|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 27, 2015 15:48:16 GMT -8
Personally, I think the Mission Valley site is the perfect location for a new stadium. And I would gladly turn that land over to the Chargers to do with it what they will. The problem is, they don't want to spend the money to clean up the environmental issues. And they don't want to spend the money to fix the infrastructure needs around the stadium. They don't want to take any risk at all. That's my biggest issue here. They want the city and the citizens to take all the risk on a structure that will benefit them more than anyone else. This is not a 50-50 deal, wherever it is built, if it is built. Again, there is a reason the NFL and owners don't want to own these things themselves. Because they lose money. There is a reason they are billionaires ... they don't make bad decisions and take on financial risks when they can get someone else to do it for them. Where does it say what the Chargers WON'T do as you noted above? The more I think about the idea of the Chargers selling stock similar to what the Packers have done, makes sense to me. Over 360k people own more than 5 Mill shares. Chargers fans from all over the World could buy as many shares as they wanted. If memory serves me right, each share of Packers stock was something like $250. That's a helluva lot of $$$ to help pay for a new stadium from the public...who cares. www.packers.com/community/shareholders.htmlFrom my understanding the NFL does not allow for the public owning of a franchise. There was an exception made for Green Bay.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 27, 2015 22:05:25 GMT -8
The fact is that San Diego is nothing like any other large city. The mentality here is small town from the 60s. " Let's not become another Los Angeles"... bull$#!+! We already are and have been for years. Traffic sucks. More and more houses keep getting built. We're a big freakin city people. We've got minor league hockey coming. Big whoop. We've got minor league College Football.... sorry but the truth hurts. We don't have a major (NBA) hoops team. We don't even have a major league Sports Arena but boy oh boy, we've got a major league library. The only thing we've got is a NFL Team and a somewhat recently successful college basketball team. We lose the Chargers to another city and we become even more minor league. For the life of me, I don't get the people who want the Chargers to Bolt. It's like Spanos stole their Christmas presents or something. Maybe if they had won a Super Bowl or 2, people wouldn't be so jaded. This isn't America's Finest City. We may have the best sunsets and weather but that's about it. The AZTECS success or failure, has NOTHING to do with the Chargers. Has anybody heard Sterk or Hirschman discuss their plan for a new stadium on-campus or near? Where's the money coming from? Ideas are nothing but ideas without the bread. When's the next quarterly luncheon coming up so we can ask Sterk those questions. What's the plan and where's the coin? Looks like you deleted something that I posted. Please either post what I said or remove my name from your response. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Jan 27, 2015 22:58:39 GMT -8
Where does it say what the Chargers WON'T do as you noted above? The more I think about the idea of the Chargers selling stock similar to what the Packers have done, makes sense to me. Over 360k people own more than 5 Mill shares. Chargers fans from all over the World could buy as many shares as they wanted. If memory serves me right, each share of Packers stock was something like $250. That's a helluva lot of $$$ to help pay for a new stadium from the public...who cares. www.packers.com/community/shareholders.htmlFrom my understanding the NFL does not allow for the public owning of a franchise. There was an exception made for Green Bay. blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/are-the-green-bay-packers-the-worst-stock-in-america/Saying the Packers are publicly owned is a bit misleading.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 28, 2015 11:16:02 GMT -8
Fight the good fight rebar, all the way to LA. Andre- What's your problem with the Chargers? Do you think them leaving will actually help SDSU? If any of their fans wanted to support SDSU they would have done in a long time ago. You seem like you've got a tumbleweed stuck in your darkside and I'm curious why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:23:46 GMT -8
Fight the good fight rebar, all the way to LA. Andre- What's your problem with the Chargers? Do you think them leaving will actually help SDSU? If any of their fans wanted to support SDSU they would have done in a long time ago. You seem like you've got a tumbleweed stuck in your darkside and I'm curious why. I have NO problem with the Chargers, as I've stated above. And I do think that their fans are theirs, and ours are ours. With a certain amount both. If the Chargers left, there may be a little crossover, but not much. The way for SDSU to gain more support at the gate (which is a problem for nearly everyone but a select few these days) is to a) get into a P5 conference, and b) WIN in said P5 conference. Hopefully doing it in our own facility. I DO believe the Chargers WILL move though.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 28, 2015 11:24:23 GMT -8
