Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 10:23:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 19, 2015 10:32:23 GMT -8
The only realistic ways SDSU could afford to increase its annual "rental" fee from about $500K to $1.2M are (1) to gain membership to the B12 or (2) to become part of a best of the rest conference. The former would mean we could pay $10.2M per year and still have a surplus but the chances of it happening any time in the next decade are nil. The latter possibility frankly depends very much on SDSU itself. I see no reason Hirshman and Sterk shouldn't at least be speaking with BYU and Fresno State about their possible interest. That said, it was reported by Scott Kaplan yesterday that a source he spoke with within the Chargers organization said the CSAG report was DOA as far as the Spanoi were concerned. Combine that with yesterday's announcement the Chargers and Raiders have hired Carmen Policy to be their spokesman in pushing for NFL acceptance of a Carson stadium and the conclusion to be reached is the Chargers are going to play hardball with Faulconer's folks. The CSAG expects the Aztecs can make a lot more money from advertising in the new facility and recommended the City renegotiate with SDSU so that they could do so. This would cover the additional rental cost and hopefully beyond that amount. The DOA "source" is dubious at best and Kaplan stated as much. The Chargers have to continue to go through the motions of Carson even though it is clearly a farce.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 19, 2015 10:44:03 GMT -8
I agree. Its pretty sad. No matter what goes there, there will be lawsuits. This is how lawyers operate, sue to generate income. What the mass amounts of torts do is take away from the suits that have merit. but, alas, there will be a vote and it will only be a simple majority, and it will pass. The proof is in the pudding. The chargers ticket sales have gone up this year. And if all that you say is correct, how much higher will Aztec ticket prices and parking fees rise? If too much, and if some sort of PSL is involved, the Aztec fan base will take a huge hit. AzWm What I recall from Adam Day is that they recommend $2 per ticket surcharge and $3 parking surcharge for SDSU FB games. The surcharge is less for SDSU than Charger games. My numbers may not be exact, but are within a buck. No psl for SDSU tix. What makes the Aztec fan base take a huge hit is losing to Navy on our home field, but thats another subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 11:11:11 GMT -8
Well, so much for coming to this site to get some thoughtful feedback and ideas from people who have an SDSU bias. Oh, thank you for saying that. Of the fifty thousand words in the first five pages of this thread, (giving up) twelve or thirteen refer to the Aztecs. I apologize to fellow Aztecs who like the Chargers, but who cares what they do?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on May 19, 2015 11:34:05 GMT -8
If this goes through, the Aztecs need a really big year in their first in the new stadium. The Padres drew 3 million fans in their first Petco Park season. The first Aztec season in the new digs will draw many many more fans than before or after unless we really impress and gain fans that will attend after that first season. I can't wait for that first game in the new stadium. The current stadium makes Aztecs home football games a very bad experience. This will be similar to the difference that Viejas Arena makes for basketball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 12:09:53 GMT -8
If this goes through, the Aztecs need a really big year in their first in the new stadium. The Padres drew 3 million fans in their first Petco Park season. The first Aztec season in the new digs will draw many many more fans than before or after unless we really impress and gain fans that will attend after that first season.
I can't wait for that first game in the new stadium. The current stadium makes Aztecs home football games a very bad experience. This will be similar to the difference that Viejas Arena makes for basketball. Games against Wyomong just aren't gonna draw. No matter if you build Jerry's World.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on May 19, 2015 12:25:58 GMT -8
If this goes through, the Aztecs need a really big year in their first in the new stadium. The Padres drew 3 million fans in their first Petco Park season. The first Aztec season in the new digs will draw many many more fans than before or after unless we really impress and gain fans that will attend after that first season.
I can't wait for that first game in the new stadium. The current stadium makes Aztecs home football games a very bad experience. This will be similar to the difference that Viejas Arena makes for basketball. Games against Wyomong just aren't gonna draw. No matter if you build Jerry's World. Or Utah St. Or UNM. Or UNLV. Or San Jose St.
