|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 16, 2015 9:38:23 GMT -8
Aztecs playing downtown in a new NFL stadium would be great.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 16, 2015 9:39:03 GMT -8
Disagree that the long term future of SDSU football hangs in the balance. If the Chargers get a downtown stadium, SDSU most likely takes over all/most of the Q site. If the Chargers leave, SDSU most likely takes over all/most of the Q site. If, and this is most unlikely, the city renovates (insert laughter) the Q and the Chargers keep playing there... SDSU gets to choose between remaining a tenant or unfolding their plans for an on-campus stadium. So I'm not sure why SDSU needs a voice on the task force. Lobbying to take possession of the Q site either way can just as easily (or much more easily) take place privately outside the confines of the task force... I don't see how you get to SDSU taking over Qualcomm site. It belongs to city and they will not give it away. A state that foolishly trying to build a bullet train, and build new ways to get water for SoCal has no interest in buying Qualcomm from the City. Tell me about how you are seeing SDSU buying the Q? The money the city would get is important to them so I don't see why they would cut a great deal for SDSU when developers will be willing to pay top dollar for more condos and retail. You're really kidding yourself if you don't think SDSU already has an inside track on taking over the Q site for a "West" campus addition. Once the opportunity is there (Chargers get a downtown stadium or leave SD), the money will be there. That the state can only focus on a bullet train (very silly, IMO, but whatevs) and magical aqueducts (VERY necessary) is silly... of course their will be sufficient attention to expending the jewel of the CSU system.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 16, 2015 9:40:44 GMT -8
Aztecs playing downtown in a new NFL stadium would be great. Hell no. And besides, it's already been covered... playing downtown is a NON-STARTER for the Aztecs.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 16, 2015 9:42:11 GMT -8
Aztecs playing downtown in a new NFL stadium would be great. Hell no. And besides, it's already been covered... playing downtown is a NON-STARTER for the Aztecs. If the Chargers build their stadium there, the Aztecs will play there. After the first season, Aztec fans will love it.
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Jan 16, 2015 9:45:07 GMT -8
students would not go downtown. if they're 21, they're not going to an aztec fb game on saturday night, let's be real, and if they're under 21 being downtown means they'd have to pre-party before getting on the trolley due to lack of space for tailgating and costs rising due to it.
the sections would get even older than they are currently.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 16, 2015 9:48:33 GMT -8
students would not go downtown. if they're 21, they're not going to an aztec fb game on saturday night, let's be real, and if they're under 21 being downtown means they'd have to pre-party before getting on the trolley due to lack of space for tailgating and costs rising due to it. the sections would get even older than they are currently. Students won't go downtown? Have you been downtown recently? A new stadium would improve the game experience so incredibly that I think you might be surprised who shows up.
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Jan 16, 2015 10:01:16 GMT -8
I live downtown. Any student over 21 lives in PB. They have 2 choices on sat night--bars in PB or bars in downtown. They don't go to games on sat night. Esp not aztec football. Under 21 students want to feel involved in the university, so they go for the first 2 games then realize getting drunk on campus is A) way more productive toward socializing, and B) a lot more fun. Don't feel insulted by that, the same thing happens in fraternities. Under 21, "Sigma Chi til I die!" Over 21 "Wow, why do i still hang out here?"
