|
Post by aztech on Feb 22, 2015 23:33:10 GMT -8
How do you know they have the dough and how do you know a stadium would only cost $800 million? If you make them responsible for overruns would they be able to use their own construction company to build it? First off, the Chargers initial ask was for a $800M stadium for which the City was to pay half and the Chargers the other half ... Then the Chargers wanted the stadium to be more than just for football, asking for a soft roof to be included, increasing the cost of the stadium to $1B, and asking the city to cover the difference by selling the Sports Arena and Qualcomm. Then they tried to make the stadium a non-contiguous extension of the convention center, once again increasing the costs to over $1.2B and asking the city to cover everything over the Chargers/NFL investment of $400M. Most other projects by private companies on leased city land are paid for by the private company and using their own construction companies and covering their own cost overruns. This need not be any different. EDIT: As for what SDSU can afford to do ... SDSU's endowment is just over $190M. Campanile Foundation assets are approximately $230MPresident Leadership Fund past its initial target of $500M and is closer to $750M as they have a new target of raising $1 Billion SDSU does have the ability to issue its own bonds, as does the CSU system for larger projects and the State can come in on even bigger ones ... in this case acquiring the Qualcomm site would be to expand the campus and chances are all three entities (SDSU, the CSU and the State) would share in the project costs. Interesting. Why didn't the city tell them NO after the $800 million offer? What the city does with the Sports Arena and Qualcomm is the city's business, not theirs. Sounds like the city took their initial bait, then on and on the back and forth went on for 13 years. BTW, I doubt that the major donors of the Presidents Leadership fund will allow Hirshman to use the money at his own discretion. It's my understanding that they earmarked their donations for the specific schools or academic programs of the university. Then how does SDSU issue a bond for a stadium without collateral? How do you know the SDSU endowment and Campanile Foundation assets aren't committed to other purposes? Governor Moonbeam isn't bailing out Cal's athletic debt and you think he's going to allocate money to us for a sports project? You make it sound like SDSU is swimming in wealth. I highly doubt that, it sounds too easy.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Feb 23, 2015 1:06:19 GMT -8
First off, the Chargers initial ask was for a $800M stadium for which the City was to pay half and the Chargers the other half ... Then the Chargers wanted the stadium to be more than just for football, asking for a soft roof to be included, increasing the cost of the stadium to $1B, and asking the city to cover the difference by selling the Sports Arena and Qualcomm. Then they tried to make the stadium a non-contiguous extension of the convention center, once again increasing the costs to over $1.2B and asking the city to cover everything over the Chargers/NFL investment of $400M. Most other projects by private companies on leased city land are paid for by the private company and using their own construction companies and covering their own cost overruns. This need not be any different. EDIT: As for what SDSU can afford to do ... SDSU's endowment is just over $190M. Campanile Foundation assets are approximately $230MPresident Leadership Fund past its initial target of $500M and is closer to $750M as they have a new target of raising $1 Billion SDSU does have the ability to issue its own bonds, as does the CSU system for larger projects and the State can come in on even bigger ones ... in this case acquiring the Qualcomm site would be to expand the campus and chances are all three entities (SDSU, the CSU and the State) would share in the project costs. Interesting. Why didn't the city tell them NO after the $800 million offer? What the city does with the Sports Arena and Qualcomm is the city's business, not theirs. Sounds like the city took their initial bait, then on and on the back and forth went on for 13 years. BTW, I doubt that the major donors of the Presidents Leadership fund will allow Hirshman to use the money at his own discretion. It's my understanding that they earmarked their donations for the specific schools or academic programs of the university. Then how does SDSU issue a bond for a stadium without collateral? How do you know the SDSU endowment and Campanile Foundation assets aren't committed to other purposes? Governor Moonbeam isn't bailing out Cal's athletic debt and you think he's going to allocate money to us for a sports project? You make it sound like SDSU is swimming in wealth. I highly doubt that, it sounds too easy. It's not a sports project. An extension of campus to Mission Valley will have a MUCH larger impact on the academic / research / etc. side of the university. So... CSU & State of CA funding support can be used to develop the site for student/faculty housing, classrooms, research park/facilities, etc. "Booster" money & a student fee can be used for a stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Feb 23, 2015 2:16:49 GMT -8
Interesting. Why didn't the city tell them NO after the $800 million offer? What the city does with the Sports Arena and Qualcomm is the city's business, not theirs. Sounds like the city took their initial bait, then on and on the back and forth went on for 13 years. BTW, I doubt that the major donors of the Presidents Leadership fund will allow Hirshman to use the money at his own discretion. It's my understanding that they earmarked their donations for the specific schools or academic programs of the university. Then how does SDSU issue a bond for a stadium without collateral? How do you know the SDSU endowment and Campanile Foundation assets aren't committed to other purposes? Governor Moonbeam isn't bailing out Cal's athletic debt and you think he's going to allocate money to us for a sports project? You make it sound like SDSU is swimming in wealth. I highly doubt that, it sounds too easy. It's not a sports project. An extension of campus to Mission Valley will have a MUCH larger impact on the academic / research / etc. side of the university. So... CSU & State of CA funding support can be used to develop the site for student/faculty housing, classrooms, research park/facilities, etc. "Booster" money & a student fee can be used for a stadium.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Feb 23, 2015 6:02:36 GMT -8
It's not a sports project. An extension of campus to Mission Valley will have a MUCH larger impact on the academic / research / etc. side of the university. So... CSU & State of CA funding support can be used to develop the site for student/faculty housing, classrooms, research park/facilities, etc. "Booster" money & a student fee can be used for a stadium.