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on May 19, 2015 13:00:30 GMT -8
If this goes through, the Aztecs need a really big year in their first in the new stadium. The Padres drew 3 million fans in their first Petco Park season. The first Aztec season in the new digs will draw many many more fans than before or after unless we really impress and gain fans that will attend after that first season.
I can't wait for that first game in the new stadium. The current stadium makes Aztecs home football games a very bad experience. This will be similar to the difference that Viejas Arena makes for basketball. Games against Wyomong just aren't gonna draw. No matter if you build Jerry's World. Well, the only OOC game set for 2020 is against UCLA so that would be a good start.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 13:20:18 GMT -8
Games against Wyomong just aren't gonna draw. No matter if you build Jerry's World. Well, the only OOC game set for 2020 is against UCLA so that would be a good start. lol, now if we can only weasel our way out of that 8 game G5 conference schedule.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbb on May 19, 2015 13:23:03 GMT -8
Looking at the CSAG proposal on the surface, it seems like a better deal for the city than the Chargers so I think there are tough negotiations ahead and I think the CSAG did a smart thing by have $300M of wiggle room in their proposal because the Chargers are going to balk at some of the things on the proposal. But the Chargers ultimately have nowhere else to go. Carson is a joke and being Kroenke's tenant isn't a winning proposal for them so I think they have no choice but to hammer out a deal with the city. Regardless of the board, this is ultimately about the Chargers. Reviewing the proposal this appears to be the first viable idea that has surfaced. But it's a proposal in its earliest of stages. Yes, there's still a lot that would have to be hammered out, including dealing with the inevitable lawsuits if this proposal actually gains some serious traction. After all, this IS San Diego. Regarding SDSU, they have little if any leverage in this deal. They've done nothing to deserve it. If there is going to be a public vote , SDSU with its influence and numerous alumni will have tremendous leverage.
|
|
|
Post by aztec92 on May 19, 2015 14:25:45 GMT -8
Forgive me if this has been asked already, but if the do build this stadium where are the Aztecs (and Chargers) going to play while they build it? I assume they can't tear down the old Q and build the new one in ~7 months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 14:57:10 GMT -8
Forgive me if this has been asked already, but if the do build this stadium where are the Aztecs (and Chargers) going to play while they build it? I assume they can't tear down the old Q and build the new one in ~7 months. The new stadium will be built on another spot on the property. some of the early watercolors show the location in the Northwest corner of the property. The renderings from yesterday showed a location in the northeast corner, across Friars from the tank farm.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on May 19, 2015 15:05:42 GMT -8
I agree. Its pretty sad. No matter what goes there, there will be lawsuits. This is how lawyers operate, sue to generate income. What the mass amounts of torts do is take away from the suits that have merit. but, alas, there will be a vote and it will only be a simple majority, and it will pass. The proof is in the pudding. The chargers ticket sales have gone up this year. And if all that you say is correct, how much higher will Aztec ticket prices and parking fees rise? If too much, and if some sort of PSL is involved, the Aztec fan base will take a huge hit. AzWm In researching PSL it seems they give the license holder the rights to that seat for all events at the venue. That would mean some Charger fan could decide to take over my very desirable club level Aztec season tickets. That takes away a lot of the benefits of maintaining season seats.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 19, 2015 16:04:54 GMT -8
And if all that you say is correct, how much higher will Aztec ticket prices and parking fees rise? If too much, and if some sort of PSL is involved, the Aztec fan base will take a huge hit. AzWm In researching PSL it seems they give the license holder the rights to that seat for all events at the venue. That would mean some Charger fan could decide to take over my very desirable club level Aztec season tickets. That takes away a lot of the benefits of maintaining season seats. And if that's the case then there is no way on earth SDSU should share a stadium with the Chargers with that proviso.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 16:09:42 GMT -8
Forgive me if this has been asked already, but if the do build this stadium where are the Aztecs (and Chargers) going to play while they build it? I assume they can't tear down the old Q and build the new one in ~7 months. The new stadium will be built on another spot on the property. some of the early watercolors show the location in the Northwest corner of the property. The renderings from yesterday showed a location in the northeast corner, across Friars from the tank farm. I have been wondering about aztec92's question myself. It appears to me that attending games during construction may not be an enjoyable experience. I think we'll be taking the trolley from a nearby trolley stop/parking lot. (We already do that for hoops.)