There is a clear line between student>21 and student<21. And in that schism are the people who don't like football, the ones who have better things to do, and the ones with fake IDs.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Jan 16, 2015 10:26:03 GMT -8
I live downtown. Any student over 21 lives in PB. They have 2 choices on sat night--bars in PB or bars in downtown. They don't go to games on sat night. Esp not aztec football. Under 21 students want to feel involved in the university, so they go for the first 2 games then realize getting drunk on campus is A) way more productive toward socializing, and B) a lot more fun. Don't feel insulted by that, the same thing happens in fraternities. Under 21, "Sigma Chi til I die!" Over 21 "Wow, why do i still hang out here?" There is a clear line between student>21 and student<21. And in that schism are the people who don't like football, the ones who have better things to do, and the ones with fake IDs. If you are an administrator you cast vision for an on campus experience to change the course of who lives where. The trend is more students living near campus, the future of SDSU shedding the party commuter school past lies in building an on campus experience, etc. For State, this is bigger than football. It's about guiding State toward the next level and the level beyond that. We want to compete for the best students with the Pac-12? Football is part of that equation.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 16, 2015 10:39:05 GMT -8
Yesterday afternoon on the D. Smith show on 1090 he had Fabiani on. Man was Fabiani pissed. He was most pissed at the mayor's mention of Cushman. This was the first time I've heard the Charger mouth piece mention moving to LA. The Charger plan is to get the hotel owners to pass a room tax, that is voted on, develop the Q site as a money making scheme for the city to collect taxes, and have a convention ctr/stadium complex built. On the other station, 1360 I think, the host Hartman suggested that what is needed is big time investors to invest in this stadium complex. Right, investors want a return on their investment and they know that stadiums are money losers not money makers. I read a while ago that bond holders in NY and NJ are still paying off bonds on two stadiums that have already been torn down. The city is going to need to borrow hundreds of million of dollars just to fix the roads and some infrastructure repairs. The Chargers want the tax payers to pay for a new sandbox for a billionaire owner, good luck, people are little bit smarter then that. Fabiani mentioned LA in an interview last month. Pretty sure it was on 1360, but I don't know exactly when.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jan 16, 2015 10:42:54 GMT -8
I don't see how you get to SDSU taking over Qualcomm site. It belongs to city and they will not give it away. A state that foolishly trying to build a bullet train, and build new ways to get water for SoCal has no interest in buying Qualcomm from the City. Tell me about how you are seeing SDSU buying the Q? The money the city would get is important to them so I don't see why they would cut a great deal for SDSU when developers will be willing to pay top dollar for more condos and retail. You're really kidding yourself if you don't think SDSU already has an inside track on taking over the Q site for a "West" campus addition. Once the opportunity is there (Chargers get a downtown stadium or leave SD), the money will be there. That the state can only focus on a bullet train (very silly, IMO, but whatevs) and magical aqueducts (VERY necessary) is silly... of course their will be sufficient attention to expending the jewel of the CSU system. Sorry but you not dealing from facts here. The money will be there? Huh! What money are you talking about? The City has repeatedly said they need the big revenue from selling the site to developers if and when the Charger leave. SDSU does not have several hundred million to buy the site. It has to come from the state of California. Let me know what articles you are reading about how SDSU has a sweetheart deal with the city to acquire the Q at a discount? But, let's see. Would you agree that the next several months of due diligence from this task force should include this West Campus discussion? Where is Elliott Hirschman on this? How about Jim Sterk? Let's see.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 16, 2015 10:43:44 GMT -8
This. From a political standpoint, Faulconer is on shaky ground. You better be damn sure that you'll get that public vote, or you might become the Mayor who lost the Chargers...I think that there's enough distrust of the Chargers ownership, and the NFL, that anything short of Dean Spanos writing the check for the entire project will not get the 2/3rds. SDSU better have plan B ready to go. Yes on Prop C to build Petco received 59% coming off the heels of a world series, even more reason to not be confident in the 2/3 vote passing. Going to be an interesting year of stadium speculation... Yep. And Prop C was really a redevelopment vote requiring considerably less money tied to a team that would play 90 games per year there....not 10 like the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 16, 2015 10:48:25 GMT -8
The City has repeatedly said they need the big revenue from selling the site to developers if and when the Charger leave. Link? SDSU as an entity of the State can buy the land at FVM through eminent domain if they had to....but the City wants SDSU to expand there. The only article that has been printed with quotes from the City: www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/aug/01/1n1qualcomm22273-sdsu-might-expand-campus-stadium-/Freakin' Donna Frye was on board so long as there was a park.
