|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2015 13:09:00 GMT -8
A 12,000 space parking structure? That's more parking than I thought there would be. It will be interesting to see where all the RV's will be.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 18, 2015 13:09:44 GMT -8
I'm not sure how may people went to the University of the San Diego Chargers. But what % of those who did go to State really give a $#!+? Attendance at the Q shows, not nearly enough. Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by goaztecs on May 18, 2015 13:09:58 GMT -8
They want us to pay 1.25 mil in rent compared to the 500K we are paying now. An additional 750K a year is a huge increase for us.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 18, 2015 13:10:12 GMT -8
A 12,000 space parking structure? That's more parking than I thought there would be. It will be interesting to see where all the RV's will be. He didn't say there wouldn't be flat parking as well.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2015 13:11:41 GMT -8
They want us to pay 1.25 mil in rent compared to the 500K we are paying now. An additional 750K a year is a huge increase for us. I'm under the impression that the Aztecs will still pay a ticket surcharge PLUS a substantial rent increase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 13:11:50 GMT -8
I'm not sure how may people went to the University of the San Diego Chargers. So, in your mind, you have to attend to be a fan?
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 18, 2015 13:12:01 GMT -8
It strikes me as an excellent move since Dean Spanos has become such a laughingstock his sons couldn't possibly be worse. And if the guys are politically savvy, the first thing they'll do is replace Fibiani with a spokesman not detested by 90% of San Diego football fans.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2015 13:13:18 GMT -8
A 12,000 space parking structure? That's more parking than I thought there would be. It will be interesting to see where all the RV's will be. He didn't say there wouldn't be flat parking as well. I think with the development around the stadium, he was inferring the only parking will be the parking structure.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 18, 2015 13:13:40 GMT -8
"[The] financing plan, created by Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s stadium task force, includes $200 million from the NFL, $300 million from the Chargers and another $300 million in rent payments from the team over the next 30 years — $10 million per year." There is so much wrong with this plan I don't know where to begin -- but the things that stand out for me: How similar this is to the Petco deal in that the General Fund will be used both to guarantee the bonds and to backstop shortfalls in revenue (this time for much more than $275M). The Sale of 75 acres for $225M to developers based on the preposition of relaxed zoning seems problematic as well as the creation of an infrastructure enhancement zone to capture additional taxes to pay for highway and street improvements that have not been included in this estimate. They are trying to avoid a public vote by trying to keep the sale below 80 acres ... not sure that will be successful. I see they did not include the repayment costs of the present stadium bond obligations and back rent owed to the Water Authority or the cost to purchase Water Authority property from that agency in order to be included in a sale to the developers. You keep bringing up the enhancement of the infrastructure but as Day indicated, the new stadium would be smaller than the current stadium. 70k down to 65k. As noted, maybe that sale of 75 acres will be to SDSU. Will you bitch about this if that's the case? Ya act like this is coming out of your moth encrusted wallet.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 18, 2015 13:15:08 GMT -8
They want us to pay 1.25 mil in rent compared to the 500K we are paying now. An additional 750K a year is a huge increase for us. Kind of like the recent increase in basketball season tickets and mandatory donations isn't it? Costs go up, prices go up.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 18, 2015 13:16:36 GMT -8
He didn't say there wouldn't be flat parking as well. I think with the development around the stadium, he was inferring the only parking will be the parking structure. I didn't take it that way as he indicated there would be plenty of space for tailgating. The riverfront alone wouldn't cover that. Do you have a RV?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 13:16:49 GMT -8
They want us to pay 1.25 mil in rent compared to the 500K we are paying now. An additional 750K a year is a huge increase for us. Kind of like the recent increase in basketball season tickets and mandatory donations isn't it? Costs go up, prices go up. apples // oranges
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 13:18:02 GMT -8
Who here is a ticket "broker"?
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 18, 2015 13:18:57 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.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2015 13:19:47 GMT -8
I think with the development around the stadium, he was inferring the only parking will be the parking structure. I didn't take it that way as he indicated there would be plenty of space for tailgating. The riverfront alone wouldn't cover that. Do you have a RV? Lots of "tailgating" goes on out of a pick-up or the trunk of a car. You don't see any RV's in Tailgate Park downtown. Oh, and no, I don't own an RV.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 18, 2015 13:20:19 GMT -8
Kind of like the recent increase in basketball season tickets and mandatory donations isn't it? Costs go up, prices go up. apples // oranges Really? Did you not expect STate to have to pay more than they've been paying for years? Win, play exciting football, put butts in seats and there wouldn't be a problem would there? If State doesn't like the proposal then they can build their own stadium with all that money that some seem to believe they can raise or have.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 18, 2015 13:22:18 GMT -8
I didn't take it that way as he indicated there would be plenty of space for tailgating. The riverfront alone wouldn't cover that. Do you have a RV? Lots of "tailgating" goes on out of a pick-up or the trunk of a car. You don't see any RV's in Tailgate Park downtown. Oh, and no, I don't own an RV. So why are you concerned about all the RV owners?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 13:23:26 GMT -8
Really? Did you not expect STate to have to pay more than they've been paying for years? Win, play exciting football, put butts in seats and there wouldn't be a problem would there? If State doesn't like the proposal then they can build their own stadium with all that money that some seem to believe they can raise or have. If you can't see the obvious differences between Viejas and a shared stadium with the Chargers I can't help you. It's clear you have a personal stake in the matter driving your opinion anyway. You don't seem to be evaluating much, just rushing to defend a proposal that was released not but an hour ago.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 18, 2015 13:24:29 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.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 18, 2015 13:25:24 GMT -8
"[The] financing plan, created by Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s stadium task force, includes $200 million from the NFL, $300 million from the Chargers and another $300 million in rent payments from the team over the next 30 years — $10 million per year." There is so much wrong with this plan I don't know where to begin -- but the things that stand out for me: How similar this is to the Petco deal in that the General Fund will be used both to guarantee the bonds and to backstop shortfalls in revenue (this time for much more than $275M). The Sale of 75 acres for $225M to developers based on the preposition of relaxed zoning seems problematic as well as the creation of an infrastructure enhancement zone to capture additional taxes to pay for highway and street improvements that have not been included in this estimate. They are trying to avoid a public vote by trying to keep the sale below 80 acres ... not sure that will be successful. I see they did not include the repayment costs of the present stadium bond obligations and back rent owed to the Water Authority or the cost to purchase Water Authority property from that agency in order to be included in a sale to the developers. Day did say they were conservative in their estimates, overstating costs and understating revenue. The deal isn't a bad one for the city or county. It doesn't, on the surface, look as good for the team as other cities have done. Having read through the 42 pages just now -- I will actually say that the CSAG has done just the opposite ... they have overstated revenue and understated costs.These facts will bear themselves out as the negotiations begin giving more detail to who contributes how much exactly, and who is responsible for cost overruns / revenue shortfalls. For instance: Should the 75 acres sell for just $1M per acre instead of the estimated $3M would be a difference of $150M. If PSLs generate less than $120M -- will the City still get it's full $60M share for stadium funding or will the City and Chargers split whatever PSLs raise 50/50? If the County decides that their $120M is a loan -- who is paying them back? If it's not a loan, does it require a vote to use county funds for a sports franchise? If the Aztecs, Bowl Games and other events cease to use the stadium short of the predicted 30 year estimate, where will the money come from to cover those costs?
|
|