|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on May 20, 2015 19:51:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on May 20, 2015 20:39:55 GMT -8
The aztecs need the chargers. It may suck, but its true.
I dont see how state can build a 250 million dollar stadium and buy the qualcomm land.
If the chargers leave, that land will be sold to the highest bidder.
Man it might take years to figure out who has the controlling interest of the property in the first place.
States best bet is to piggy back off the chargers.
The reason that state fails or succeeds is not predicated by the chargers.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on May 20, 2015 21:04:26 GMT -8
The aztecs need the chargers. It may suck, but its true. I dont see how state can build a 250 million dollar stadium and buy the qualcomm land. If the chargers leave, that land will be sold to the highest bidder. Man it might take years to figure out who has the controlling interest of the property in the first place. States best bet is to piggy back off the chargers. The reason that state fails or succeeds is not predicated by the chargers. Can't say that, people on here seem to believe SDSU can afford to take over Qualcomm if the Chargers leave. In reality city isn't going to dump $15 million a year to maintain a stadium in exchange for $500,000 in rent. The SDSU rent portion is an amazing deal right now and in the new proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by Fisher Fanatic on May 20, 2015 21:27:06 GMT -8
The aztecs need a stadium and the Chargers want to build one! Having them leave sounds like the WORST idea. Where would they play? At USD? At a Community college? Or are they going to magically build a stadium, when you assume they can't pay $750k a year!?!? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on May 21, 2015 1:27:37 GMT -8
When you see Dean Spanos enthusiastically endorse the CSAG proposal, let me know. The pro team appears to be poised to move with an announcement at the end of the year or sooner. Then, all hinges on the state buying Q site for expansion of the campus. That, too, is quite problematic, but the best alternative. SDSU keeps saying that there is a plan for the future of Aztec football. I certainly hope they have that ready to announce the day the pro team says adios.
|
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 21, 2015 8:14:47 GMT -8
The new proposed rent basically pushes State admins to sell tickets. The current rent has a $1/ticket sold provision in it. They have NO motivation to sell tickets. With the proposed rent, they will have to get off their asses and work. Not sure why you think that if the Chargers move State has it made. Some think that Hirshman already has $$ pledges to take over the Q site and most people don't think they have a pot to piss in. I guess in time, we might see. From my seat, the best thing the Aztecs could have for them is to ride the Chargers coattails and share their stadium. Advertising will mostly be electronic, as it is in newer stadiums. There's no reason why State can't sell their own advertising, post it during their games, and reap the rewards. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on May 21, 2015 8:15:44 GMT -8
First: SDSU has a lease through the 2018 season to play at Qualcomm. That's still 3 years from now.
Second: Even IF the Chargers leave, the city is not going to turn around and demolish the building. It will take years to sell, entitle, go through environmental review, legal challenges, etc. before the first shovel can hit the ground - much less demo the building. And in that time, the city is not going to just let that building sit idle while they are still paying for it, which they are. So in a worst case scenario, SDSU probably has another 6-8 years to play in what is currently known as Qualcomm Stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on May 21, 2015 8:38:56 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 8:51:21 GMT -8
The new proposed rent basically pushes State admins to sell tickets. The current rent has a $1/ticket sold provision in it. They have NO motivation to sell tickets. With the proposed rent, they will have to get off their asses and work. Not sure why you think that if the Chargers move State has it made. Some think that Hirshman already has $$ pledges to take over the Q site and most people don't think they have a pot to piss in. I guess in time, we might see. From my seat, the best thing the Aztecs could have for them is to ride the Chargers coattails and share their stadium. Advertising will mostly be electronic, as it is in newer stadiums. There's no reason why State can't sell their own advertising, post it during their games, and reap the rewards. There is no guarantee the Chargers will allow the Aztecs to collect advert revenue or anything else. If the Bolts treat the relationship as they have been we'll see no additional revenue. Or did I miss something? I just don't get what makes you think the status qua is good for SDSU...that relationship has helped us get to where we are now...and right now you seem to be pretty disappointed in a program you once supported. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 21, 2015 9:13:42 GMT -8
As I see it, there are at least a few things that we should all agree on.