Good luck with that. Other folks have posted extensively in other threads abut the numerous ways an Aztec stadium can be financed. I was addressing your depiction of SDSU taking over the Q site as a "sports project" which it most affirmatively is not in the overall scheme.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 7:14:45 GMT -8
I don't mean to be insulting but where have you been? Minor leagues hockey teams and indeed entire leagues come and go like a fart in the wind. They are the smallest of small potatoes. We've had a at least a half a dozen teams in this town over the years. The original Gulls were a Bruins minor league franchise. The city may or may not sell the land as a part of the current situation but I can assure you the status of the Mighty Ducks minor league hockey affiliate will have zero impact on the decision. where have you been? The entire NHL Western Division has made a decision to move all their AHL affiliates from the East coast to the West coast ... do you not think part of the plan was to secure solid long term leases for all the affiliates? It would do untold harm to the parent organization if their affiliate has to find and relocate it's home ice while all the other AHL West teams are seeded. That is just bad business sense and a reach on your part to try down play the value of the Ducks minor league team to the Ducks and the financial burden that would ensue if they had not done their due diligence in selecting San Diego as it's home ice in the first place. Untold harm? So moving an NFL franchise from SD is no problem. Relocating a minor league hockey team represents "untold harm" to a parent organization with no ties to SD? Do you even believe the stuff you post?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 7:27:28 GMT -8
Need to clarify once again that I am not opposed to SDSU expanding on the site as long as the city receives fair market value and the quality of life issues are addressed. I should also re-state my opposition to another football stadium being built there or anywhere else for that matter because the only investment worse than one football stadium is two football stadiums. One replaces the other and the Chargers remain in town. Just to be clear ....again, there is zero chance of a fully privately funded NFL stadium and zero chance of a privately funded campus expansion. That is the current state of play regarding NFL stadiums. As to campus expansion, that will require state funds. Endowments are not spent. They are managed so as to provide operating funds over and above general operating funds. The university can indeed issue bond but only for revenuegenerating projects such as housing. Campus expansion would require action by the state and you would have to get in line
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 7:27:57 GMT -8
Need to clarify once again that I am not opposed to SDSU expanding on the site as long as the city receives fair market value and the quality of life issues are addressed. I should also re-state my opposition to another football stadium being built there or anywhere else for that matter because the only investment worse than one football stadium is two football stadiums. One replaces the other and the Chargers remain in town. Just to be clear ....again, there is zero chance of a fully privately funded NFL stadium and zero chance of a privately funded campus expansion. That is the current state of play regarding NFL stadiums. As to campus expansion, that will require state funds. Endowments are not spent. They are managed so as to provide operating funds over and above general operating funds. The university can indeed issue bond but only for revenuegenerating projects such as housing. Campus expansion would require action by the state and you would have to get in line
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 23, 2015 9:04:09 GMT -8
Minor league hockey will not stop the train from leaving the station. The city might sell it to Ernie Hahn or someone else who could continue to operate it as an arena, or not. Ernie Hahn senior, the developer, passed away in 1992, his development company was sold to Trizec, a real estate company based in Toronto. Ernie Hahn Jr. Is the GM at the old Sports Arena (now called Valley View Arena) and is not a developer but rather a property manager. Doesn't AEG actually have the lease on the Arena? I also thought that Hahn was kept by AEG to run day-to-day ops of the arena for AEG.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 23, 2015 10:44:47 GMT -8
Looks like the Raiders/Chargers Stadium proposal had its desired effect. Spanos met with the Mayor on Sunday. According to a Fabiani radio interview on 1090 the task force has agreed to show a proposal in 3 months by the end of May rather than in September. Fabiani also suggested that the task force pick only one site and focus on that since they won't have the time to look at all the pros and cons of two sites. He suggested that they drop the downtown site if the convention center people are not willing to work with the Chargers on a joint convention center/stadium project. If that is the case he suggested to focus on the Q site.
