|
Post by aztech on Apr 25, 2015 20:47:27 GMT -8
If SDSU can somehow build their own stadium and on their own property it will reap major benefits. They will get revenue from parking and concessions and no more paying rent to the city. They can hire students to work the parking and concession stands instead of those city contract workers who don't any connection to the school. That sounds small, but that's how game day traditions are set. Student involvement is very important.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 25, 2015 21:20:54 GMT -8
A very nicely done rendering, but this seems to embody a concept that does NOT include using the site as an extension of SDSU. Or do my elderly eyes fail me? I don't see anything on this drawing that says "SDSU classrooms/research/dormitories". AzWm Students from the NewSchool of Architecture and Design collaborate on Mission Valley’s future. missionvalleynews.com/imagining-the-mission-valley-of-the-future/
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 25, 2015 21:35:47 GMT -8
Too much is made of the semantics between a renovation and a rebuild. The current stadium is in the center of the site, it would not be a terrible thing to rebuild it there. Rebuilding in phases is essentially the same as a demo and new build ... just over a longer period of time while continuing to use the field. This is something the Aztecs could do at the Q that the Chargers can't.
To be clear, I would not have a problem with building a new Aztecs stadium in the NE or NW corner of the lot either, as long as the overall plan is to include restaurants, retail, parking structures, hotels and dorms to create a stadium village for that gameday experience that is missing at the Q -- and to act as the center of activity on a West Campus (preferably located close to the trolley platform as the primary link to main campus).
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 25, 2015 22:22:14 GMT -8
Speaking of Qualcomm Stadium. . . . The general feeling seems to be that the Q is just short of being condemned as a public menace and health hazard. No doubt there is some truth to that. Still, the Q is THERE, for better or worse. It's built and paid for. Therefore . . .
A question re Qualcomm: Is there any way that the Q could be saved? That is, are there major modifications that could be made that would, for far less than the cost of a new stadium, make the Q at least adequate? And I do mean major modifications. For instance, someone on one of the Aztec fan sites ounce suggested that the east end expansion be demolished, partially on the grounds that the eastern new stands are sinking and the rest of the stadium is not. (That idea assumes that the Chargers will not longer be playing in Mission Valley.)
I have an idea for such a modification, but I need to make a drawing illustrating it. Maybe some of our members could supply drawings of what might be done to change the Q into a real Aztec stadium. If such a project were feasible, I'm sure it would cost only a fraction of what a new stadium could cost. Perhaps 100 million dollars? Still a lot of money, but less than 250 or 300 million.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Apr 25, 2015 23:13:52 GMT -8
I know you can't trust anything Fabiani says but for what it's worth, he said the Chargers have no interest in moving in with Kroenke.
According to him, they're all in on Carson if they can't get anything done in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 26, 2015 0:26:16 GMT -8
Too much is made of the semantics between a renovation and a rebuild. The current stadium is in the center of the site, it would not be a terrible thing to rebuild it there. Rebuilding in phases is essentially the same as a demo and new build ... just over a longer period of time while continuing to use the field. This is something the Aztecs could do at the Q that the Chargers can't. To be clear, I would not have a problem with building a new Aztecs stadium in the NE or NW corner of the lot either, as long as the overall plan is to include restaurants, retail, parking structures, hotels and dorms to create a stadium village for that gameday experience that is missing at the Q -- and to act as the center of activity on a West Campus (preferably located close to the trolley platform as the primary link to main campus). I believe that is precisely what Senator Marty Block is advocating for on behalf of SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Apr 26, 2015 0:29:28 GMT -8
Alex's stake in the team would likely hit the market shortly after the Chargers moved to LA. What's 35% of an NFL team in LA worth?...$600m?
|
|
|
Post by samurai on Apr 26, 2015 4:25:59 GMT -8
I think its all over for the Chargers in San Diego. Grubman and Fabiani's recent comments prove that. There is simply not enough time for San Diego. The only way they stay is if Faulconer and the county commit political suicide and push through a new stadium without a public vote.
Its time to start creating plans for SDSU to take over the current Qualcomm site.
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on Apr 26, 2015 6:14:07 GMT -8
Years of Spano's lies....
"Don't let the door..."
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 26, 2015 6:58:33 GMT -8
Speaking of Qualcomm Stadium. . . . The general feeling seems to be that the Q is just short of being condemned as a public menace and health hazard. No doubt there is some truth to that. Still, the Q is THERE, for better or worse. It's built and paid for. Therefore . . . A question re Qualcomm: Is there any way that the Q could be saved? That is, are there major modifications that could be made that would, for far less than the cost of a new stadium, make the Q at least adequate? And I do mean major modifications. For instance, someone on one of the Aztec fan sites ounce suggested that the east end expansion be demolished, partially on the grounds that the eastern new stands are sinking and the rest of the stadium is not. (That idea assumes that the Chargers will not longer be playing in Mission Valley.) I have an idea for such a modification, but I need to make a drawing illustrating it. Maybe some of our members could supply drawings of what might be done to change the Q into a real Aztec stadium. If such a project were feasible, I'm sure it would cost only a fraction of what a new stadium could cost. Perhaps 100 million dollars? Still a lot of money, but less than 250 or 300 million. AzWm Yes, the Q is built, but it's not paid for. Yet.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on Apr 26, 2015 7:03:30 GMT -8
I think its all over for the Chargers in San Diego. Grubman and Fabiani's recent comments prove that. There is simply not enough time for San Diego. The only way they stay is if Faulconer and the county commit political suicide and push through a new stadium without a public vote. Its time to start creating plans for SDSU to take over the current Qualcomm site. Again, don't Believe anything Fabiani says. It is meant to get the reaction and action you concluded. I heard the same thing from folks here years ago yet here they are still...
