|
Post by ab on Mar 31, 2015 7:59:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 31, 2015 8:07:29 GMT -8
San Diego isn't Baltimore and just about economist out there not employed by the NFL will tell you stadiums are terrible financial deals for the cities.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Mar 31, 2015 8:10:54 GMT -8
San Diego isn't Baltimore and just about economist out there not employed by the NFL will tell you stadiums are terrible financial deals for the cities. San Diego is very much like Baltimore. I guess you didn't bother to read the story before typing. "San Diego and Baltimore have a lot of similarities. San Diego is the 28th-largest media market in the America. Baltimore is 26th-largest. Both cities are coastal communities with a large Navy presence. Both have two major professional sports franchises, an MLB team and an NFL team. If things keep going the way they are, both cities will have lost their pro football teams. You and others keep pointing out economists. NOBODY has ever said that a stadium is a money maker overall. You'd be quite surprised at how little the Convention Center makes. Look it up.
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 31, 2015 8:13:16 GMT -8
Baltimore isnt exactly a tourist destination... I'd say they're pretty different
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 8:24:18 GMT -8
I grew up in Baltimore. The Colts leaving was def bad for the city, but honestly the economic and drug issues it suffered had nothing to do with the Colts leaving. It's also true though that the Colts leaving certainly wasn't good for a city that was already on a downward cycle at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 8:38:51 GMT -8
Oh...and another thing. There were a lot of Skins fans that materialized after the Colts left and before the city eventually got the Browns to come to town and become the Ravens. Considering SD has a weaker cultural identity than Baltimore I would expect the departure of the Chargers to trigger a rise in the amount of 49ers, Raiders, and Chargers(or whatever they change their name to) fans in SD. You may notice this already happens here whenever a team gets really good in another city. Never seen so many Seahawks fans in SD as I did the last couple of seasons.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Mar 31, 2015 8:40:09 GMT -8
The other part of the puzzle is what San Diego County could GAIN from having a multi purpose facility that could host numerous events , Regional NCAA BB tournaments , playoff football for NCAA , World Cup , Large Conventions , Super Bowl , Thanks Giving BB tournaments , Entertainment places at the facility , bowling alleys , Maybe move City or county offices there instead of renting offices Money and jobs from building the facility and running them . FANTASTIC FACILITY TO SHOW RECRUITS FOR THE AZTECS. !!!! NEW STATE OF THE ART FACILITY TO ATTRACT RECRUITS FOR SDSU FOOTBALL Loss of close to 200 employees , families for those working for the Chargers , also part time employment .
bottom line if you are against a shared facility - you look at the negative . In favor you see the positives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 8:49:47 GMT -8
The other part of the puzzle is what San Diego County could GAIN from having a multi purpose facility that could host numerous events , Regional NCAA BB tournaments , playoff football for NCAA , World Cup , Large Conventions , Super Bowl , Thanks Giving BB tournaments , Entertainment places at the facility , bowling alleys , Maybe move City or county offices there instead of renting offices Money and jobs from building the facility and running them . FANTASTIC FACILITY TO SHOW RECRUITS FOR THE AZTECS. !!!! NEW STATE OF THE ART FACILITY TO ATTRACT RECRUITS FOR SDSU FOOTBALL Loss of close to 200 employees , families for those working for the Chargers , also part time employment . bottom line if you are against a shared facility - you look at the negative . In favor you see the positives. Pitt's recruiting was not improved by having a new shared NFL stadium with the Steelers. Why would this be different in our case? If you have been an athlete in your life you will know its more about the in game experience (atmosphere) that recruits/athletes notice and desire. Not a "state of the art stadium" that you only ever enter on game day. The only way we can control that it to control seating, especially early in our rise to prominence. To me this is the most obvious issue with playing in an NFL size stadium.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Mar 31, 2015 9:14:40 GMT -8
Baltimore was in the midst of a complete economic spiral, from Port issues, to crime, to the City losing residents at a disatrous rate to the county. I would take this with a grain of salt. The economic impact is miniscule to a city the size of SD. Now, it would cripple Green Bay. As a Viking fan, I recognized why the state (entire state) decided to pay the cost. Unfortunately they used elotto pull tabs, and that tanked, so it has disgruntled a few. But they valued city pride, and they also used it to revitalize that area, which was heavily underutilized. How much does SD value civic pride? That may just be the key question to it all. Reading comments on UTSD, and ESPN, it doesn't sound like a large contigent favor the $600M.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Mar 31, 2015 9:26:47 GMT -8
Most people probably don't care.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Mar 31, 2015 9:32:44 GMT -8
The other part of the puzzle is what San Diego County could GAIN from having a multi purpose facility that could host numerous events , Regional NCAA BB tournaments , playoff football for NCAA , World Cup , Large Conventions , Super Bowl , Thanks Giving BB tournaments , Entertainment places at the facility , bowling alleys , Maybe move City or county offices there instead of renting offices Money and jobs from building the facility and running them . FANTASTIC FACILITY TO SHOW RECRUITS FOR THE AZTECS. !!!! NEW STATE OF THE ART FACILITY TO ATTRACT RECRUITS FOR SDSU FOOTBALL Loss of close to 200 employees , families for those working for the Chargers , also part time employment . bottom line if you are against a shared facility - you look at the negative . In favor you see the positives. Pitt's recruiting was not improved by having a new shared NFL stadium with the Steelers. Why would this be different in our case? If you have been an athlete in your life you will know its more about the in game experience (atmosphere) that rectuits/athletes notice and desire. Not a "state of the art stadium" that you only ever enter on game day. The only way we can control that it to control seating, especially early in our rise to prominence. To me this is the most obvious issue with playing in an NFL size stadium. There still seems to be some misguided notion that the future of Aztec football is directly tied to the Chargers. That would be the case if a stadium is ultimately provided for the Chargers to remain in San Diego. That would also be the facility for the Aztecs. Period. If the Chargers are sent packing, that simply means the future of Aztec football will be in question. Period. The way I see it, unless San Diego is run by idiots, the only way the Aztecs will be provided a stadium is if they tear down buildings on the existing campus to provide one. Why would ANYONE think they deserve more than that??
