabble in pro sports the way people of modest means dabble in fantasy football.
Azwm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 12:08:08 GMT -8
The billionaire that owns the shopping center gets rewarded. We'll sell him the land at a fair market value and reap the sales taxes. It's a far better deal than the stadium. Neither tenant likes the stadium and it costs too much money to keep up. My suggestion still stands. It's obvious that the majority of San Diegans don't want to pay for a replacement and don't think the city should own or operate such a venue so lets just cut our losses and tear it down. This will give AW his wish. The Chargers will be forced to move out and SDSU can play their games at Mesa College while they raise 300-400Million to build an on-campus facility. It should only take a decade or so to get it done. Go Aztecs! Actually, Escondido High's stadium seats more fans and has a much nicer press box. But, seriously, the city has already announced that, were the Chargers to leave, nothing (except of course maintenance) would be done at the Q site for five years. I feel certain that if a replacement stadium on campus were in the works but not ready within five years, the city would grant additional time before the wrecking crews came in for the kill. SDSU is here to stay. For that reason, no city council is going to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the biggest and oldest university in town if such a drastic move were avoidable. I have more faith in the Aztec community than many others. I think that, if it came to put up the money or shut down the program, especially if our string of winning seasons and bowl invitations continues, a way would be found to build a new stadium. But Aztec supporters would in fact have to get the job done. I agree that the Q cannot be kept on life-support forever. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Dec 17, 2014 12:16:59 GMT -8
md. I totally understand the economic issues for the fight over entertainment dollars , personal spending / sports events . But that does not mean as you say Chargers fans "default " to being Aztecs fans that will be paying fans in the stands . They need to be earned , a problem that the AD department has not learned . I'm glad you grasp the concept. I think there will only be a small portion of Charger fans that will default to the Aztecs at first as they'll have 20 additional weekend days per year that no longer require a time and monetary commitment. I understand that there won't be a wave of fans who immediately move over but they'll be much easier to woo without the allegiance to an admittedly better product. BS. SDSU is an entity of the State and could use eminent domain if necessary but it would never come to that as the City wants SDSU to take over as it truly is the highest and best use of the land. Of course they'd have to buy or rent the property and I've never said otherwise. Glad to see a Charger fan on this board finally admit this. If the Chargers leave there are around 60K charger fans that are going to have a couple hundred bucks (minimum) to spend each weekend. It not crazy to think that some of them might enjoy tailgating and watching the next best hometown team if their #1 option no longer is available to them. WTF are you talking about? No, Stan, the Chargers leaving won't help the Aztecs develop better QB's. I think the Chargers leaving gives SDSU the Q site, improves attendance over time, and helps us settle our stadium situation. I'm not "making it way to easy on the FB Coach and AD" I'm just a message board poster talking simple economics. You seem to think I that I think the Chargers leaving magically makes SDSU a national championship contender or something. As mentioned previously, I think it helps us take over the Q site, helps us figure out our long term stadium situation and will improve attendance over time. I think these things make it easier to improve our program over time. Agreed. Don't be surprised that some people on the Aztec message board you are posting on don't give a $#!+ about the Chargers and have the Aztecs best interests in mind. I would love to know why you think a Chargers fan who never went to SDSU would want to support an average team in a G5 conference.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 17, 2014 12:29:25 GMT -8
Here's a point that all the anti-Charger crowd is ignoring... If it's so much better for a city to NOT have an NFL team, why has EVERY city that has lost an NFL team done anything and everything they could to get teams back in their cities? . Every single city that lost their NFL team realized their mistake and ended up giving up a lot more in the long run than they would have had to just to keep their team in the first place. Anyone who does not think that an NFL team is important to a city is deluding himself. There is a huge intangible value above and beyond the tangible benefits. There is value to having an NFL team in the City. But many argue that the subsidies given to NFL franchises make it a money loser for the City. Los Angeles hasn't done a damn thing since the Raiders and Rams left and will have a team back next year. California seems to require private investment like in LA or getting votes in a tiny electorate like Santa Clara or the City of Industry. If the Chargers leave I can't see San Diego ever being able to incentivize a team to relocate here. And, again, an NFL team brings a lot more than financial or economic gains to a city. There are a lot of intangibles that are impossible to quantify financially.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 17, 2014 12:32:25 GMT -8
