|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 2, 2015 11:03:01 GMT -8
CA Senator Marty Block (Chairman of Senate Education Financing Subcommittee) - Former SDSU professor of 26 years CA Assembly Member Shirley Weber - Current SDSU Professor SD Mayor Kevin Faulconer - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Ron Roberts - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Greg Cox - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Dianne Jacob - SDSU Alum SD City Council Member David Alvarez - SDSU Alum SDSU is extremely well connected at the State, City and County level. Where do you get more $$$ with the Chargers in San Diego? The Chargers economic impact on the city of San Diego is insignificant compared to San Diego State University. SDSU's economic impact to the city of San Diego is well over $2.5 billion/year. Not to mention the fact SDSU graduates over 7,000 highly skilled students every year; 60% of which stay in San Diego to become part of the skilled workforce. The Chargers have the economic impact of a small/medium department store. If you are just comparing the Chargers football team to the Aztecs football team then of course the Chargers bring in more money. No one is debating the fact that there are Aztecs everywhere. What I'm saying is, none of them care right now what happens to our football program. They really aren't saying "we need to keep the Chargers here because it will impact the Aztecs." They are saying "we need to keep the chargers here because it will impact my next election." In 13 years that we've been going through this, the only people talking about what might happen to the Aztecs should the Chargers leave are right here on this board. Now, when it becomes politically convenient to do so, the mayor has begun inserting "and the Aztecs" into his talking points. But the idea that anyone is selling this as anything other than a Chargers stadium that might have other uses is in complete denial of reality. And I will again point to the UT San Diego website's special section on this topic, titled "Chargers Stadium" www.utsandiego.com/news/chargers-stadium/In this high stakes game of chicken for the support of the public both vocally and financially ... why should either SDSU or any elected politician lay their cards on the table when the Chargers are showing us how bad a hand they have? The politicians don't want to be seen as giving up on keeping the Chargers here for those constituents that want the team to stay at any cost ... at the same time they are not rubber stamping the Spanos plans for those constituents who don't want taxpayer funds supporting corporate welfare. SDSU is not jumping into the fray for similar reasons ... to not be seen as either pushing the Chargers out, or by helping to contribute to the transfer of public money to subsidize a private company. Everything is playing out the way it should have 12 years ago in 2003 and again in 2009 ... maybe this time there will be a conclusion -- and not another kicking of the can down the road with another taxpayer funded "band-aid" to keep the Q viable for another 6 year go around.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 2, 2015 14:00:11 GMT -8
More $$$ and recognition w/ the NFL since it appears State isn't going to win the National Championship anytime soon. I don't know about the City Council as to how many are alums but most of the County reps are Aztecs. CA Senator Marty Block (Chairman of Senate Education Financing Subcommittee) - Former SDSU professor of 26 years CA Assembly Member Shirley Weber - Current SDSU Professor SD Mayor Kevin Faulconer - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Ron Roberts - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Greg Cox - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Dianne Jacob - SDSU Alum SD City Council Member David Alvarez - SDSU Alum SDSU is extremely well connected at the State, City and County level. Where do you get more $$$ with the Chargers in San Diego? The Chargers economic impact on the city of San Diego is insignificant compared to San Diego State University. SDSU's economic impact to the city of San Diego is well over $2.5 billion/year. Not to mention the fact SDSU graduates over 7,000 highly skilled students every year; 60% of which stay in San Diego to become part of the skilled workforce. The Chargers have the economic impact of a small/medium department store. If you are just comparing the Chargers football team to the Aztecs football team then of course the Chargers bring in more money. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I also was referring to Athletics only. The Chargers bring in more money and recognition nationwide and worldwide. Ya forgot to include GEAR sales for one. You sound like a PR release for the school. Good job. "skilled students and skilled workforce"
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Mar 2, 2015 15:39:37 GMT -8
More $$$ and recognition w/ the NFL since it appears State isn't going to win the National Championship anytime soon. I don't know about the City Council as to how many are alums but most of the County reps are Aztecs. CA Senator Marty Block (Chairman of Senate Education Financing Subcommittee) - Former SDSU professor of 26 years CA Assembly Member Shirley Weber - Current SDSU Professor SD Mayor Kevin Faulconer - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Ron Roberts - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Greg Cox - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Dianne Jacob - SDSU Alum SD City Council Member David Alvarez - SDSU Alum SDSU is extremely well connected at the State, City and County level. Where do you get more $$$ with the Chargers in San Diego? The Chargers economic impact on the city of San Diego is insignificant compared to San Diego State University. SDSU's economic impact to the city of San Diego is well over $2.5 billion/year. Not to mention the fact SDSU graduates over 7,000 