The fact is that San Diego is nothing like any other large city. The mentality here is small town from the 60s. " Let's not become another Los Angeles"... bull$#!+! We already are and have been for years. Traffic sucks. More and more houses keep getting built. We're a big freakin city people. We've got minor league hockey coming. Big whoop. We've got minor league College Football.... sorry but the truth hurts. We don't have a major (NBA) hoops team. We don't even have a major league Sports Arena but boy oh boy, we've got a major league library. The only thing we've got is a NFL Team and a somewhat recently successful college basketball team. We lose the Chargers to another city and we become even more minor league. For the life of me, I don't get the people who want the Chargers to Bolt. It's like Spanos stole their Christmas presents or something. Maybe if they had won a Super Bowl or 2, people wouldn't be so jaded. This isn't America's Finest City. We may have the best sunsets and weather but that's about it. The AZTECS success or failure, has NOTHING to do with the Chargers. Has anybody heard Sterk or Hirschman discuss their plan for a new stadium on-campus or near? Where's the money coming from? Ideas are nothing but ideas without the bread. When's the next quarterly luncheon coming up so we can ask Sterk those questions. What's the plan and where's the coin? Looks like you deleted something that I posted. Please either post what I said or remove my name from your response. AzWm I tried to reinsert the messages but there must be a glitch as the copy/pasting of your post and rebars would take. They were not deleted intentionally. It's your blue post
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 28, 2015 11:26:26 GMT -8
Andre- What's your problem with the Chargers? Do you think them leaving will actually help SDSU? If any of their fans wanted to support SDSU they would have done in a long time ago. You seem like you've got a tumbleweed stuck in your darkside and I'm curious why. I have NO problem with the Chargers, as I've stated above. And I do think that their fans are theirs, and ours are ours. With a certain amount both. If the Chargers left, there may be a little crossover, but not much. The way for SDSU to gain more support at the gate (which is a problem for nearly everyone but a select few these days) is to a) get into a P5 conference, and b) WIN in said P5 conference. Hopefully doing it in our own facility. I DO believe the Chargers WILL move though. You seem overly anxious for them to leave and as I've questioned others with that wish, why? It doesn't do any good for this city if they do leave. Hundreds of jobs will be lost among other things. I just don't get it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:32:07 GMT -8
Again, like I've said above, I'd like to see the Chargers remain in San Diego. I just don't see how they will. If they do, that's great, but I'd like to see STATE do their own thing too. I believe that to be in our best interest.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 28, 2015 11:34:39 GMT -8
Again, like I've said above, I'd like to see the Chargers remain in San Diego. I just don't see how they will. If they do, that's great, but I'd like to see STATE do their own thing too. I believe that to be in our best interest. Gotcha. I guess I misunderstood one or more of your previous posts. I've been a Chargers fan longer than I've been an Aztec fan and I surely don't want to see them leave. I am afraid that you may be right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:48:14 GMT -8
I'm a Redskins guy, so I've got my own problems, but I've got fond memories from the other side of the country as a youth watching those great teams from the late 70s- early 80s seemingly every Sunday @4pm after the Skins played, with Curt Gowdy then Dick Enberg making the call for NBC. They were exciting to watch (although they couldn't play a lick of defense), and I became a fan. They are part of the reason I moved west. They introduced me to the city of San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 28, 2015 12:44:29 GMT -8
I have NO problem with the Chargers, as I've stated above. And I do think that their fans are theirs, and ours are ours. With a certain amount both. If the Chargers left, there may be a little crossover, but not much. The way for SDSU to gain more support at the gate (which is a problem for nearly everyone but a select few these days) is to a) get into a P5 conference, and b) WIN in said P5 conference. Hopefully doing it in our own facility. I DO believe the Chargers WILL move though. You seem overly anxious for them to leave and as I've questioned others with that wish, why? It doesn't do any good for this city if they do leave. Hundreds of jobs will be lost among other things. I just don't get it. For me, it's that SDSU needs to take over the Q site to expand -- stadium or not. The university is pretty much "landlocked" and a west campus in Mission Valley could be home to a research park, housing, etc. So for the that to happen, the Chargers need to move... either to downtown or LA or London I don't care.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 28, 2015 15:54:18 GMT -8
The combined convention center/stadium apparently doesn't make sense to a certain group of people--the convention center board. As someone else posted. That's apparently why the Bolts don't want Cushman involved in the meetings. Have they said why it doesn't make sense? Just like at SDSU, instead of trying to figure out ways to make something happen, they look for excuses as to why it can't happen. Small minds moving ..... nothing. The claim by the convention center board is that the vast majority of their conventions do not want a combo stadium/convention center expansion. They want a contiguous expansion, and having a stadium as part of that contiguous expansion wouldn't get past the Coastal Commission anyway. I believe that's why the Chargers want it a few blocks away--which puts it out of the Coastal Commission's authority. IIRC, and someone (or many others) will tell me if I recall incorrectly. Personally, I don't want the Chargers to leave, but at this point, I don't know how they can stay.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jan 28, 2015 16:10:16 GMT -8
Still no specific answers as to how the Chargers moving helps the AZTEC FOOTBALL team improve on the field . That is the issue plain and simple . No matter where the Aztecs play , they need to have a championship team for fans to attend games no matter where they play . Even students will not show up if they continue to play at the same level . The Chargers leaving is not a silver bullet for Aztec success on the field . where it really matters. Look at the UCLA situation . Same thing with BSU , they Win games and this year MW Champs and major Bowl . Concentrate on that . Not a "moral victory of the Chargers leaving " Be careful could open up the area for Davis and the Raiders to look at moving here .
