|
Post by bearfoot on Jan 16, 2015 12:33:24 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. I wasn't blaming Cushman. I still blame Susan Golding. She wanted Spanos to support her for the Cali senate seat, and gave him the seat guarantee as a pay off. The seat guarantee soured non=football fans against anything the Chargers have asked for since. And, the city (Golding) gave it to them. I believe that if the proposal for a new community stadium had been proposed way back then, it would have had a much better chance.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jan 16, 2015 12:57:53 GMT -8
Asinine to blame one guy for the chargers predicament. If the Chargers leave san diego, the only people to blame are the chargers. I wasn't blaming Cushman. I still blame Susan Golding. She wanted Spanos to support her for the Cali senate seat, and gave him the seat guarantee as a pay off. The seat guarantee soured non=football fans against anything the Chargers have asked for since. And, the city (Golding) gave it to them. I believe that if the proposal for a new community stadium had been proposed way back then, it would have had a much better chance. 13-14 years ago the Chargers were making the rounds, selling their plan to community groups, etc. Then they stopped. They never proposed taking it to a vote. They deferred to the city to get this done for them. Sorry, but this is THEIR project. All they are doing now is deflecting blame for not getting it done. What plan have the Chargers brought forward in recent years? When the Padres wanted Petco Park built, they took the lead, they ran the road shows, the sold the stadium to San Diegans. They had political support. But it was a Padres campaign. All the Chargers have done is whine and complain that WE haven't given THEM their stadium. Boo frickin hoo!
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Jan 16, 2015 13:15:17 GMT -8
Looking back 14 years we see that the ill fate-ed (old age spelling lapse) Jack Murphy stadium "improvement" just had been completed. All saw that it was a mess, and that the city needed Qualcomm to help bail them out. It was at that time when we had a better understanding of the Golding seat guarantee. Not the best time to be looking for a new stadium. What followed was the almost bankruptcy of the city, and the always agreeable Mike Ag-garry. Yes, the Charges must share in the blame, but they are not alone. But for Aztec football, I don't care if they stay or leave.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 16, 2015 13:20:17 GMT -8
Asinine to blame one guy for the chargers predicament. If the Chargers leave san diego, the only people to blame are the chargers. I wasn't blaming Cushman. I still blame Susan Golding. She wanted Spanos to support her for the Cali senate seat, and gave him the seat guarantee as a pay off. The seat guarantee soured non=football fans against anything the Chargers have asked for since. And, the city (Golding) gave it to them. I believe that if the proposal for a new community stadium had been proposed way back then, it would have had a much better chance. But not asking for a new stadium was the Chargers fault, they are the ones that asked for the expansion for $80M, and then bashed it a few years later. The ticket guarantee was the City and the worst mayor ever, the fact that Spanos and crew asked and got $80M for an expansion and then turned around shat on the stadium infuriated a ton of people. You can't do that and lose public trust.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jan 16, 2015 13:53:23 GMT -8
Looking back 14 years we see that the ill fate-ed (old age spelling lapse) Jack Murphy stadium "improvement" just had been completed. All saw that it was a mess, and that the city needed Qualcomm to help bail them out. It was at that time when we had a better understanding of the Golding seat guarantee. Not the best time to be looking for a new stadium. What followed was the almost bankruptcy of the city, and the always agreeable Mike Ag-garry. Yes, the Charges must share in the blame, but they are not alone. But for Aztec football, I don't care if they stay or leave. Geezus, what's with the city of San Diego anyway? You also had an ex-mayor whose 8 year gambling activity totaled over $1 billion!! How much of that money came from the city's coffer? That probably contributed to San Diego's debt, then the housing crisis put it into real deep shit.