highly skilled students every year; 60% of which stay in San Diego to become part of the skilled workforce. The Chargers have the economic impact of a small/medium department store. If you are just comparing the Chargers football team to the Aztecs football team then of course the Chargers bring in more money. I have been thinking about this since you bring it up often. Seems to me that you are making an apples to oranges argument. Typically the discussion revolves around providing stadium for SDSU to play in. In that case, the real comparison is the revenue generated by SDSU football vs NFL football. That is the association most are making. The Chargers leaving would have an economic impact. SDSU football being terminated would have very little impact - though I would love for this to change. If you are advocating acquisition of the Q property (likely in part, not in whole) for general campus expansion exclusive of a stadium, then I suppose your comparison has merit. I know this is your first priority, thats why I mention it. I have to say that you are likely in the minority, since most around here want a place for SDSU football first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 2, 2015 15:51:29 GMT -8
CA Senator Marty Block (Chairman of Senate Education Financing Subcommittee) - Former SDSU professor of 26 years CA Assembly Member Shirley Weber - Current SDSU Professor SD Mayor Kevin Faulconer - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Ron Roberts - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Greg Cox - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Dianne Jacob - SDSU Alum SD City Council Member David Alvarez - SDSU Alum SDSU is extremely well connected at the State, City and County level. Where do you get more $$$ with the Chargers in San Diego? The Chargers economic impact on the city of San Diego is insignificant compared to San Diego State University. SDSU's economic impact to the city of San Diego is well over $2.5 billion/year. Not to mention the fact SDSU graduates over 7,000 highly skilled students every year; 60% of which stay in San Diego to become part of the skilled workforce. The Chargers have the economic impact of a small/medium department store. If you are just comparing the Chargers football team to the Aztecs football team then of course the Chargers bring in more money. I have been thinking about this since you bring it up often. Seems to me that you are making an apples to oranges argument. Typically the discussion revolves around providing stadium for SDSU to play in. In that case, the real comparison is the revenue generated by SDSU football vs NFL football. That is the association most are making. The Chargers leaving would have an economic impact. SDSU football being terminated would have very little impact - though I would love for this to change. If you are advocating acquisition of the Q property (likely in part, not in whole) for general campus expansion exclusive of a stadium, then I suppose your comparison has merit. I know this is your first priority, thats why I mention it. I have to say that you are likely in the minority, since most around here want a place for SDSU football first and foremost. um, no ... the comparison is the economic impact of the Chargers and the NFL vs. the economic impact of SDSU as both a university and as an athletic sports program. This is the comparison because we are talking about the financial impact of SDSU expanding its campus into Mission Valley vs. building a $1 billion+ NFL stadium. If the land is developed by the university (either with/without a stadium) and used to increase its enrollment, faculty and staff ... SDSU would only increase it's substantial direct economic stimulus (throughout the year). If the city developed that site for residential, commercial and recreational uses (either with/without a stadium) they would also have to strengthen the surrounding infrastructure accordingly, whereas SDSU would actually be able to pretty much leave the current access roads to the site as is. There is a lot to unpack ... but as far as economics go, this is an apples to apples argument in terms of Chargers/NFL vs. SDSU/Aztecs
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 2, 2015 18:08:13 GMT -8
Goldman to bankroll Chargers’ move By Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer (Sports Business Daily Journal) Published March 2, 2015, Page 3 Goldman Sachs will finance the San Diego Chargers’ prospective move to Los Angeles, including covering any operating losses suffered by the team in the first few years in that city as well as costs for any renovations needed in a temporary venue, sources said last week. [...] Goldman Sachs’ commitment goes beyond simply financing the proposed new stadium, though. The Chargers, the sources said, expect to play several seasons in either the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or the Rose Bowl Stadium before that new stadium would be open, and the team expects that it might be called on to make any renovations required before playing at one of those venues. www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/03/02/Finance/Goldman-Chargers.aspx
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 2, 2015 19:39:57 GMT -8
