|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 8, 2015 22:16:59 GMT -8
Lol! Sure it will. Just like Heinz field is for Pitt too. Any stadium built will be designed primarily for the Chargers. Our Aztecs will be an afterthought. FYI. We already have a multi-use San Diego stadium; Petco Park. The only reason all that other stuff is at Petco is that the Q is no longer desirable by those entities. Don't you think the Stones would rather play in front of 70k instead of 45k? As far as signage it would all be electronic. Apparently no on-campus stadium will be built per JD Wicker. Either they (sdsu) ride the coat tails of the Chargers or they have to figure out a way to fund the Q site. FWIW- the head of the stadium committee is on the Board of Trustees for the Cal St system and the mayor is a graduate of State and a former Aztec Athletic Foundation Board Member, as I was. So your statement of afterthought is only a guess on your part. If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is the route we go I certainly hope our administration will advocate for SDSU better than Pitt's administration advocated for their football program at Heinz Field. I'm not optimistic in this regard. Obviously they don't mind Petco or they wouldn't visit here. Didn't seem to stop Madonna, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones or Taylor Swift from booking Petco.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Apr 8, 2015 23:18:26 GMT -8
When does a city pay for a universities stuff? It would take state bonds, private donors, and various student/alumni fees and naming rights. A large endeavor, for sure. But if you haven't been on campus, there is starting to run out of available space for a lot of things, and we have a serious lack of recreational green space as is. It's not a bad thing to kick around in our noggins. There's still plenty of usable space on campus for buildings. Just build parking garages on 1/3 - 1/2 of the flat lots now and use the rest for buildings. There's a lot along Alvarado that is used by nothing except for the 18wheeler and Christmas Tree recycling in January. For greenery, plant some trees but then again, we're in a severe drought at this time. If someone wants recreational green space, use the practice fields w/ the artificial green stuff. It's all a matter of space utilization, just like the casinos/hotels do on the Strip in Vegas. If I recall, more housing is slotted to go in those lots near Villa Alvarado. Also, I am on my phone, but there was a study that showed we have significant lack of rec greens for a school of our capacity. The article I read talked about possibly turning the Storm/Nassitar construction staging lot (next to the parking deck) into green space to help with the issue. It's already a fairly condensed campus. If we don't think about more vertical, campus is going to be unbearably tight. It's why perhaps having some stake in MV does not seem like a poor idea, regardless of the stadium issue.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 9, 2015 6:11:08 GMT -8
The only reason all that other stuff is at Petco is that the Q is no longer desirable by those entities. Don't you think the Stones would rather play in front of 70k instead of 45k? As far as signage it would all be electronic. Apparently no on-campus stadium will be built per JD Wicker. Either they (sdsu) ride the coat tails of the Chargers or they have to figure out a way to fund the Q site. FWIW- the head of the stadium committee is on the Board of Trustees for the Cal St system and the mayor is a graduate of State and a former Aztec Athletic Foundation Board Member, as I was. So your statement of afterthought is only a guess on your part. If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is the route we go I certainly hope our administration will advocate for SDSU better than Pitt's administration advocated for their football program at Heinz Field. I'm not optimistic in this regard. Obviously they don't mind Petco or they wouldn't visit here. Didn't seem to stop Madonna, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones or Taylor Swift from booking Petco. On this, you and I agree: No faith in our administration to aggressively, and passionately, pursue SDSU's football interests--at all.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 9, 2015 7:46:20 GMT -8
I think it all depends on how much money SDSU is willing to pitch in. If they contribute nothing to very little, they're not going to get a lot of input on anything. Remember, this stadium is not just for the Chargers. The Chargers would just be the primary tenant and would be the tenant contributing the most money.
