|
Post by Montezumas Revenge 88 on Feb 24, 2015 15:02:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 24, 2015 15:27:23 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 couldn't the Q site be used by BOTH, a new stadium for the Chargers/Aztecs AND a West Campus expansion? Sure, we'll lose some parking lot but so what? Build some parking garages. It may not be a perfect scenario but it could work if done properly.
|
|
|
Post by MarshallU on Feb 24, 2015 15:31:29 GMT -8
"We are fully supportive of the Chargers staying in San Diego and aren't entertaining hypotheticals at this point." You might should starting considering a plan B... just in case... hypothetically speaking.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 24, 2015 16:05:46 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 couldn't the Q site be used by BOTH, a new stadium for the Chargers/Aztecs AND a West Campus expansion? Sure, we'll lose some parking lot but so what? Build some parking garages. It may not be a perfect scenario but it could work if done properly. I suppose it could but that situation is not ideal for either the Chargers or the Aztecs. I would have to see the proposal and master plan for the site. Bottom line, I have no desire to play in a stadium designed primarily for an NFL team. I want to play in a college stadium designed specifically for the needs of the Aztecs.
|
|
|
Post by sdsu2000 on Feb 24, 2015 16:18:29 GMT -8
If the Chargers stay in San Diego it will be on the Qualcomm site. If they leave SDSU better have a plan to build a smaller 40,000 seat stadium.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Feb 24, 2015 20:12:04 GMT -8
If the Chargers stay in San Diego it will be on the Qualcomm site. If they leave SDSU better have a plan to build a smaller 40,000 seat stadium. Point 1... Yeah, that's looking more possible, in which case I'm definitely hoping the Chargers leave SD if they don't get a downtown stadium. Point 2... The administration does.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 24, 2015 21:11:58 GMT -8
Bernie Wilson just tweeted that sdsu and chargers are going to work together on the Qualcomm to build a stadium
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 24, 2015 21:19:33 GMT -8
It seems more and more possible that a stadium that Afan has been discussing for some time may come to pass, at least at the Q site.
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Feb 24, 2015 22:07:42 GMT -8
Qualcomm seems so cavernous. What size stadium would the Chargers need ? If we keep winning we may someday be drawing crowds around 40,000, that however can still look small in a 70k stadium. What can be done in a new stadium to give The Aztecs a real home field advantage ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 22:12:13 GMT -8
The mayor addressed the city council today and stressed the need for a new stadium for the chargers AND Aztecs for the future. A symbolic vote, but good to hear state mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 24, 2015 23:00:10 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 8:33:15 GMT -8
A well designed stadium could work for both. Like century link in Seattle for most sounders games. The top deck is not sold, but the bottom is jammed with about 40k and goes off.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 25, 2015 9:15:04 GMT -8
Lol! They aren't partners now. If they actually want to be partners in the future what is in it for the Aztecs besides playing in a stadium that is not designed for their needs?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 25, 2015 11:30:32 GMT -8
I think that one of the things being considered by the County (who is being asked to fund this) is the real possibility that even after building a new stadium, the Chargers would still leave (say after 10 years) ... Therefore it only makes sense that the county would include the Aztecs in their plans.
It's not a "Partnership" because the Chargers want it, it's a loose association because the entity being asked to fund it says so!
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Feb 25, 2015 11:51:51 GMT -8
Lots of discussion around town about the stadium being for "San Diego" not just the Chargers. I find it really interesting that even the local fish wrap hasn't drunk that Kool-aid. They have an entire section on their website now dedicated to this topic. The name of the section? "Chargers Stadium" www.utsandiego.com/news/chargers-stadium/Make no mistake, no one - not even the mayor - is thinking "what will happen to SDSU if the Chargers go away?" They are ONLY thinking about keeping the Chargers here. And so, any plan put in place or any deals cut will be of primary, secondary and tertiary benefit to the Chargers, and SDSU will, again, be a second class citizen in that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 25, 2015 17:30:04 GMT -8
If the Chargers stay in San Diego it will be on the Qualcomm site. If they leave SDSU better have a plan to build a smaller 40,000 seat stadium. Point 1... Yeah, that's looking more possible, in which case I'm definitely hoping the Chargers leave SD if they don't get a downtown stadium. Point 2... The administration does. 1/ Not going to happen 2/ Yet to be proved.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Feb 25, 2015 17:49:10 GMT -8
Point 1... Yeah, that's looking more possible, in which case I'm definitely hoping the Chargers leave SD if they don't get a downtown stadium. Point 2... The administration does. 1/ Not going to happen 2/ Yet to be proved. 2 things ... 1st, Hisrshman was asked to speak before the STF because they know he has a plan, otherwise they would have been fine talking to Sterk"Before the meeting task force officials said they had expected Hirshman to talk about the needs of the Aztecs football team, which currently plays at Qualcomm, and possibly what the campus might do if all or part of the Qualcomm site became available as an annex for student and faculty housing and academic buildings"I am sure the topics of how much space would SDSU want/need, how much they were willing to pay per an acre and if the Q were not sold to SDSU, what is the timetable for SDSU to build a stadium elsewhere on (or off-campus) should the Chargers also leave SD. 2nd, There still may be no deal if the Chargers refuse to put other revenue streams on the table or are otherwise inflexible ...Roberts did not speak of how much in public funds for the stadium might total but did say other revenue sources that the Chargers have said they would like to retain, such as naming rights and personal seat licenses, "have to be brought into play, no question." "We've got to do a quick analysis of the sites and try to get down to one site," Roberts said, "and then we've got to put everything on the table. Everything means everything." [...] "My colleagues are interested in participating," Roberts said, "but that doesn't mean we just give anybody a blank check. We want to make sure to protect our credit rating at the end of the day."
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Feb 25, 2015 18:29:50 GMT -8
Incorrect. Yet to be proved to YOU, perhaps. But you're not the administration's target audience. You can be as unwavering in your doubt as you want, though. But others have reached a different conclusion than you and have moved on from this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 18:54:15 GMT -8
You can't read anything into anything anyone says at this point. everyone is just staking out their opening position. We'll see how it goes. Ron Roberts doesn't scare and he has the resources to be a player. I haven't figured out his game at this point.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 26, 2015 14:12:21 GMT -8
Fabiani says it needs to be a 2/3rds vote and not a Infrastructure district requiring just 55% approval. He says an infrastructure vote is not really related to stadiums and wouldn't really apply and would be challenged by oppponents (paraphrasing). The online chat with his responses deleted responses quickly but I hope to get the chat in its entirety soon.
Here is one quote I did grab regarding SDSU's involvement in getting a Q site stadium done:
"SDSU leadership has always been very supportive, but the state university system is suffering from severe financial constraints, and we cannot rightly expect that system to contribute significantly to a stadium."
Good job Hirshman and Sterk! SDSU is gonna come out of this smelling like a rose!!!
|
|