I am not inclined to support any stadium plan on the Q site because IMO (and the opinion of several state and local officials) the best use of that land would be for a West Campus expansion for SDSU. It will be interesting to see what the task force comes up with and what site they focus on.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Feb 23, 2015 10:55:31 GMT -8
Looks like the Raiders/Chargers Stadium proposal had its desired effect. Spanos met with the Mayor on Sunday. According to a Fabiani radio interview on 1090 the task force has agreed to show a proposal in 3 months by the end of May rather than in September. Fabiani also suggested that the task force pick only one site and focus on that since they won't have the time to look at all the pros and cons of two sites. He suggested that they drop the downtown site if the convention center people are not willing to work with the Chargers on a joint convention center/stadium project. If that is the case he suggested to focus on the Q site. I am not inclined to support any stadium plan on the Q site because IMO (and the opinion of several state and local officials) the best use of that land would be for a West Campus expansion for SDSU. It will be interesting to see what the task force comes up with and what site they focus on. Why would they be exclusionary? There's room to do the Aztec/charger stadium AND a campus, AND commercial/residential.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 23, 2015 10:56:27 GMT -8
where have you been? The entire NHL Western Division has made a decision to move all their AHL affiliates from the East coast to the West coast ... do you not think part of the plan was to secure solid long term leases for all the affiliates? It would do untold harm to the parent organization if their affiliate has to find and relocate it's home ice while all the other AHL West teams are seeded. That is just bad business sense and a reach on your part to try down play the value of the Ducks minor league team to the Ducks and the financial burden that would ensue if they had not done their due diligence in selecting San Diego as it's home ice in the first place. Untold harm? So moving an NFL franchise from SD is no problem. Relocating a minor league hockey team represents "untold harm" to a parent organization with no ties to SD? Do you even believe the stuff you post? You seem to be conflating issues ... yes, UNTOLD harm to the Ducks who have invested time and money in securing a home site for the relocation of their franchise. It is my guess that part of the lease negotiation is first right of purchase by AEG & the Ducks should the City of San Diego try to sell the Sports Arena ... that simple contract addition would make the sale of the Sports Arena for development by the Chargers moot, thus in my opinion soured the Chargers on trying to use the sale of the Sports Arena and Qualcomm to fund a new stadium and they moved on to trying to obtain convention center expansion funds to build their stadium.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 23, 2015 11:10:53 GMT -8
One replaces the other and the Chargers remain in town. Just to be clear ....again, there is zero chance of a fully privately funded NFL stadium and zero chance of a privately funded campus expansion. That is the current state of play regarding NFL stadiums. As to campus expansion, that will require state funds. Endowments are not spent. They are managed so as to provide operating funds over and above general operating funds. The university can indeed issue bond but only for revenuegenerating projects such as housing. Campus expansion would require action by the state and you would have to get in line you really don't know much about finance do you ... You don't seem to know what levels SDSU can self finance and what levels the CSU has to grant approval at SDSU has self-financed many buildings on campus, through bonds or by contracts with private parties to build and operate buildings on campus provided property like parking structures. Such a deal could be reached with an entity like AEG to build and operate a 40K stadium (either on campus or at the Q site). It also appears you have no clue as to what the Presidents Fund (formerly known as the Campaign) may be used for, such as the acquisition of of land to expand the campus and/or to underwrite bonds to fund construction of buildings. It is not uncommon for a university to finance the construction of an arena or stadium through the general building fund and then rent it to the Athletic Dept to pay the bond. The building would be listed as an asset that could be sold at any time.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 23, 2015 11:19:37 GMT -8
Looks like the Raiders/Chargers Stadium proposal had its desired effect. Spanos met with the Mayor on Sunday. According to a Fabiani radio interview on 1090 the task force has agreed to show a proposal in 3 months by the end of May rather than in September. Fabiani also suggested that the task force pick only one site and focus on that since they won't have the time to look at all the pros and cons of two sites. He suggested that they drop the downtown site if the convention center people are not willing to work with the Chargers on a joint convention center/stadium project. If that is the case he suggested to focus on the Q site. I am not inclined to support any stadium plan on the Q site because IMO (and the opinion of several state and local officials) the best use of that land would be for a West Campus expansion for SDSU. It will be interesting to see what the task force comes up with and what site they focus on. Why would they be exclusionary? There's room to do the Aztec/charger stadium AND a campus, AND commercial/residential. The Chargers could be happy going back to the original $800M downtown football only stadium, and SDSU can expand campus into Mission Valley ... everyone gets what they want (sort of). Of course the hitch is that SDSU can do whatever they want with the stadium at the Q (renovate or remove) and the downtown stadium would have to compete with the Sports Arena, Viejas Arena, the Amphitheater in Chula Vista and possibly the Q itself for events outside of NFL games.