It's 2015 though. The look and feel of a stadium can easily be altered with technology these days.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 9, 2015 9:35:58 GMT -8
If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is the route we go I certainly hope our administration will advocate for SDSU better than Pitt's administration advocated for their football program at Heinz Field. I'm not optimistic in this regard. Obviously they don't mind Petco or they wouldn't visit here. Didn't seem to stop Madonna, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones or Taylor Swift from booking Petco. On this, you and I agree: No faith in our administration to aggressively, and passionately, pursue SDSU's football interests--at all. I agree on vertical. Why didn't they build all the new student housing more than 4 floors high? Short sighted?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 9, 2015 9:37:33 GMT -8
The only reason all that other stuff is at Petco is that the Q is no longer desirable by those entities. Don't you think the Stones would rather play in front of 70k instead of 45k? As far as signage it would all be electronic. Apparently no on-campus stadium will be built per JD Wicker. Either they (sdsu) ride the coat tails of the Chargers or they have to figure out a way to fund the Q site. FWIW- the head of the stadium committee is on the Board of Trustees for the Cal St system and the mayor is a graduate of State and a former Aztec Athletic Foundation Board Member, as I was. So your statement of afterthought is only a guess on your part. If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is the route we go I certainly hope our administration will advocate for SDSU better than Pitt's administration advocated for their football program at Heinz Field. I'm not optimistic in this regard. Obviously they don't mind Petco or they wouldn't visit here. Didn't seem to stop Madonna, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones or Taylor Swift from booking Petco. Of course they don't mind Petco. It's better than USD or Mesa College for events like theirs. As far as optimistic, I'm rarely optimistic that our admins will do it right...(see USD on the football schedule)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 21:28:34 GMT -8
Wait. What? www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.htmlNow, however, as the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders unveil tentative plans to jointly build a stadium on the site, state regulators say about $50 million in cleanup measures over the years has made the property nearly shovel-ready for construction. "It is safe," said Emad Yemut, a supervising engineer for the state Toxic Substances Control Department, which oversees the decontamination effort. "Everything is done."Yemut said the site still needs a series of extraction wells to remove methane and other gases from 157 tainted acres, but it could be installed in six months to a year once a final plan for a stadium is approved. The property, which includes an additional 11 acres outside the landfill, is already equipped with wells that pull out groundwater fouled with industrial solvents, he said. The water is then treated and piped into the sewer system. Eventually, the parcel would be capped with high-density plastic to prevent garbage-spawned gases from leaking into the air. The cap would be topped with layers of new soil, Yemut said."It will be expensive," he said of the remaining work, estimating the monthly costs of operating just the gas extraction wells at $200,000 to $300,000.Well, Emad, is the site ready or isn't it? There are just no words. NO WORDS except ROFLMAO. Looks like the Chargers are going into the gas business, only not in a good way.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Apr 12, 2015 4:31:24 GMT -8
I'm not sure how much this applies to what has recently been discussed, but I'm not reading through 14 pages of posts to find out. I recently returned from Atlanta, where my daughters team was in a National qualifier volleyball tournament. In other words, it was huge. Anyway, it opened my eyes as to the possibilities of what a downtown could become. The convention center is within walking distance of other arenas and tourism venues. All of them being a reason that the local businesses were packed. I don't know why a similar plan wouldn't work in SD, where the weather is already a draw.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Apr 12, 2015 5:25:00 GMT -8
Who is an apologist for the Chargers ownership? I haven't seen that anywhere in this thread. I will admit I am not always the most observant. Hoobs is biased to say the least. He's NOT a Chargers fan. Doesn't live in So Cal. Lives in D.C. And ONLY CARES what happens to SDSU. That in a nutshell is his "take". So, on an Aztec sports forum, Aztec alums that are invested inn and proud of their school, then advocate for it when it comes to their facilities is what, a problem? I'm a Die-Hard Chargers fan but much more an Aztec fan and alum. I advocate for the Aztecs first, not second. If the Chargers want to put the city in jeopardy and bury the Aztecs again as a second class citizen, using taxpayer money to do that, I draw the line. Oh, I pay SD real estate taxes, and am not an outsider. Hoobs has every right to argue his position on this board, to which he does very persuasively. Further he is very transparent. Many here aren't.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 12, 2015 9:11:49 GMT -8