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Jan 16, 2015 10:54:56 GMT -8
I live downtown. Any student over 21 lives in PB. They have 2 choices on sat night--bars in PB or bars in downtown. They don't go to games on sat night. Esp not aztec football. Under 21 students want to feel involved in the university, so they go for the first 2 games then realize getting drunk on campus is A) way more productive toward socializing, and B) a lot more fun. Don't feel insulted by that, the same thing happens in fraternities. Under 21, "Sigma Chi til I die!" Over 21 "Wow, why do i still hang out here?" There is a clear line between student>21 and student<21. And in that schism are the people who don't like football, the ones who have better things to do, and the ones with fake IDs. If you are an administrator you cast vision for an on campus experience to change the course of who lives where. The trend is more students living near campus, the future of SDSU shedding the party commuter school past lies in building an on campus experience, etc. For State, this is bigger than football. It's about guiding State toward the next level and the level beyond that. We want to compete for the best students with the Pac-12? Football is part of that equation. It is bigger than football. I honestly wanted the college town feel but that's just not San Diego. Closest I got to it feeling like a college town was the Greek system but they've effectively killed that off. It would be a real challenge to overcome pbs allure to students. They come from out of state or up north to San Diego for a reason. Everyone I knew at state moved to pb as soon as they could. Typhoon saloon in pb is basically frat row West. You can force them to live on campus the first year or so but they're gone when they can. *my proof is that they would rather live in dilapidated housing in pb for fairly expensive than in housing near state. Theres just not a whole lot to do near campus. Maybe the Plaza lindy Verde expansion changes that a bit but nobody remembers the good times with their college buddies at the on campus oggis pizza.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Jan 16, 2015 11:00:59 GMT -8
If you are an administrator you cast vision for an on campus experience to change the course of who lives where. The trend is more students living near campus, the future of SDSU shedding the party commuter school past lies in building an on campus experience, etc. For State, this is bigger than football. It's about guiding State toward the next level and the level beyond that. We want to compete for the best students with the Pac-12? Football is part of that equation. It is bigger than football. I honestly wanted the college town feel but that's just not San Diego. Closest I got to it feeling like a college town was the Greek system but they've effectively killed that off. It would be a real challenge to overcome pbs allure to students. They come from out of state or up north to San Diego for a reason. Everyone I knew at state moved to pb as soon as they could. Typhoon saloon in pb is basically frat row West. You can force them to live on campus the first year or so but they're gone when they can. Theres just not a whole lot to do near campus. Maybe the Plaza lindy Verde expansion changes that a bit but nobody remembers the good times with their college buddies at the on campus oggis pizza. Yeah, totally understand where you are coming from. PB is a great option right now. I'm just saying if I want to take State to a new level I know, if I were the president, I'd invest heavily in creating that on campus / near campus stuff. With several new developments going in along El Cajon as well as Blvd 63 opening, there's a lot more students living that way. But you can imagine if State picked up the Q site as a West campus, added some housing, added some new buildings classes, plus all the TONS of housing that's down that way already... that'd probably shift things even more. If an on campus stadium isn't possible, and I just don't know where it'd go right now without putting the wrecking ball to some current buildings, I would think that the Q site would be high on my list for expansion. You could put in a gondola!