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Jan 16, 2015 14:08:51 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. The opera and symphony didn't cost a billion dollars, have much in the way of land rights to worry about, or traffic to consider. Not to mention, it's arts and culture. The chargers aren't art. My comment is painted with broad strokes because it's a pretty broad consensus that taypayer funded stadiums are terrible ideas. Jobs? Stadium jobs are largely seasonal, minimum pay and $#!+ in general. Super Bowl? The cost burden placed on host cities is only getting worse, to the point of being financial losers. I could go on. And the trade off is watching 8 games? The fact that any public money or land should be gifted to Spanos' wallet should appall people. Spend that money on infrastructure, transportation repair or expansion, or a whole range of other much nobler pursuits. The point is, that money is meant for the betterment of ALL, not the betterment of Spanos, Fabiani, and fair weather fans. If he can't build upon his business here, he should move or sell. That's business. The same would happen to mine. The NFL sets aside money for stadiums and he's doing pretty damn well all things considered. I give not one iota of a damn about his stadium predicament.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 16, 2015 14:09:00 GMT -8
Does anyone around here think it is a slam dunk that SDSU football has a home to play in should the Chargers move to LA? We know there is the 5 year window at Qualcomm, but then what? Wish I could say no worries, but alas with the self interested bickering I hear on the air and read on the internet I have no assurance a new home is a certainty. I mention this not as a scare tactic, but as a consideration. No doubt the usual suspects will resort to the ad hominem attacks and label me a honk, but to say there is no chance of this happening is a foolish assumption.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 16, 2015 14:17:33 GMT -8
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. The opera and symphony didn't cost a billion dollars, have much in the way of land rights to worry about, or traffic to consider. Not to mention, it's arts and culture. The chargers aren't art. My comment is painted with broad strokes because it's a pretty broad consensus that taypayer funded stadiums are terrible ideas. Jobs? Stadium jobs are largely seasonal, minimum pay and $#!+ in general. Super Bowl? The cost burden placed on host cities is only getting worse, to the point of being financial losers. I could go on. And the trade off is watching 8 games? The fact that any public money or land should be gifted to Spanos' wallet should appall people. Spend that money on infrastructure, transportation repair or expansion, or a whole range of other much nobler pursuits. The point is, that money is meant for the betterment of ALL, not the betterment of Spanos, Fabiani, and fair weather fans. If he can't build upon his business here, he should move or sell. That's business. The same would happen to mine. The NFL sets aside money for stadiums and he's doing pretty damn well all things considered. I give not one iota of a damn about his stadium predicament. This is where we will have to agree to disagree then. Should the financing appear to be reasonable I think it is a good investment in our community for a number of reasons, one of which is the intangible of civic pride. As I have said before here, I would rather San Diego be relevant and esteemed like cities such as Seattle or Boston, rather than slide back to the level of ABQ. I know that I will not be able to convince you otherwise, and thats fine. I would say the same about building an arena for an NBA team, and I have ZERO interest in NBA basketball. None. Its not all about me though and I recognize that an NBA franchise would be an asset to San Diego and would be for making that happen as well.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jan 16, 2015 14:51:42 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? Are you talking about a new Charger stadium of a new stadium for the Aztecs? Both seem to fit in your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jan 16, 2015 14:54:27 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. Some of us are smart enough to realize that all businesses transfer their costs to the consumer.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 16, 2015 14:58:33 GMT -8
Does anyone around here think it is a slam dunk that SDSU football has a home to play in should the Chargers move to LA? We know there is the 5 year window at Qualcomm, but then what? Wish I could say no worries, but alas with the self interested bickering I hear on the air and read on the internet I have no assurance a new home is a certainty. I mention this not as a scare tactic, but as a consideration. No doubt the usual suspects will resort to the ad hominem attacks and label me a honk, but to say there is no chance of this happening is a foolish assumption. Although I don't have direct, first-hand insider knowledge... it's pretty darn easy to read the tea leaves to say yes, there is at least one feasible plan -- likely two.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 16, 2015 15:36:18 GMT -8
Does anyone around here think it is a slam dunk that SDSU football has a home to play in should the Chargers move to LA? We know there is the 5 year window at Qualcomm, but then what? Wish I could say no worries, but alas with the self interested bickering I hear on the air and read on the internet I have no assurance a new home is a certainty. I mention this not as a scare tactic, but as a consideration. No doubt the usual suspects will resort to the ad hominem attacks and label me a honk, but to say there is no chance of this happening is a foolish assumption. Although I don't have direct, first-hand insider knowledge... it's pretty darn easy to read the tea leaves to say yes, there is at least one feasible plan -- likely two. Wish I could say your response gives me the warm and fuzzys. Even if there is a plan, I don't have confidence in our community right now to execute it, within 5 years no less.