I'm not sure how much this applies to what has recently been discussed, but I'm not reading through 14 pages of posts to find out. I recently returned from Atlanta, where my daughters team was in a National qualifier volleyball tournament. In other words, it was huge. Anyway, it opened my eyes as to the possibilities of what a downtown could become. The convention center is within walking distance of other arenas and tourism venues. All of them being a reason that the local businesses were packed. I don't know why a similar plan wouldn't work in SD, where the weather is already a draw. to bring you up to speed ... it's not that a downtown stadium is unwanted -- it's how the Chargers went about trying to get it First, they tried to use redevelopment funds from the now defunct Center City Development Corp. to pay for an open air stadium estimated to cost about $800M. When that failed, they tried (for the second time) to have the City GIVE them the Mission Valley site (along with Sports Arena) to redevelop in order to pay for a stadium downtown, the cost of which was now $1.2B to account for the cost of a soft roof to host events that would have been at the Sports Arena (which would have been sold for redevelopment to pay for the soft roof). Because that faced significant logistical and legal hurdles ... it was nixed, so the Chargers tried to go after TOT revenue to pay for a downtown stadium by trying to bill itself as a combination convention center and football stadium, but to do so raised the cost of the venue to $1.4B when additional changes would have to be made to accommodate use as a convention center. The SDCC and major hoteliers were against a non-contiguous expansion of the convention center and pointed out that a contiguous expansion would keep and attract the bigger conventions, while a separate facility half a mile away from the main hall would not. To further complicate matters, the Chargers never thought to inquire as to how long it would take the MTS to relocate its' facility and re-mediate the property -- the answer it seems was 5-7 years, but the Chargers want their downtown stadium with a roof before then. Lastly, we come to the financial portion -- rather what the Chargers have been willing to put in (or not put in) over the course of negotiations. It bears mentioning that the first downtown proposal was in 2008-2009. The Chargers committed only $100M to the project and the NFL G3 loan (already exhausted by then) may have added another $150M of the estimated $800M stadium. All the estimates for a downtown stadium are only for construction costs -- estimates for a stadium downtown have never included the $150M+ cost to relocate the MTS and the acquisition of the private property that would be needed to build a football stadium. It also never took into account that the Padres have a contract with the City for Tailgate park until 2032, that parking lot would be need for the football stadium and the Padres would have to be compensated for it's loss -- that cost has never been included in any of the estimates either. When the Chargers lost the backing of the CCDC, and tried to work out a Real Estate development deal selling public property to private corporations in 2012, the construction cost of the stadium had risen to $1.2B to add a roof and make the football stadium multi-purpose. The NFL offered a new $200M G4 loan, but the Chargers kept their contribution at $100M insisting that the development and sale of the Sports Arena and Mission Valley sites would be more than adequate to cover the $900M remainder of the $1.2B cost of construction (still not including the cost of land acquisition downtown). When that plan failed -- the Chargers tried to capture Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue by claiming their stadium could be a multi-use convention center/sport arena/football stadium that would cost an estimated $1.4B (still not including land acquisition cost). The Chargers claimed that it was a bargain compared to the separate costs of a contiguous SDCC expansion ($550M) and a $1.2B downtown stadium (with a roof and still not including the costs of acquiring the MTS property, the rights to Tailgate Park or any of the privately owned property in the area need for the stadium). To this estimated $1.4B "convadium", the Chargers were willing to contribute $200M & the NFL's G4 loan would have added another $200M for a total of $400M of the estimated $1.4B construction costs. The $1B balance would have to be paid by the City and/or County. The Chargers refuse to include any additional revenue sources for a stadium (like naming rights or PSLs) nor are they willing to go back to that original $800M open-air stadium they had proposed for downtown back in 2009. If the Chargers were willing to invest $200M or more of their own funds, adding in the NFL's $200M and were willing to include at least $200M in naming rights & PSL revenue (they could keep anything over that) then the city and county would have an easier time finding $200M between the two agencies as well as work out the logistics regarding the Padres rights to Tailgate Park (City Property) and the MTS bus yard (County Property) relocation and the only remaining issues would be the private property acquisition and how to apportion any cost overruns. The stadium could have been designed such that a roof could be added in the future.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 12, 2015 9:35:39 GMT -8