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Mar 31, 2015 9:34:16 GMT -8
Hello poster,This is Aztecs proboards and has nothing to do with the NFL.We do not want to share a staduim with the Chargers!The Hardy school site would be the best bet for a 35,000 seat staduim.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Mar 31, 2015 9:37:42 GMT -8
Pitt's recruiting was not improved by having a new shared NFL stadium with the Steelers. Why would this be different in our case? If you have been an athlete in your life you will know its more about the in game experience (atmosphere) that rectuits/athletes notice and desire. Not a "state of the art stadium" that you only ever enter on game day. The only way we can control that it to control seating, especially early in our rise to prominence. To me this is the most obvious issue with playing in an NFL size stadium. There still seems to be some misguided notion that the future of Aztec football is directly tied to the Chargers. That would be the case if a stadium is ultimately provided for the Chargers to remain in San Diego. That would also be the facility for the Aztecs. Period. If the Chargers are sent packing, that simply means the future of Aztec football will be in question. Period. The way I see it, unless San Diego is run by idiots, the only way the Aztecs will be provided a stadium is if they tear down buildings on the existing campus to provide one. Why would ANYONE think they deserve more than that?? Regardless of whether the Bolts leave, or if SDSU builds an OCS, if Qualcomm is vacated by the Chargers, would it not be a good idea for SDSU to acquire the site for academic use, at the least? Being a public entity, it would not take a vote for the City to sell it, and would still serve as an economic generator through foot traffic and increased need for retail and housing. And I don't think many (if any) are saying SDSU would "be provided" anything. They would have to fund it themselves. Now can they? Completely different, but very legitimate question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 9:37:43 GMT -8
Pitt's recruiting was not improved by having a new shared NFL stadium with the Steelers. Why would this be different in our case? If you have been an athlete in your life you will know its more about the in game experience (atmosphere) that rectuits/athletes notice and desire. Not a "state of the art stadium" that you only ever enter on game day. The only way we can control that it to control seating, especially early in our rise to prominence. To me this is the most obvious issue with playing in an NFL size stadium. There still seems to be some misguided notion that the future of Aztec football is directly tied to the Chargers. That would be the case if a stadium is ultimately provided for the Chargers to remain in San Diego. That would also be the facility for the Aztecs. Period. If the Chargers are sent packing, that simply means the future of Aztec football will be in question. Period. The way I see it, unless San Diego is run by idiots, the only way the Aztecs will be provided a stadium is if they tear down buildings on the existing campus to provide one. Why would ANYONE think they deserve more than that?? Well if we are talking about an expansion to the Q site for a "west campus" you should note that the expansion would be more about the University at large and less about the school getting its own FB facility. You keep throwing out the word deserve...not sure how deserving anything plays into the decision making process here. It's about investing in the region in general. If the city, county, and it's citizens don't feel the Chargers will return an investment in their organization then those resources will be focused else where. Will they be provided to SDSU...who knows? But that does not effect in any way my previous comment.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 31, 2015 9:44:04 GMT -8
Anyone who has visited the east coast vs the west coast of the USA knows there is a very different culture that exists. San Diego is already a tourist destination and attracts many people due to our amazing weather; the sun and the sand. To suggest that Baltimore is similar to San Diego from a cultural perspective is a terrible comparison. If building a billion dollar stadium was such an economic windfall it would have already been built with private money without the need for public subsidy.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 31, 2015 9:46:17 GMT -8
The other part of the puzzle is what San Diego County could GAIN from having a multi purpose facility that could host numerous events , Regional NCAA BB tournaments , playoff football for NCAA , World Cup , Large Conventions , Super Bowl , Thanks Giving BB tournaments , Entertainment places at the facility , bowling alleys , Maybe move City or county offices there instead of renting offices Money and jobs from building the facility and running them . FANTASTIC FACILITY TO SHOW RECRUITS FOR THE AZTECS. !!!! NEW STATE OF THE ART FACILITY TO ATTRACT RECRUITS FOR SDSU FOOTBALL Loss of close to 200 employees , families for those working for the Chargers , also part time employment . bottom line if you are against a shared facility - you look at the negative . In favor you see the positives. One needs to look no further than Pitt to see that sharing an NFL stadium is not the best option.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Mar 31, 2015 9:49:39 GMT -8
There are indeed similarities between Baltimore and San Diego. (Navy and TV market)
But there are also important differences which each contribute to the apathy of San Diego voters...