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Jan 17, 2015 9:11:56 GMT -8
I wasn't blaming Cushman. I still blame Susan Golding. She wanted Spanos to support her for the Cali senate seat, and gave him the seat guarantee as a pay off. The seat guarantee soured non=football fans against anything the Chargers have asked for since. And, the city (Golding) gave it to them. I believe that if the proposal for a new community stadium had been proposed way back then, it would have had a much better chance. But not asking for a new stadium was the Chargers fault, they are the ones that asked for the expansion for $80M, and then bashed it a few years later. The ticket guarantee was the City and the worst mayor ever, the fact that Spanos and crew asked and got $80M for an expansion and then turned around shat on the stadium infuriated a ton of people. You can't do that and lose public trust. And on it goes. I agree that they have made many errors, none worse than hiring Steve Ortmeyer who gave big Jim Lachey to the Raiders. Whoops, now back to the stadium. Once again I'll write that the only reason I want them to stay is so our Aztecs have some big place to play. From what has been happening this week, and the previous 15 years, it sure looks like there will be a LA Chargers once again. My point from way above, is that the city must own part of the many screw ups with the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Jan 17, 2015 9:24:34 GMT -8
Looking back 14 years we see that the ill fate-ed (old age spelling lapse) Jack Murphy stadium "improvement" just had been completed. All saw that it was a mess, and that the city needed Qualcomm to help bail them out. It was at that time when we had a better understanding of the Golding seat guarantee. Not the best time to be looking for a new stadium. What followed was the almost bankruptcy of the city, and the always agreeable Mike Ag-garry. Yes, the Charges must share in the blame, but they are not alone. But for Aztec football, I don't care if they stay or leave. Geezus, what's with the city of San Diego anyway? You also had an ex-mayor whose 8 year gambling activity totaled over $1 billion!! How much of that money came from the city's coffer? That probably contributed to San Diego's debt, then the housing crisis put it into real deep shit.
My degrees from SDSU are both in History and my focus has been the Western US and more specifically the SW and San Diego. San DIego has had two great mayors and the last one was Pete Wilson. The other I am pretty sure was a dude named John C Forward. There is a great book that was based on the history of politics on San Diego. The author really is a polemist but when you cut through that the book is good. Anyway Pete was the first mayor that didn't do exactly exactly what SD business wanted. He also was future oriented. His ideas, among others, were the trolley, and redevelopment of downtown including Horton Plaza. As for the rest of the mayors, some were OK and most not so much.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 17, 2015 9:40:08 GMT -8
But not asking for a new stadium was the Chargers fault, they are the ones that asked for the expansion for $80M, and then bashed it a few years later. The ticket guarantee was the City and the worst mayor ever, the fact that Spanos and crew asked and got $80M for an expansion and then turned around shat on the stadium infuriated a ton of people. You can't do that and lose public trust. And on it goes. I agree that they have made many errors, none worse than hiring Steve Ortmeyer who gave big Jim Lachey to the Raiders. Whoops, now back to the stadium. Once again I'll write that the only reason I want them to stay is so our Aztecs have some big place to play. From what has been happening this week, and the previous 15 years, it sure looks like there will be a LA Chargers once again. My point from way above, is that the city must own part of the many screw ups with the Chargers. I get what you are saying, but by far the Chargers and the Spanos family have made their bed with the community. Yes, the city had fumbled its way around, but what options do they have. They can't sell property without a vote of the people, they can't raise taxes without a vote of the people, they can't raise bonds without a vote of the people. All they could have done differently is to put it to a vote, and you know that the Chargers haven't wanted that to happen. They don't want to lose the vote and have zero options. They want the vote to happen under the best conditions to get 50 or 66.6% depending on the type of ballot measure. Those conditions have not been there in the past 15 years. To create those conditions, they would need to make a SB run (Has not Happened) or a massive public outreach akin to Moores. The massive outreach costs money and the Chargers sure as hell are not going to do that other than pay Fabiani. Compare the