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 28, 2015 16:23:54 GMT -8
As someone else posted. That's apparently why the Bolts don't want Cushman involved in the meetings. Have they said why it doesn't make sense? Just like at SDSU, instead of trying to figure out ways to make something happen, they look for excuses as to why it can't happen. Small minds moving ..... nothing. The claim by the convention center board is that the vast majority of their conventions do not want a combo stadium/convention center expansion. They want a contiguous expansion, and having a stadium as part of that contiguous expansion wouldn't get past the Coastal Commission anyway. I believe that's why the Chargers want it a few blocks away--which puts it out of the Coastal Commission's authority. IIRC, and someone (or many others) will tell me if I recall incorrectly. Personally, I don't want the Chargers to leave, but at this point, I don't know how they can stay. The issue with the Coastal Commission is that part of their purpose is to preserve coastal access. The contiguous convention center expansion restricted coastal access and was therefore tossed. The argument that the convention people put forward is that conventions do not want to have to have users exit one building and have to cross streets to get to another building for the convention. This is not an insurmountable issue. Just build an elevated walkway dedicated to convention center/stadium connectivity. Viola! There is now easy access. Building such a structure is not expensive either. However, the issue will be the small minds and turf wars involved that will never let common sense ideas like that come to life.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 28, 2015 17:36:58 GMT -8
The claim by the convention center board is that the vast majority of their conventions do not want a combo stadium/convention center expansion. They want a contiguous expansion, and having a stadium as part of that contiguous expansion wouldn't get past the Coastal Commission anyway. I believe that's why the Chargers want it a few blocks away--which puts it out of the Coastal Commission's authority. IIRC, and someone (or many others) will tell me if I recall incorrectly. Personally, I don't want the Chargers to leave, but at this point, I don't know how they can stay. The issue with the Coastal Commission is that part of their purpose is to preserve coastal access. The contiguous convention center expansion restricted coastal access and was therefore tossed. The argument that the convention people put forward is that conventions do not want to have to have users exit one building and have to cross streets to get to another building for the convention. This is not an insurmountable issue. Just build an elevated walkway dedicated to convention center/stadium connectivity. Viola! There is now easy access. Building such a structure is not expensive either. However, the issue will be the small minds and turf wars involved that will never let common sense ideas like that come to life. I thought the expansion was ok, but the way in which the hotel tax was approved to pay for it was thrown out by the courts.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 28, 2015 21:05:23 GMT -8
As someone else posted. That's apparently why the Bolts don't want Cushman involved in the meetings. Have they said why it doesn't make sense? Just like at SDSU, instead of trying to figure out ways to make something happen, they look for excuses as to why it can't happen. Small minds moving ..... nothing. The claim by the convention center board is that the vast majority of their conventions do not want a combo stadium/convention center expansion. They want a contiguous expansion, and having a stadium as part of that contiguous expansion wouldn't get past the Coastal Commission anyway. I believe that's why the Chargers want it a few blocks away--which puts it out of the Coastal Commission's authority. IIRC, and someone (or many others) will tell me if I recall incorrectly. Personally, I don't want the Chargers to leave, but at this point, I don't know how they can stay. As I posted the other day, I wonder why the Convention Center doesn't build "UP" towards the stars? The center is getting longer and longer when they could just keep building higher and higher. That part makes no sense to me. They don't need anymore land. They've got plenty of sky.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 28, 2015 21:14:35 GMT -8
You seem overly anxious for them to leave and as I've questioned others with that wish, why? It doesn't do any good for this city if they do leave. Hundreds of jobs will be lost among other things. I just don't get it. For me, it's that SDSU needs to take over the Q site to expand -- stadium or not. The university is pretty much "landlocked" and a west campus in Mission Valley could be home to a research park, housing, etc. So for the that to happen, the Chargers need to move... either to downtown or LA or London I don't care. Not necessarily. Pitt shares a stadium w/ the Steelers. The U shares one with the Dolphins. Temple w/ the Eagles...and plenty of others. They could build a new stadium there for both to share, build some of the other stuff there i.e. campus classes/dorms or whatever and still have a pretty darn good sized parking lot. The reality to me is that IF the MV site is used then we'll lose about 1/2 the parking to retail, homes, classes or whatever else they come up with. There's plenty of room for both. I just don't know what Sterk's got on his mind. He says nothing. He backs nothing. He's just like an animal waiting on it's prey. It seems to me he's all about reacting rather than taking a vocal stand, one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jan 28, 2015 21:58:00 GMT -8