Here's a point that all the anti-Charger crowd is ignoring... If it's so much better for a city to NOT have an NFL team, why has EVERY city that has lost an NFL team done anything and everything they could to get teams back in their cities? . Every single city that lost their NFL team realized their mistake and ended up giving up a lot more in the long run than they would have had to just to keep their team in the first place. Anyone who does not think that an NFL team is important to a city is deluding himself. There is a huge intangible value above and beyond the tangible benefits. There is value to having an NFL team in the City. But many argue that the subsidies given to NFL franchises make it a money loser for the City. Los Angeles hasn't done a damn thing since the Raiders and Rams left and will have a team back next year. California seems to require private investment like in LA or getting votes in a tiny electorate like Santa Clara or the City of Industry. If the Chargers leave I can't see San Diego ever being able to incentivize a team to relocate here. And, again, an NFL team brings a lot more than financial or economic gains to a city. There are a lot of intangibles that are impossible to quantify financially.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 12:47:35 GMT -8
There is value to having an NFL team in the City. But many argue that the subsidies given to NFL franchises make it a money loser for the City. Los Angeles hasn't done a damn thing since the Raiders and Rams left and will have a team back next year. California seems to require private investment like in LA or getting votes in a tiny electorate like Santa Clara or the City of Industry. If the Chargers leave I can't see San Diego ever being able to incentivize a team to relocate here. And, again, an NFL team brings a lot more than financial or economic gains to a city. There are a lot of intangibles that are impossible to quantify financially. Debatable, at the very least. I think we could compile a very long list of cities . . . small, medium, and large . . . that do not have an NFL franchise but are nonetheless eminently successful, great to live in placesl. Basically, pro sports benefits the upper classes (and the ink-stained wretches of the press). The tickets are very, very pricey, parking costs a bundle, and the food is dramatically over-priced. More and more, season tickets are bought either by the wealthy or by companies to be used as business bonuses and perks. The guy making $30,000 to $35,000 a year and raising a family of 3 or 4 can in no way afford to attend the games. And pro football is becoming more and more a TV operation; the big money comes from the networks. Now, imagine a factory coming to town, employing let's say 1000 workers. You really want to say that an NFL franchise means more to a city than that new factory? AzWm
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 17, 2014 12:56:22 GMT -8
There is value to having an NFL team in the City. But many argue that the subsidies given to NFL franchises make it a money loser for the City. Los Angeles hasn't done a damn thing since the Raiders and Rams left and will have a team back next year. California seems to require private investment like in LA or getting votes in a tiny electorate like Santa Clara or the City of Industry. If the Chargers leave I can't see San Diego ever being able to incentivize a team to relocate here. And, again, an NFL team brings a lot more than financial or economic gains to a city. There are a lot of intangibles that are impossible to quantify financially. How do you figure an NFL team brings financial gains? It may bring social gains (and negatives) and bring Civic pride, but the financial gains are minimal. Conversely a research campus where the stadium is would potentially create hundreds of millions through educating highly skilled labor, luring buisness to the area and possibly creating new industries in San Diego. I would like the Chargers to stay, but I grow tired of thier poor ownership, antics, and failure to field a quality product.
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Dec 17, 2014 13:04:43 GMT -8
And, again, an NFL team brings a lot more than financial or economic gains to a city. There are a lot of intangibles that are impossible to quantify financially. I would like the Chargers to stay, but I grow tired of thier poor ownership, antics, and failure to field a quality product. They have consistently been one of the best 8-10 teams in the league over the past decade, if that's not a quality product then I don't know what is.
|
|
|
Post by gocoaztec on Dec 17, 2014 13:04:46 GMT -8
The Chargers and Aztec FB should be viewed as complementary products instead of competing products. I know that this doesn't make sense to many, but it is (or should be) much like the same car dealer selling both Chevrolet and Buick. You can actually end up selling more Chevrolets and more Buicks by grouping them together than by selling only one of them.
San Diego needs a new stadium, or a complete renovation of the Q. Without one, it truly becomes a second class city. Once built, the Chargers, Aztecs, concerts, conventions, monster trucks, and whatever else can rent the stadium when they use it. How hard is this? Just because not everyone uses every public facility (library, road, park, etc.) is not a good reason not to build them. Hell, not everyone goes to the beach -- let's get rid of those useless lifeguards!
The eighth largest city can't afford a new stadium? Then SD doesn't deserve an NFL team OR a college team in a P5 conference.
Time to get it done.
Go Aztecs!
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Dec 17, 2014 13:09:36 GMT -8
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?