1. The Ravens are a matter of civic pride and constant conversation, not so with the Chargers. We are more proud of our favorite taco shop than the Chargers. 2. Baltimore is a rust belt town in revitalization. San Diego is not that. 3. San Diego is very transient compared to Baltimore. This is problematic for EVERY sports team as the most fervent fans of sports have another favorite NFL, MLB, NBA, or NCAA team that they root for. 4. Baltimore is in a smaller geographic region which really, really cares about the NFL. Our nearest teams are 6-7-8 hours away. You listen to sports radio in Baltimore and it's got constant comparisons to the Jets, Eagles, Steelers, etc. 5. San Diego counts tourism as one of it's most important industries, hospitality is part of who we are as a community. There is tourism in Baltimore... but it's not part of the public consciousness. Very few go on Spring Break to Baltimore vs. San Diego... though the water temp is about the same! (Not really, but both are too cold to swim right now)
So it's an interesting comparison. But probably closer to compare us potentially losing the Chargers to Seattle wanting to get the Sonics back.
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Mar 31, 2015 10:16:15 GMT -8
San Diego isn't Baltimore and just about economist out there not employed by the NFL will tell you stadiums are terrible financial deals for the cities. San Diego is very much like Baltimore. I guess you didn't bother to read the story before typing. "San Diego and Baltimore have a lot of similarities. San Diego is the 28th-largest media market in the America. Baltimore is 26th-largest. Both cities are coastal communities with a large Navy presence. Both have two major professional sports franchises, an MLB team and an NFL team. If things keep going the way they are, both cities will have lost their pro football teams. You and others keep pointing out economists. NOBODY has ever said that a stadium is a money maker overall. You'd be quite surprised at how little the Convention Center makes. Look it up. No argument here that stadiums and Convention Centers are rarely cash cows when viewed in isolation. They are however, an ingredient for a healthy tourism sector of the regional economy. That's why the big push for them always comes from Convis, and the Hotel & Restaurant folks. Additionally, professional sports team owners (like almost everyone else) really enjoy spending other people's money. Still, if you're going to ask an economist about the fiscal impact of building a new stadium, it's only fair to ask about the effect of the dollars spent by those attending the events made possible by the venues. I'd be willing to bet it's much more substantial than those narrow-minded anti taxpayer spending folks would have us believe. As long as you're looking things up, look up the economic term "multiplier effect."
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Mar 31, 2015 10:39:35 GMT -8
San Diego isn't Baltimore and just about economist out there not employed by the NFL will tell you stadiums are terrible financial deals for the cities. San Diego is very much like Baltimore. I guess you didn't bother to read the story before typing. "San Diego and Baltimore have a lot of similarities. San Diego is the 28th-largest media market in the America. Baltimore is 26th-largest. Both cities are coastal communities with a large Navy presence. Both have two major professional sports franchises, an MLB team and an NFL team. If things keep going the way they are, both cities will have lost their pro football teams. You and others keep pointing out economists. NOBODY has ever said that a stadium is a money maker overall. You'd be quite surprised at how little the Convention Center makes. Look it u Nobody is against a stadium...people are against paying for it with their tax (welfare) dollars...if the Chargers move...San Diego will not fold...no way...no how...there are 1.3 million people in the city and 3.2 million in the county...only .046 percent of the city's and .018 of the county's population can get into the stadium at any given time...don't use people's taxes to supplement your entertainment...if you or any other person really wants a spanking brand new stadium...invest YOUR money in a loser if you're so firm in your convictions.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Mar 31, 2015 11:07:08 GMT -8
San Diego isn't Baltimore and just about economist out there not employed by the NFL will tell you stadiums are terrible financial deals for the cities. San Diego is very much like Baltimore. I guess you didn't bother to read the story before typing. "San Diego and Baltimore have a lot of similarities. San Diego is the 28th-largest media market in the America. Baltimore is 26th-largest. Both cities are coastal communities with a large Navy presence. Both have two major professional sports franchises, an MLB team and an NFL team. If things keep going the way they are, both cities will have lost their pro football teams. You and others keep pointing out economists. NOBODY has ever said that a stadium is a money maker overall. You'd be quite surprised at how little the Convention Center makes. Look it up.
|
|