It is very disappointing to think that a new "Chargers" stadium is considered more important than an expansion of SDSU. And, by the way, when have the execs at the university ever said that a hypothetical West Campus would be anything other than a boon to the school? If the Chargers get they new playpen, it will mean that a marvelous chance to enhance our alma mater will be gone forever. I am not an Occupy Wall Street nutcase, but that does not mean that I like how those with huge resources sometimes strong arm government to get their way. On the other hand, those in government are all too eager to oblige the ultra-rich.
To quote myself; "It's an imperfect world we live in."
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 19, 2015 16:23:46 GMT -8
And if all that you say is correct, how much higher will Aztec ticket prices and parking fees rise? If too much, and if some sort of PSL is involved, the Aztec fan base will take a huge hit. AzWm In researching PSL it seems they give the license holder the rights to that seat for all events at the venue. That would mean some Charger fan could decide to take over my very desirable club level Aztec season tickets. That takes away a lot of the benefits of maintaining season seats. That does not sound correct to me. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that Chargers season ticket holders, presumably all of whom will have paid for PSLs, would be able to attend Aztec home games without paying an extra cent? How many season ticket holders do the Chargers have? I tried to find that figure on the Internet; the most recent item on that came from 2013. at which time the UT stated that the Chargers had 46,000 season ticket holders (down from 62,000 in 2006). Okay, does what you say mean that the Aztecs would be unable to sell season tickets for the 46,000 seats belonging to Charger season ticket holders? That simply cannot be corrrect! AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 16:39:24 GMT -8
If this goes through, the Aztecs need a really big year in their first in the new stadium. The Padres drew 3 million fans in their first Petco Park season. The first Aztec season in the new digs will draw many many more fans than before or after unless we really impress and gain fans that will attend after that first season.
I can't wait for that first game in the new stadium. The current stadium makes Aztecs home football games a very bad experience. This will be similar to the difference that Viejas Arena makes for basketball. Games against Wyomong just aren't gonna draw. No matter if you build Jerry's World. I would definitely go watch Aztecs games in a new stadium. I couldn't afford PSLs and season tickets for the Chargers but I would likely check out a game or two a year and a few more from the Aztecs since they would be much more affordable, compared to now where I don't go to any games at all. But yes, fielding a better program and a better schedule would generate much more interest as well.
|
|
|
Post by OldSlowWhiteBaller on May 19, 2015 16:51:33 GMT -8
And where do your numbers come from? As far as my statement goes I am repeating exactly what Day said at the conference. Complain to him, not me. Quit complicating the issue with facts. Don't run and hide just because the nay sayers say"IM gonna file a lawsuit"
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 19, 2015 16:55:01 GMT -8
I'll ask again, why couldn't SDSU be the ones to purchase the 75 acres of land and build the campus expansion and play in the new stadium with the Chargers?
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on May 19, 2015 17:09:43 GMT -8
Dean Spanos stepping down so he will be focusing on the stadium issue. I take this as a good thing as far as getting the stadium deal done. Fabiani released a very concise statement saying that their experts and lawyers will be looking at the proposal very closely. To my surprise, he didn't shoot it down. No surprise on Fabiani to me. He hasn't said any negative comments about S.D in over a month He's welcomed further conversations and working with the lawyers/stadium folk that the City/County has hired. Whether his demeanor change has been by his own decision or by Spanos, shows that they haven't reserved the moving vans, let alone loaded them up. He's never proven to be truthful or transparent, I won't wait on the edge of my seat for his response after they've read it.
|
|