Wait. What? www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.htmlNow, however, as the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders unveil tentative plans to jointly build a stadium on the site, state regulators say about $50 million in cleanup measures over the years has made the property nearly shovel-ready for construction. "It is safe," said Emad Yemut, a supervising engineer for the state Toxic Substances Control Department, which oversees the decontamination effort. "Everything is done."Yemut said the site still needs a series of extraction wells to remove methane and other gases from 157 tainted acres, but it could be installed in six months to a year once a final plan for a stadium is approved. The property, which includes an additional 11 acres outside the landfill, is already equipped with wells that pull out groundwater fouled with industrial solvents, he said. The water is then treated and piped into the sewer system. Eventually, the parcel would be capped with high-density plastic to prevent garbage-spawned gases from leaking into the air. The cap would be topped with layers of new soil, Yemut said."It will be expensive," he said of the remaining work, estimating the monthly costs of operating just the gas extraction wells at $200,000 to $300,000.Well, Emad, is the site ready or isn't it? There are just no words. NO WORDS except ROFLMAO. Looks like the Chargers are going into the gas business, only not in a good way. Yeah, this story came out in February. It's one of the main reasons why Carson is all a bluff. Fabiani also said the transfer of that land would be complete at the end of March and now not a peep has come out because either that was a bluff as well or they're waiting to announce that to counter the city's/CSAG's next big announcement to continue their stupid negotiating ploy. The Chargers aren't going to LA.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 12, 2015 10:56:21 GMT -8
The Chargers aren't going to Carson as that is indeed looking more and more like a farce. Carson is allowing itself to be used by the Spanoi the same way Al Davis used Irwindale 20 years ago. However, that doesn't mean the Chargers definitely aren't going to L.A. If the Spanoi get desperate enough and have no other option and the NFL applies pressure on Stan Kroenke, the Chargers could end up being a tenant of the Rams in Inglewood.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 12, 2015 11:13:32 GMT -8
Hoobs is biased to say the least. He's NOT a Chargers fan. Doesn't live in So Cal. Lives in D.C. And ONLY CARES what happens to SDSU. That in a nutshell is his "take". So, on an Aztec sports forum, Aztec alums that are invested inn and proud of their school, then advocate for it when it comes to their facilities is what, a problem? I'm a Die-Hard Chargers fan but much more an Aztec fan and alum. I advocate for the Aztecs first, not second. If the Chargers want to put the city in jeopardy and bury the Aztecs again as a second class citizen, using taxpayer money to do that, I draw the line. Oh, I pay SD real estate taxes, and am not an outsider. Hoobs has every right to argue his position on this board, to which he does very persuasively. Further he is very transparent. Many here aren't. I was just stating the facts PERIOD. And he's not as transparent as you may think. We've had some PMs on the subject and I know where he's coming from but I'll respect the fact that that was conveyed via a Private Message and NOT necessarily in the public forum.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 12, 2015 16:04:36 GMT -8
So, on an Aztec sports forum, Aztec alums that are invested inn and proud of their school, then advocate for it when it comes to their facilities is what, a problem? I'm a Die-Hard Chargers fan but much more an Aztec fan and alum. I advocate for the Aztecs first, not second. If the Chargers want to put the city in jeopardy and bury the Aztecs again as a second class citizen, using taxpayer money to do that, I draw the line. Oh, I pay SD real estate taxes, and am not an outsider. Hoobs has every right to argue his position on this board, to which he does very persuasively. Further he is very transparent. Many here aren't. And he's not as transparent as you may think. Uh, excuse me? Wow, so I gotta find MORE transparent ways to express how I want the best for SDSU and am utterly ambivalent about the Chargers?
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 12, 2015 16:19:11 GMT -8
Wait. What? www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.htmlNow, however, as the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders unveil tentative plans to jointly build a stadium on the site, state regulators say about $50 million in cleanup measures over the years has made the property nearly shovel-ready for construction. "It is safe," said Emad Yemut, a supervising engineer for the state Toxic Substances Control Department, which oversees the decontamination effort. "Everything is done."Yemut said the site still needs a series of extraction wells to remove methane and other gases from 157 tainted acres, but it could be installed in six months to a year once a final plan for a stadium is approved. The property, which includes an additional 11 acres outside the landfill, is already equipped with wells that pull out groundwater fouled with industrial solvents, he said. The water is then treated and piped into the sewer system. Eventually, the parcel would be capped with high-density plastic to prevent garbage-spawned gases from leaking into the air. The cap would be topped with layers of new soil, Yemut said."It will be expensive," he said of the remaining work, estimating the monthly costs of operating just the gas extraction wells at $200,000 to $300,000.Well, Emad, is the site ready or isn't it? There are just no words. NO WORDS except ROFLMAO. Looks like the Chargers are going into the gas business, only not in a good way. Yeah, this story came out in February. It's one of the main reasons why Carson is all a bluff. Fabiani also said the transfer of that land would be complete at the end of March and now not a peep has come out because either that was a bluff as well or they're waiting to announce that to counter the city's/CSAG's next big announcement to continue their stupid negotiating ploy. The Chargers aren't going to LA. I think it's correct to say they are not going to Carson, but I think there is a decent chance they eventually end up in Inglewood.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Apr 12, 2015 17:25:12 GMT -8