1. An on-campus stadium owned by the school would be the ideal venue for the long=term survival of the program.
2. There is no denying the fact that building such a stadium would not be easy. Perhaps not even possible (though with enough money, the impossible simply becomes very difficult).
3. While a new stadium suitable for the Chargers would be nifty, it might well end up a net negative for the Aztecs due to much higher rental and parking fees, which would likely necessitate attendance-killing raises of ticket prices. Anyway, other than being new and nifty, a NFL type stadium would not address some of the other Aztec needs.
4. If the Chargers leave town, the Q stays as-is for some years. I have said time and time again, if it means killing Division I FB and greatly harming basketball*, the city is not going to be in a hurry to destroy the county's only large stadium.
5. However, the city might not be willing or able to subsidize the Q forever. Therefore, if the Chargers leave, SDSU needs to have a very well thought-out plan for the future survival of football ready to go.
AzWm
* SDSU would have to find another conference for basketball if there is no football. The only possibility would be the Big West. Those who complained about joining the Big West for basketball should remember their stance on that issue if the football venue issue becomes a crisis.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 21, 2015 9:46:13 GMT -8
As I see it, there are at least a few things that we should all agree on. 1. An on-campus stadium owned by the school would be the ideal venue for the long=term survival of the program. 2. There is no denying the fact that building such a stadium would not be easy. Perhaps not even possible (though with enough money, the impossible simply becomes very difficult). 3. While a new stadium suitable for the Chargers would be nifty, it might well end up a net negative for the Aztecs due to much higher rental and parking fees, which would likely necessitate attendance-killing raises of ticket prices. Anyway, other than being new and nifty, a NFL type stadium would not address some of the other Aztec needs. 4. If the Chargers leave town, the Q stays as-is for some years. I have said time and time again, if it means killing Division I FB and greatly harming basketball*, the city is not going to be in a hurry to destroy the county's only large stadium. 5. However, the city might not be willing or able to subsidize the Q forever. Therefore, if the Chargers leave, SDSU needs to have a very well thought-out plan for the future survival of football ready to go. AzWm * SDSU would have to find another conference for basketball if there is no football. The only possibility would be the Big West. Those who complained about joining the Big West for basketball should remember their stance on that issue if the football venue issue becomes a crisis. Agreed top to bottom and some good people are HIGHLY confident that SDSU leadership has several potential plans ready for #5. I don't have direct access to that info., so it's nothing more than informed speculation... but I'm very comfortable with SDSU's prospects for taking care of the football program if/when the Chargers leave (or if they move downtown, etc). |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 21, 2015 13:24:38 GMT -8
As I see it, there are at least a few things that we should all agree on. 1. An on-campus stadium owned by the school would be the ideal venue for the long=term survival of the program. 2. There is no denying the fact that building such a stadium would not be easy. Perhaps not even possible (though with enough money, the impossible simply becomes very difficult). 3. While a new stadium suitable for the Chargers would be nifty, it might well end up a net negative for the Aztecs due to much higher rental and parking fees, which would likely necessitate attendance-killing raises of ticket prices. Anyway, other than being new and nifty, a NFL type stadium would not address some of the other Aztec needs. 4. If the Chargers leave town, the Q stays as-is for some years. I have said time and time again, if it means killing Division I FB and greatly harming basketball*, the city is not going to be in a hurry to destroy the county's only large stadium. 5. However, the city might not be willing or able to subsidize the Q forever. Therefore, if the Chargers leave, SDSU needs to have a very well thought-out plan for the future survival of football ready to go. AzWm * SDSU would have to find another conference for basketball if there is no football. The only possibility would be the Big West. Those who complained about joining the Big West for basketball should remember their stance on that issue if the football venue issue becomes a crisis. Agreed top to bottom and some good people are HIGHLY confident that SDSU leadership has several potential plans ready for #5. I don't have direct access to that info., so it's nothing more than informed speculation... but I'm very comfortable with SDSU's prospects for taking care of the football program if/when the Chargers leave (or if they move downtown, etc). ====================== I think so, too. The school president, though an academic first and a fan second, would not want a hornets nest of angry alumni/fans on his trail. The AD is not going to want his resume to include a note reporting that it was on his watch that an FBS football program was killed. As for the city, politicians likewise to not want to make enemies unnecessarily. That's why they will not tear down the Q unless it has become absolutely necessary. We know that SDSU has been guaranteed at least five years use of the stadium after a departure by the Chargers. That time limit would no doubt be extended if necessary, though admittedly perhaps not indefinitely. There is more backing for Aztec football than some think. For instance, all those hoops fans who cheered the decision not to join the Big West will understand that cancelling football would mean exactly that unwanted migration. Overall, I suspect that a lot of apathetic fans would come out of the woodwork should the program be seriously threatened. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on May 21, 2015 18:23:19 GMT -8