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jan 16, 2015 11:16:54 GMT -8
Disappointing to write the least. Cushman is a long time downtown mover and shaker. He does not like to be crossed. He can say, "he will be the first to write a check for his seat reservations" all he wants, but he totally avoided Kaplan's question about being an impediment to any Chargers new place. If Cushman is involved, even if it only as a financial guy, wave goodbye to the Chargers. Asinine to blame one guy for the chargers predicament. If the Chargers leave san diego, the only people to blame are the chargers.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 16, 2015 11:32:32 GMT -8
public money should not fund it whatsoever. How many studies have to point out that it's almost always a bad investment before people can separate what they want with what is right? A statement like that is pretty broad brush when the funding mechanism and ROI are not yet known. Once that is produced then a comment like that can be made. The assumption is that the stadium for San Diego would be financed in similar fashion to others. Since we do not know that to be the case to reference studies that may not apply at all is not constructive. Something that can be discussed now is what does the community want to invest in. Sometimes funding goes to facilities that do not provide any ROI. Depends on what you want to fund. Its not like the opera or symphony pay back the city in spades. Sometimes a community invests in something that pays back in ways other than monetarily. The important thing is that the community have a voice in that decision.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Jan 16, 2015 11:48:32 GMT -8
Aztecs playing downtown in a new NFL stadium would be great. I'm of the opinion UCLA fans willing to drive the additional distance to Pasadena to see Bruin football were motivated by the program and its head coach. It would be great to consider any location a viable option for SDSU if the program had a better than marginal to decent community following. That said, if the Mission Valley site is vacated and State ultimately take over the land, I would think the primary motivation will be additional academic needs first and foremost. I can only assume a new stadium would be considered after a serious evaluation of the state of and the future of Aztec football.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 16, 2015 11:58:04 GMT -8
Aztecs playing downtown in a new NFL stadium would be great. I'm of the opinion UCLA fans willing to drive the additional distance to Pasadena to see Bruin football were motivated by the program and its head coach. It would be great to consider any location a viable option for SDSU if the program had a better than marginal to decent community following. That said, if the Mission Valley site is vacated and State ultimately take over the land, I would think the primary motivation will be additional academic needs first and foremost. I can only assume a new stadium would be considered after a serious evaluation of the state of and the future of Aztec football. And maybe after a couple of seasons testing out a downtown stadium. I think we will find it to be very nice. One very nice advantage of having a downtown NFL stadium and an Aztec Stadium too, is TV. The Aztecs could play one (non-MWC) game a year downtown and the Aztecs would own the TV rights. That and naming rights to the Aztecs stadium could be a not so small motivating factor - money wise.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jan 16, 2015 12:20:42 GMT -8
Yesterday afternoon on the D. Smith show on 1090 he had Fabiani on. Man was Fabiani pissed. He was most pissed at the mayor's mention of Cushman. This was the first time I've heard the Charger mouth piece mention moving to LA. The Charger plan is to get the hotel owners to pass a room tax, that is voted on, develop the Q site as a money making scheme for the city to collect taxes, and have a convention ctr/stadium complex built. On the other station, 1360 I think, the host Hartman suggested that what is needed is big time investors to invest in this stadium complex. Right, investors want a return on their investment and they know that stadiums are money losers not money makers. I read a while ago that bond holders in NY and NJ are still paying off bonds on two stadiums that have already been torn down.
The city is going to need to borrow hundreds of million of dollars just to fix the roads and some infrastructure repairs. The Chargers want the tax payers to pay for a new sandbox for a billionaire owner, good luck, people are little bit smarter then that. That may be true, but just how much is this affecting the average Joe? Politicians use this as a ploy to scare people about their money. It's a powerful and very effective strategy. I would bet their insurance or gas and electricity bill increases affects them a hell of a lot more than than any stadium debt.
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Jan 16, 2015 12:28:23 GMT -8
Disappointing to write the least. Cushman is a long time downtown mover and shaker. He does not like to be crossed. He can say, "he will be the first to write a check for his seat reservations" all he wants, but he totally avoided Kaplan's question about being an impediment to any Chargers new place. If Cushman is involved, even if it only as a financial guy, wave goodbye to the Chargers. The article said Cushman is not involved. Reopening this task force is justified. The state and local economies have changed for the better since 2008, despite what politicians tell us. For starters, look at today's housing prices as opposed to 6 years ago. Even if Cushman is not named to the task force, he still represents the convention center and the port commission. He will do all he can to rule out the common use of a new football stadium and the convention center. He will have a lot of input. When Kaplan asked Cushman if he would be an impediment to the football stadium task force, he danced around and never answered the question.
|
|