Correcting some bad info in recent posts:
-- The vast majority of meetings at the convention center are smaller affairs that have no problem fitting into the facility as it is now. However, the tourism biz thrives on the really big-ticket trade shows. The convention center/San Diego Tourism Authority are trying to make inroads with the biggest medical conventions. Those are the ones that bring thousands of attendees with wads of cash to fill up local hotel rooms and spend money at restaurants and shops. Those events are the ones that want a bigger, contiguous center. They're much fewer in number but they're the ones who will make an expansion worthwhile, they'll get what they want.
-- The California Coastal Commission APPROVED of the design of the contiguous convention center and if I remember correctly, they did so unanimously. Having watched a lot of that meeting, I can tell you that most of the commissioners appeared to wrestle with their decisions because of some walling off of the bayfront and limiting of coastal access. From what I saw, I think there is no way in hell those people will vote for a stadium on the coastal tidelands now, which is why the Chargers want something several blocks away. It's a total non-starter for the tourism biz, which is why I suspect a new stadium will end up in Mission Valley.
-- What got "tossed" was the financing plan by a judge in a lawsuit by a local open-government activist. So there's all kinds of problems with the project, not the least of which the city doesn't have enough money to pay for everything that needs to be done.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 29, 2015 3:21:07 GMT -8
For me, it's that SDSU needs to take over the Q site to expand -- stadium or not. The university is pretty much "landlocked" and a west campus in Mission Valley could be home to a research park, housing, etc. So for the that to happen, the Chargers need to move... either to downtown or LA or London I don't care. Not necessarily. Pitt shares a stadium w/ the Steelers. The U shares one with the Dolphins. Temple w/ the Eagles...and plenty of others. They could build a new stadium there for both to share, build some of the other stuff there i.e. campus classes/dorms or whatever and still have a pretty darn good sized parking lot. The reality to me is that IF the MV site is used then we'll lose about 1/2 the parking to retail, homes, classes or whatever else they come up with. There's plenty of room for both. I just don't know what Sterk's got on his mind. He says nothing. He backs nothing. He's just like an animal waiting on it's prey. It seems to me he's all about reacting rather than taking a vocal stand, one way or the other. Thanks, those are in fact excellent examples. Pitt, Miami, Temple... 1. All have attendance problems 2. All have boosters strongly interested in building an on-campus stadium 3. All cite sharing an enormous NFL stadium as creating a poor game-day environment based on the crowds they can muster for college football
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jan 29, 2015 3:24:33 GMT -8
The claim by the convention center board is that the vast majority of their conventions do not want a combo stadium/convention center expansion. They want a contiguous expansion, and having a stadium as part of that contiguous expansion wouldn't get past the Coastal Commission anyway. I believe that's why the Chargers want it a few blocks away--which puts it out of the Coastal Commission's authority. IIRC, and someone (or many others) will tell me if I recall incorrectly. Personally, I don't want the Chargers to leave, but at this point, I don't know how they can stay. As I posted the other day, I wonder why the Convention Center doesn't build "UP" towards the stars? The center is getting longer and longer when they could just keep building higher and higher. That part makes no sense to me. They don't need anymore land. They've got plenty of sky. This is what they do in countries like Japan who have no choice but to build up but it's a nonstarter in the US. The synergy and atmosphere (two of the most important factors that keep conventions coming back year after year) would be nonexistent. Contiguous space on the same level gives them great flexibility to accommodate just about any sized event. This idea would make sense if the conventions had to come to San Diego and had no other options but in the free marketplace this would destroy their ability to attract any legitimate convention.
|
|