First: SDSU has a lease through the 2018 season to play at Qualcomm. That's still 3 years from now. Second: Even IF the Chargers leave, the city is not going to turn around and demolish the building. It will take years to sell, entitle, go through environmental review, legal challenges, etc. before the first shovel can hit the ground - much less demo the building. And in that time, the city is not going to just let that building sit idle while they are still paying for it, which they are. So in a worst case scenario, SDSU probably has another 6-8 years to play in what is currently known as Qualcomm Stadium. No, that would be the BEST case scenario. Kinda like having terminal cancer, tell a prospective player that the stadium the team is currently playing in could be toast before he graduates. This is ultimately too many people sitting with their thumb up their ass for too long and now there's nothing left but to wait and see what happens to the future of the NFL in San Diego. And as far as the obstacles you propose, as big rig truckers say, "time is money". Even in San Diego. Now I gotta get back to the San Diego Rockets game.... |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 24, 2015 10:26:54 GMT -8
First: SDSU has a lease through the 2018 season to play at Qualcomm. That's still 3 years from now. Second: Even IF the Chargers leave, the city is not going to turn around and demolish the building. It will take years to sell, entitle, go through environmental review, legal challenges, etc. before the first shovel can hit the ground - much less demo the building. And in that time, the city is not going to just let that building sit idle while they are still paying for it, which they are. So in a worst case scenario, SDSU probably has another 6-8 years to play in what is currently known as Qualcomm Stadium. No, that would be the BEST case scenario. Kinda like having terminal cancer, tell a prospective player that the stadium the team is currently playing in could be toast before he graduates. This is ultimately too many people sitting with their thumb up their ass for too long and now there's nothing left but to wait and see what happens to the future of the NFL in San Diego. And as far as the obstacles you propose, as big rig truckers say, "time is money". Even in San Diego. Now I gotta get back to the San Diego Rockets game.... Allow me to respond. First of all, I do not think the city would be unwilling under any circumstances to grant an extension of a year or two or even three to the five years promised. But let's say they give us another year. So the Chargers leave, let's say after the 2016 season. That would mean that SDSU would have to figure out where to play as of the 2023 season. In other words, the school would have 8 years to implement a stadium project, whatever that might be. Here's the thing; SDSU needs to have a plan for a new Aztec football venue pretty much ready right now! It's no good to dither while the Spanoses decide where they can make the most money. Something this critical has to be anticipated well in advance of what has to be considered a possible event. As for building a new stadium or renovating the Q (should the Chargers leave SD), I wonder if what Cal State Fullerton did to finance its on-campus stadium might be a possibility for SDSU. Fullerton allowed a private company (can't remember which) to build a hotel on campus if it would finance (partially?) a stadium. The result was a football stadium seating 10,000 (expandable to 30,000) which was finished just about the same time that the Titan FB was given the ax!  Let's say that SDSU takes control of the current Q site, perhaps a 100 year lease. Would it be practical to grant private firms the right to use part of the property for development in exchange for a big chunk of the money needed to replace the Q? Maybe a portion of the land could also be reserved for some campus expansion. I'm no expert is this, but I wonder if some creative people who are exerts might be able to work out a plan that includes a new stadium, some campus expansion, plus some private development that would defray a lot of the cost of the whole project. Clearly, if such a plan were found to be feasible, it would not pay the entire bill. However, a 50 million dollar contribution (just a guess)by developers would go a long way. There are not as many super rich folks (if any) in San Diego as in other areas. But there are people with a lot of money. If a new stadium project were announced, and private developers were scheduled to contribute a big down payment, may those local rich folks could open their wallets. Fifty of those contributing a million each would go a long way. Small contributions could provide the rest. Hey, let's think big! AzWm |
|