CA Senator Marty Block (Chairman of Senate Education Financing Subcommittee) - Former SDSU professor of 26 years CA Assembly Member Shirley Weber - Current SDSU Professor SD Mayor Kevin Faulconer - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Ron Roberts - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Greg Cox - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Dianne Jacob - SDSU Alum SD City Council Member David Alvarez - SDSU Alum SDSU is extremely well connected at the State, City and County level. Where do you get more $$$ with the Chargers in San Diego? The Chargers economic impact on the city of San Diego is insignificant compared to San Diego State University. SDSU's economic impact to the city of San Diego is well over $2.5 billion/year. Not to mention the fact SDSU graduates over 7,000 highly skilled students every year; 60% of which stay in San Diego to become part of the skilled workforce. The Chargers have the economic impact of a small/medium department store. If you are just comparing the Chargers football team to the Aztecs football team then of course the Chargers bring in more money. I have been thinking about this since you bring it up often. Seems to me that you are making an apples to oranges argument. Typically the discussion revolves around providing stadium for SDSU to play in. In that case, the real comparison is the revenue generated by SDSU football vs NFL football. That is the association most are making. The Chargers leaving would have an economic impact. SDSU football being terminated would have very little impact - though I would love for this to change. If you are advocating acquisition of the Q property (likely in part, not in whole) for general campus expansion exclusive of a stadium, then I suppose your comparison has merit. I know this is your first priority, thats why I mention it. I have to say that you are likely in the minority, since most around here want a place for SDSU football first and foremost. Indeed the first priority is and should be a West Campus expansion at he Q site as has been advocated by many city and state officials. Of course I also want the football team to have a place to play as well. However, if SDSU controls the Q site their options to build a stadium for the Aztecs is increased.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Mar 2, 2015 20:10:15 GMT -8
CA Senator Marty Block (Chairman of Senate Education Financing Subcommittee) - Former SDSU professor of 26 years CA Assembly Member Shirley Weber - Current SDSU Professor SD Mayor Kevin Faulconer - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Ron Roberts - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Greg Cox - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Dianne Jacob - SDSU Alum SD City Council Member David Alvarez - SDSU Alum SDSU is extremely well connected at the State, City and County level. Where do you get more $$$ with the Chargers in San Diego? The Chargers economic impact on the city of San Diego is insignificant compared to San Diego State University. SDSU's economic impact to the city of San Diego is well over $2.5 billion/year. Not to mention the fact SDSU graduates over 7,000 highly skilled students every year; 60% of which stay in San Diego to become part of the skilled workforce. The Chargers have the economic impact of a small/medium department store. If you are just comparing the Chargers football team to the Aztecs football team then of course the Chargers bring in more money. I have been thinking about this since you bring it up often. Seems to me that you are making an apples to oranges argument. Typically the discussion revolves around providing stadium for SDSU to play in. In that case, the real comparison is the revenue generated by SDSU football vs NFL football. That is the association most are making. The Chargers leaving would have an economic impact. SDSU football being terminated would have very little impact - though I would love for this to change. If you are advocating acquisition of the Q property (likely in part, not in whole) for general campus expansion exclusive of a stadium, then I suppose your comparison has merit. I know this is your first priority, thats why I mention it. I have to say that you are likely in the minority, since most around here want a place for SDSU football first and foremost. I also want the Q site for campus expansion as a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd priority before a stadium. Conveniently, however, both would be very easily done.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 2, 2015 20:33:54 GMT -8
I have been thinking about this since you bring it up often. Seems to me that you are making an apples to oranges argument. Typically the discussion revolves around providing stadium for SDSU to play in. In that case, the real comparison is the revenue generated by SDSU football vs NFL football. That is the association most are making. The Chargers leaving would have an economic impact. SDSU football being terminated would have very little impact - though I would love for this to change. If you are advocating acquisition of the Q property (likely in part, not in whole) for general campus expansion exclusive of a stadium, then I suppose your comparison has merit. I know this is your first priority, thats why I mention it. I have to say that you are likely in the minority, since most around here want a place for SDSU football first and foremost. I also want the Q site for campus expansion as a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd priority before a stadium. Conveniently, however, both would be very easily done. Agree ... 1st priority is campus expansion The fact that the site already comes with a stadium is a bonus situation -- Arizona State was able to rebuild their stadium in 3 phases for $250M. The renovation addressed the deferred maintenance and was included in the total costs. They were also able to reduce the cost of annual maintenance by building smart and green (there are grants and things for doing so). The university could fund the stadium project from capital improvements and charge the Aztecs rental fees to help pay down the bond. Presuming the Aztecs would play there as long as the football program exists, the $250M could be paid over a longer period than the standard 20 years. It would also be possible to have a group like AEG help in funding/building an Aztecs stadium in exchange for the marketing/management rights for other events like concerts, motocross or an MLS franchise. They may also pitch a cooperative agreement to build a hotel or two on the site and jointly run it with help from the hospitality program.
|
|