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Feb 23, 2015 11:34:59 GMT -8
Just to be clear ....again, there is zero chance of a fully privately funded NFL stadium and zero chance of a privately funded campus expansion. That is the current state of play regarding NFL stadiums. As to campus expansion, that will require state funds. Endowments are not spent. They are managed so as to provide operating funds over and above general operating funds. The university can indeed issue bond but only for revenuegenerating projects such as housing. Campus expansion would require action by the state and you would have to get in line you really don't know much about finance do you ... You don't seem to know what levels SDSU can self finance and what levels the CSU has to grant approval at You beat me to it. In general there is an utter lack of understanding of the range of options the University could take to finance this expansion. Ironically, it seems to be concentrated amongst those most vociferously opposed to the Chargers leaving SD.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 23, 2015 16:30:48 GMT -8
Looks like the Raiders/Chargers Stadium proposal had its desired effect. Spanos met with the Mayor on Sunday. According to a Fabiani radio interview on 1090 the task force has agreed to show a proposal in 3 months by the end of May rather than in September. Fabiani also suggested that the task force pick only one site and focus on that since they won't have the time to look at all the pros and cons of two sites. He suggested that they drop the downtown site if the convention center people are not willing to work with the Chargers on a joint convention center/stadium project. If that is the case he suggested to focus on the Q site. I am not inclined to support any stadium plan on the Q site because IMO (and the opinion of several state and local officials) the best use of that land would be for a West Campus expansion for SDSU. It will be interesting to see what the task force comes up with and what site they focus on. Why would they be exclusionary? There's room to do the Aztec/charger stadium AND a campus, AND commercial/residential. Well, any new NFL compliant stadium will NOT be an Aztec/Charger stadium. It will be a Chargers stadium in which the Aztecs will be, grudgingly I would say, allowed to play when it is convenient for the Chargers and at a rental rate far higher than what the school currently pays. And it will be much too big and quite likely in a location not in the best interests of the FB program. What is in the best interests of Aztec football is the construction of an Aztec-only stadium with a capacity appropriate for the team's needs; i.e., 40,000 give or take a few thousand. Anything short of that will put Aztec football at a serious disadvantage, probably forever. I fully understand that it will not be easy to build an SDSU stadium. But "not easy" is not the same as impossible. The school destroyed their on-campus stadium thinking that such a move was a smart one. We can now see that this decision was a bad one, however much it looked good at the time. If the arena had been built somewhere else on campus and Aztec Bowl still existed, there would be a much greater likelihood that the school would be able to have the on-campus stadium that we would like to see. Such a stadium, built on the Aztec Bowl site, would have been be far, far less expense than one built from scratch. How SDSU handles the stadium issue may well determine whether the program can survive. Even a winning program may not be enough if the venue in which its games must be played turns out to be too expensive and too inconvenient for fans to get to. It's all about money. I'll cite once more the example of a college FB program than folded even though it had just enjoyed an undefeated season. That school was the University of San Francisco. The Dons were undefeated in 1951, but found it impossible to continue due to rising costs. Don't think that the same might not happen to SDSU. And, let's be honest here, what are the odds that we will see an undefeated season with schools such as Penn State, Arizonea State, UCLA, and Cal coming up on our schedule in the next few years? The last undefeated season enjoyed by the Aztecs was 1969, and you will not find any Penn States or UCLAs on the schedule that season. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 23, 2015 17:38:52 GMT -8
KOGO radio had several guys on this afternoon, both stating that the stadium task force could speed things up by disregarding the downtown site and focus specifically on the Qualcomm site for a new stadium. These guys had no specifics on how it should be paid for.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 23, 2015 23:18:07 GMT -8
KOGO radio had several guys on this afternoon, both stating that the stadium task force could speed things up by disregarding the downtown site and focus specifically on the Qualcomm site for a new stadium. These guys had no specifics on how it should be paid for. I could equally conjecture that to speed things up, the STF could concentrate on a football stadium at the downtown site as originally proposed with the cost estimated at $800M ... *before they wanted a mixed use stadium with a soft roof so they could host things like final fours or boxing (to take the place of the Sports Arena) ... *and way before they tried to make it a combination football stadium/convention center expansion (non-contiguous) ... If they concentrate on the original proposal, and the Chargers/NFL are still coming in with $400M, then they just have to figure out how much more funds they can raise through naming rights, PSLs, and pre-sale of luxury/corporate boxes. I think the going rate for naming rights on an NFL stadium is currently $10M/yr, so a 20yr deal could raise $200M. It's been said that San Diego could not raise half as much as San Francisco did for PSLs ($550M), but I would hope that we could manage 20% of that or $100M. I want to assume that the land is being provided by the both the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, so the $800M estimate is primarily construction costs. All the STF has to figure out is how short of the $800M the project is and how to pay for that amount. If the City (and/or County) is only asking the public to approve a bond for $100M, that would be an easier pill to swallow for a referendum ... especially if the Chargers take responsibility for any cost overruns. Of course, that money could also be raised by entering into a lease with SDSU for the Q at a rate of $5M/yr for 20 yrs ( $100M), and forwarding those funds to the downtown stadium project. Both regular maintenance ( $15M/yr) and deferred maintenance ( $80M) at the Q would still be an issue, but one that could be addressed collaboratively between the City and SDSU ... new naming rights and advertising would help, but mostly it would come down to what SDSU's long term plans for the whole site (and stadium) would be, whether or not the lease included development rights -- and whether the lease included an option for SDSU to purchase the property (and for what price).