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 26, 2015 7:58:01 GMT -8
I think its all over for the Chargers in San Diego. Grubman and Fabiani's recent comments prove that. There is simply not enough time for San Diego. The only way they stay is if Faulconer and the county commit political suicide and push through a new stadium without a public vote. Its time to start creating plans for SDSU to take over the current Qualcomm site. SDSU already has plans to take over the Q. Just waiting on the Chargers to get off our land. There are many scenarios that could play out for the Chargers. One scenario that would give them more time is if the Rams end up staying in St. Louis after that city bends over backwards to build them another brand new stadium after only 20 years (Edward Jones Dome opened in 1995). I find that so rediculous! So, if the citizens of San Diego fork over $600-$800 million in corporate welfare to build the Chargers a brand new stadium will we be required to do it again in 20 years. "Thank you sir, may I have another!" Wake up San Diego! m.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFLPn30dvQ
|
|
|
Post by kozy on Apr 26, 2015 8:25:00 GMT -8
I am so over the Chargers and corporate greed, Hillary Clinton and corporate greed and Bruce Jenner and fashion greed.
Saw my grandson play baseball and grand daughter play soccer yesterday. Great day and rewarding to the soul. Care about your families and not greedy individuals looking for ways to screw you. Sorry Bruce.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcat on Apr 26, 2015 21:04:44 GMT -8
I don't think the Chargers will ever win a Super Bowl with the Spanos family owning the team. They consistently make bonehead coaching, player and GM decisions and are also cursed. Believe me I know as a lifelong Chargers fan.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Apr 27, 2015 9:29:31 GMT -8
LOL.... You mean, they are telling the stories that the UT and local sports talk won't tell? Hmmm, you mean there are two sides to a story here? Sheesh. Just because you don't like these stories does not mean they are not relevant ... or TRUE. VOSD has been the only rational voice in this city during this entire mess. Everyone else is bending over backwards to appease the Chargers and the NFL. Voice of San Diego is actually asking ... and answering ... the realistic questions. (Except for the Boltman story. I thought that one was idiotic).
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 27, 2015 9:35:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 27, 2015 10:00:46 GMT -8
Hmmm, I think it's very interesting that the NFL's President of Business Ventures thinks the most likely outcome from all this is that the Chargers will move to LA. You'd think he probably has a better feel for the moving pieces than anyone on this board does...
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 27, 2015 10:09:00 GMT -8
Hmmm, I think it's very interesting that the NFL's President of Business Ventures thinks the most likely outcome from all this is that the Chargers will move to LA. You'd think he probably has a better feel for the moving pieces than anyone on this board does... I think what he has a better feel for is for what Goodell, Spanos and 24 votes of team owners are willing to back come hell or high water ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 10:13:19 GMT -8
Hmmm, I think it's very interesting that the NFL's President of Business Ventures thinks the most likely outcome from all this is that the Chargers will move to LA. You'd think he probably has a better feel for the moving pieces than anyone on this board does... Roggin is an LA sports slappy. Grubman, the NFL guy made no such pronouncement. Days since LA last broke ground on a football stadium: 34,095 (93 years, 4 months, and 6 days)
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 27, 2015 10:51:37 GMT -8
Hmmm, I think it's very interesting that the NFL's President of Business Ventures thinks the most likely outcome from all this is that the Chargers will move to LA. You'd think he probably has a better feel for the moving pieces than anyone on this board does... Roggin is an LA sports slappy. Grubman, the NFL guy made no such pronouncement. Days since LA last broke ground on a football stadium: 34,095 (93 years, 4 months, and 6 days)Point 1: Fair enough, I mis-heard at first. Point 2: Increasingly irrelevant... Grubman makes it very clear, IMO, that the NFL very much wants a team in LA. He also heaps tons of praise on Kroenke and the Inglewood option. So I think >50% chance that one happens with the Rams. Raiders? Unclear. Chargers? Unclear. I think either team could move to LA or St. Louis to replace the Rams there. Pretty unlikely, both teams secure stadium deals in their current home areas. One team gets a deal, the other moves to either LA or St. Louis? Hard to bet against that. I think this could drag out in SD for a while longer... no deal being reached, but the Chargers also realizing that Carson isn't a great plan. Could take them a couple seasons to either suck it up and move in with the Rams or take a package of incentives and move to St. Louis.
|
|