efforts of Moores to Spanos. Moores worked the community tirelessly, the Chargers send out a caustic Fabiani. They don't have the votes, I don't know if they will ever have the votes. If the Chargers were interested in staying in town, they should start looking at nothing but private options to build with the city or county providing a cheap lease of land. But if we are to believe Spanos and that 20-30% is in danger if a team moves to LA, how does building them a stadium in SD eliminate that revenue hit? Only a fool would be working to get a stadium in SD if they truly thought a team in LA was detrimental. It is these statements, these veiled threats, this approach to sway public opinion that is hurting them today sans their historical gaffes.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 17, 2015 9:58:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jan 17, 2015 10:35:19 GMT -8
And on it goes. I agree that they have made many errors, none worse than hiring Steve Ortmeyer who gave big Jim Lachey to the Raiders. Whoops, now back to the stadium. Once again I'll write that the only reason I want them to stay is so our Aztecs have some big place to play. From what has been happening this week, and the previous 15 years, it sure looks like there will be a LA Chargers once again. My point from way above, is that the city must own part of the many screw ups with the Chargers. I get what you are saying, but by far the Chargers and the Spanos family have made their bed with the community. Yes, the city had fumbled its way around, but what options do they have. They can't sell property without a vote of the people, they can't raise taxes without a vote of the people, they can't raise bonds without a vote of the people. All they could have done differently is to put it to a vote, and you know that the Chargers haven't wanted that to happen. They don't want to lose the vote and have zero options. They want the vote to happen under the best conditions to get 50 or 66.6% depending on the type of ballot measure. Those conditions have not been there in the past 15 years. To create those conditions, they would need to make a SB run (Has not Happened) or a massive public outreach akin to Moores. The massive outreach costs money and the Chargers sure as hell are not going to do that other than pay Fabiani. Compare the efforts of Moores to Spanos. Moores worked the community tirelessly, the Chargers send out a caustic Fabiani. They don't have the votes, I don't know if they will ever have the votes. If the Chargers were interested in staying in town, they should start looking at nothing but private options to build with the city or county providing a cheap lease of land. But if we are to believe Spanos and that 20-30% is in danger if a team moves to LA, how does building them a stadium in SD eliminate that revenue hit? Only a fool would be working to get a stadium in SD if they truly thought a team in LA was detrimental. It is these statements, these veiled threats, this approach to sway public opinion that is hurting them today sans their historical gaffes. Very good analysis Full_Monty, and I fear it may be accurate. I wish we had the NBA and NHL here as well. If we lose the Chargers, the Padres will be the only other "major" league sport that will ever be located in San Diego again. Others feel differently, but it can never be a good thing for a pro team to leave. The Chargers, at their worst, still draw near-capacity---and at ticket prices way beyond SDSU. And, I've never seen any hard evidence that they impact negatively SDSU's football program in the least. Two different worlds. SDSU has to improve in so many ways, most of which are utterly under our control. It is SDSU, who picks the AD, the coaches, the marketing, the fund raising. Other univerities do it with a lot less (see "Sleeping Giant" fairy tale).
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Jan 17, 2015 12:28:18 GMT -8
I'll bet that Sterk is working the "donors" and the rest pretty hard after this week. It looks, more than ever, like we will need a place to play pretty soon. Our deal with the city is good for 5 seasons after the Chargers leave, but as D Smith has said, "that place may fall down once the Chargers leave and the city doesn't care about it any more."
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 17, 2015 17:41:46 GMT -8
I'll bet that Sterk is working the "donors" and the rest pretty hard after this week. It looks, more than ever, like we will need a place to play pretty soon. Our deal with the city is good for 5 seasons after the Chargers leave, but as D Smith has said, "that place may fall down once the Chargers leave and the city doesn't care about it any more." Been hearing that about the sports arena since 1985.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 17, 2015 22:06:12 GMT -8
Aztecs playing downtown in a new NFL stadium would be great. No.
|
|