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 24, 2015 10:43:10 GMT -8
KOGO radio had several guys on this afternoon, both stating that the stadium task force could speed things up by disregarding the downtown site and focus specifically on the Qualcomm site for a new stadium. These guys had no specifics on how it should be paid for. I could equally conjecture that to speed things up, the STF could concentrate on a football stadium at the downtown site as originally proposed with the cost estimated at $800M ... *before they wanted a mixed use stadium with a soft roof so they could host things like final fours or boxing (to take the place of the Sports Arena) ... *and way before they tried to make it a combination football stadium/convention center expansion (non-contiguous) ... If they concentrate on the original proposal, and the Chargers/NFL are still coming in with $400M, then they just have to figure out how much more funds they can raise through naming rights, PSLs, and pre-sale of luxury/corporate boxes. I think the going rate for naming rights on an NFL stadium is currently $10M/yr, so a 20yr deal could raise $200M. It's been said that San Diego could not raise half as much as San Francisco did for PSLs ($550M), but I would hope that we could manage 20% of that or $100M. I want to assume that the land is being provided by the both the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, so the $800M estimate is primarily construction costs. All the STF has to figure out is how short of the $800M the project is and how to pay for that amount. If the City (and/or County) is only asking the public to approve a bond for $100M, that would be an easier pill to swallow for a referendum ... especially if the Chargers take responsibility for any cost overruns. Of course, that money could also be raised by entering into a lease with SDSU for the Q at a rate of $5M/yr for 20 yrs ( $100M), and forwarding those funds to the downtown stadium project. Both regular maintenance ( $15M/yr) and deferred maintenance ( $80M) at the Q would still be an issue, but one that could be addressed collaboratively between the City and SDSU ... new naming rights and advertising would help, but mostly it would come down to what SDSU's long term plans for the whole site (and stadium) would be, whether or not the lease included development rights -- and whether the lease included an option for SDSU to purchase the property (and for what price). I would still really like to see just how the city is spending $15 mil per year on regular maintenance of the Q--just what are they spending that money on?
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 24, 2015 13:21:11 GMT -8
Need to clarify once again that I am not opposed to expanding on the site as long as the city receives fair market value and the quality of life issues are addressed. I should also re-state my opposition to another football stadium being built there or anywhere else for that matter because the only investment worse than one football stadium is two football stadiums. Just curious...why the heck do you care whether or not the city gets fair compensation?...the Chargers have been ripping the city off for years (as reported recently...the City actually pays the Chargers to play at Qualcomm...due to credits paid back to the Chargers for ADA compliance issues) www.voiceofsandiego.org/must-reads/fact-check-city-pays-chargers-play-qualcomm-stadium/What are your thoughts on those developments? Is it any wonder why the majority of San Diegans want the Chargers to build their own damn stadium... I have to say, that is a terribly written article. It references an ADA settlement that is the prime reason for rent reduction, but never elucidates what that settlement was or how it came to be. I think you saying the Chargers are "ripping the city off" is misleading. That would be like saying I am ripping off the federal government because I take deductions in my taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Feb 24, 2015 13:31:36 GMT -8
Perhaps you're not ripping off the government for taking tax deductions (and I'm certain that the NFL has p,entry of those)...
More like sleeping the property manager of your apartment manager to give you free rent at the expense of the apartment building owners...
|
|