And he's not as transparent as you may think. Uh, excuse me? Wow, so I gotta find MORE transparent ways to express how I want the best for SDSU and am utterly ambivalent about the Chargers? What part of I'm not going to post stuff that was said in a PM don't you get.? Obviously it was different, or more specific, than what I had seen you write. I'm not sure "ambivalent" is the proper word but if you want to call it that it's your call.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 12, 2015 17:41:32 GMT -8
Yeah, this story came out in February. It's one of the main reasons why Carson is all a bluff. Fabiani also said the transfer of that land would be complete at the end of March and now not a peep has come out because either that was a bluff as well or they're waiting to announce that to counter the city's/CSAG's next big announcement to continue their stupid negotiating ploy. The Chargers aren't going to LA. I think it's correct to say they are not going to Carson, but I think there is a decent chance they eventually end up in Inglewood. I've posted this before but it makes zero sense for anyone (Spanos, Kroenke, the NFL) for the Chargers to be a tenant of Kroenke. Spanos loses because he's forced to be a tenant and there's no money involved in that scenario, especially since there's no fanbase there to buy tickets and merchandise. Kroenke loses because even though LA doesn't care about the Chargers, he has to share the market. The NFL loses for two reasons: one, they don't want LA to fail again and the Chargers moving there would be a failure. And two, they lose the possibility of using Inglewood as a threat for a team that needs a new stadium in the future. The Chargers know that their best option is to stay here and that's why they're playing such hardball right now to get the best deal possible. As much as I want the Chargers to stay, I hope the city sees through this whole LA charade and offers a fair/less than fair deal to Spanos. IMO, all this perceived leverage they have is a mirage. The only way I can see a move to Inglewood is if push comes to shove and the Chargers are in pure desperation mode forces the NFL to force Kroenke to take them in. I just can't see that happening though. I think they would have to move to another city like St. Louis or San Antonio. LA wants nothing to do with the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by OldSlowWhiteBaller on Apr 12, 2015 18:31:02 GMT -8
Hope they can come to an agreement between all parties and get the damn thing built! I prefer the Chargers to stay here in San Diego.
I wish we had NBA, NFL, MSL and MLB Franchises.......We may be down to only the Padres......Very sad to me.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 12, 2015 18:40:12 GMT -8
Uh, excuse me? Wow, so I gotta find MORE transparent ways to express how I want the best for SDSU and am utterly ambivalent about the Chargers? What part of I'm not going to post stuff that was said in a PM don't you get.? Obviously it was different, or more specific, than what I had seen you write. I'm not sure "ambivalent" is the proper word but if you want to call it that it's your call. You make me laugh. What's your problem? Really, you seem to really be quite angry. You might want to chill out a little. None of your posting here is going to guarantee the Chargers stay in SD, and no amount of my posting will guarantee SDSU gets a West Campus extension. To what bar can I send a $7 check to buy you a beer?
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Apr 12, 2015 18:57:21 GMT -8
I think it's correct to say they are not going to Carson, but I think there is a decent chance they eventually end up in Inglewood. I've posted this before but it makes zero sense for anyone (Spanos, Kroenke, the NFL) for the Chargers to be a tenant of Kroenke. Spanos loses because he's forced to be a tenant and there's no money involved in that scenario, especially since there's no fanbase there to buy tickets and merchandise. Kroenke loses because even though LA doesn't care about the Chargers, he has to share the market. The NFL loses for two reasons: one, they don't want LA to fail again and the Chargers moving there would be a failure. And two, they lose the possibility of using Inglewood as a threat for a team that needs a new stadium in the future. The Chargers know that their best option is to stay here and that's why they're playing such hardball right now to get the best deal possible. As much as I want the Chargers to stay, I hope the city sees through this whole LA charade and offers a fair/less than fair deal to Spanos. IMO, all this perceived leverage they have is a mirage. The only way I can see a move to Inglewood is if push comes to shove and the Chargers are in pure desperation mode forces the NFL to force Kroenke to take them in. I just can't see that happening though. I think they would have to move to another city like St. Louis or San Antonio. LA wants nothing to do with the Chargers. I would laugh and laugh if they had to be the second tenant to kroenke. It would be too good to be true to have the Chargers receive what they gave to the Padres and Aztecs.
|
|