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Dec 17, 2014 13:14:25 GMT -8
And, again, an NFL team brings a lot more than financial or economic gains to a city. There are a lot of intangibles that are impossible to quantify financially. Debatable, at the very least. I think we could compile a very long list of cities . . . small, medium, and large . . . that do not have an NFL franchise but are nonetheless eminently successful, great to live in placesl. Basically, pro sports benefits the upper classes (and the ink-stained wretches of the press). The tickets are very, very pricey, parking costs a bundle, and the food is dramatically over-priced. More and more, season tickets are bought either by the wealthy or by companies to be used as business bonuses and perks. The guy making $30,000 to $35,000 a year and raising a family of 3 or 4 can in no way afford to attend the games. And pro football is becoming more and more a TV operation; the big money comes from the networks. Now, imagine a factory coming to town, employing let's say 1000 workers. You really want to say that an NFL franchise means more to a city than that new factory?AzWm Or an expanded university with say 300 new relatively high-paying professorships...another 300 or so staffers...plus the revenue of and additional 10-15K out-of-town students adding tuition, housing, and discretionary spending to the local economy...add into that the construction work for 3-5 years building out a new "west campus"...and finally the benefit of having another 10-15K college graduates in our community each year to either join or start new businesses. This fiscal impact would dwarf the potential to bring in a SB every 10 years...and other than SBs...the Chargers are just sucking money out of our community and giving it to the Spanos family and to players who generally reside in other places in the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 13:41:30 GMT -8
Debatable, at the very least. I think we could compile a very long list of cities . . . small, medium, and large . . . that do not have an NFL franchise but are nonetheless eminently successful, great to live in placesl. Basically, pro sports benefits the upper classes (and the ink-stained wretches of the press). The tickets are very, very pricey, parking costs a bundle, and the food is dramatically over-priced. More and more, season tickets are bought either by the wealthy or by companies to be used as business bonuses and perks. The guy making $30,000 to $35,000 a year and raising a family of 3 or 4 can in no way afford to attend the games. And pro football is becoming more and more a TV operation; the big money comes from the networks. Now, imagine a factory coming to town, employing let's say 1000 workers. You really want to say that an NFL franchise means more to a city than that new factory?AzWm Or an expanded university with say 300 new relatively high-paying professorships...another 300 or so staffers...plus the revenue of and additional 10-15K out-of-town students adding tuition, housing, and discretionary spending to the local economy...add into that the construction work for 3-5 years building out a new "west campus"...and finally the benefit of having another 10-15K college graduates in our community each year to either join or start new businesses. This fiscal impact would dwarf the potential to bring in a SB every 10 years...and other than SBs...the Chargers are just sucking money out of our community and giving it to the Spanos family and to players who generally reside in other places in the off-season. The university is struggling to be able to replace the professors that are retiring now. How exactly do you expect them to add 300? Assuming that it is a given that SDSU would occupy the Q site is not prudent. Listening to Kevin OC on 1090 today discuss the situation does not give an SDSU fan the warm and fuzzys that a future place for SDSU football to play is a slam dunk. I feel pretty confident in saying that he would know the details of the situation better than most on this board do. One common theme that I am noticing with those cheering the Chargers out of San Diego is that they base their arguments on false premises. When the final plan is presented to the community I would expect it to be a fair proposal that allows the City to obtain a return on any investment that is made. It will not be a plan that allows the Chargers to "suck money out of our community". Also, the real world example of UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA shows us that SDSU will NOT be the premier football attraction. To suggest otherwise is baseless. I can understand the logic, but the example we have does not bear it out. Heck, do you expect Aztec baseball to have an uptick in attendance if you remove the Padres? Of course not. I have said it before and I will say it again. SDSU will need to reach out to those that support the Chargers at one point or another. To burn bridges instead of build them is short sighted and foolish.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 17, 2014 13:51:22 GMT -8
the focus point needs to stay focused on improving the Aztec FOOTBALL team , the issue for SDSU fans . There are numerous issues involved that I believe are not resolved by the Chargers moving away . The point you bring up for the Aztecs is they are going to get the Q . Believe the city owns the land and they can have it sold or rented to the HIGHEST Bidder . So that remains a question .and the money needed to rebuild the Q or a new campus facility , plus the other newer costs that go into affect for schools trying to keep up with the P5 issues .
No way any of us know how many of the NFL fans are going to automatically make the G5 Aztecs their team. Still does not solve the real issue : the quality of the Football Team . that we need to hold the AD and HC accountable, is more important then chasing away the Chargers and fans who like both the Chargers and Aztecs .
|
|