|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on May 22, 2015 6:47:50 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 7:14:45 GMT -8
Keep in mind rent isn't just going up. A new stadium is a marketing opportunity for the school. There will be an entire market of folks that want to come experience the new stadium that can't afford Charger tickets. The other opportunity is for SDSU to finally capture advertising revenue. The new stadium will be equipped with electronic signage, unlike the static signage at the Q which is static and controlled by the Chargers.
There's just way too much negativity around this discussion coming from Aztec fans. When the "nightmare" scenario envisioned is that your team will be "forced" to play in the nicest, most expensive stadium of any college team in the country, all logic has been abandoned and emotion has taken over. This is especially true when the "alternative","A Stadium Of Our Very Own!"....sigh..... is nothing but pure fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on May 22, 2015 7:27:05 GMT -8
Keep in mind rent isn't just going up. A new stadium is a marketing opportunity for the school. There will be an entire market of folks that want to come experience the new stadium that can't afford Charger tickets. The other opportunity is for SDSU to finally capture advertising revenue. The new stadium will be equipped with electronic signage, unlike the static signage at the Q which is static and controlled by the Chargers. There's just way too much negativity around this discussion coming from Aztec fans. When the "nightmare" scenario envisioned is that your team will be "forced" to play in the nicest, most expensive stadium of any college team in the country, all logic has been abandoned and emotion has taken over. This is especially true when the "alternative","A Stadium Of Our Very Own!"....sigh..... is nothing but pure fantasy. A SDSU only stadium is no less a fantasy than the Chargers trying to get 2/3 of the people to vote to fund a new stadium for a billionaire who sucks money from the San Diego economy...good luck with that... Let's put it to a vote this November...so we can start backing up the moving vans as soon as the Chargers miss the payoffs |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 22, 2015 7:36:19 GMT -8
Keep in mind rent isn't just going up. A new stadium is a marketing opportunity for the school. There will be an entire market of folks that want to come experience the new stadium that can't afford Charger tickets. The other opportunity is for SDSU to finally capture advertising revenue. The new stadium will be equipped with electronic signage, unlike the static signage at the Q which is static and controlled by the Chargers. There's just way too much negativity around this discussion coming from Aztec fans. When the "nightmare" scenario envisioned is that your team will be "forced" to play in the nicest, most expensive stadium of any college team in the country, all logic has been abandoned and emotion has taken over. This is especially true when the "alternative","A Stadium Of Our Very Own!"....sigh..... is nothing but pure fantasy. A SDSU only stadium is no less a fantasy than the Chargers trying to get 2/3 of the people to vote to fund a new stadium for a billionaire who sucks money from the San Diego economy...good luck with that... Let's put it to a vote this November...so we can start backing up the moving vans as soon as the Chargers miss the payoffs There will be no 2/3 vote. There never would be. Why even bring it up? The proposal the CSAG put together does not even require a vote, though the City and County will still likely have one (50%+1). |
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 22, 2015 7:41:16 GMT -8
Ziegler really didn't pay attention to the proposal.
As rebar stated, there would not be a 2/3 vote required.
and
as noted in a nother thread you started, most, if not all the advertising and colors in the stadium would be electronic bans similar to what Petco added recently, where the Aztecs could sell their own advertising and the Chargers their own and they can be changed at the flip of a switch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on May 22, 2015 7:49:44 GMT -8
A SDSU only stadium is no less a fantasy than the Chargers trying to get 2/3 of the people to vote to fund a new stadium for a billionaire who sucks money from the San Diego economy...good luck with that... Let's put it to a vote this November...so we can start backing up the moving vans as soon as the Chargers miss the payoffs There will be no 2/3 vote. There never would be. Why even bring it up? The proposal the CSAG put together does not even require a vote, though the City and County will still likely have one (50%+1). I see...it's the perfect political scam... Divert money from the general fund to pay for a stadium that only Charger fans want without a tax increase or vote ($121M to start...plus all of the infrastructure improvements...plus annual maintenance)...then raise taxes for the citizens when the general fund doesn't have enough money to pay for the basic services the city is suppose to provide to its citizens...brilliant! It's a shell game... |
|
|
|
Post by robthevol on May 22, 2015 7:54:03 GMT -8
Agreed with most of these comments. As Rocky Long and other coaches mentioned, "coming to San Diego and playing in an NFL stadium was a thrill". for not only the visiting teams but was a recruiting asset.
The increase in rent will be more than offset with the marketing opportunities.
A stadium like this is a real consideration for the Big12.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 22, 2015 8:10:02 GMT -8
Keep in mind rent isn't just going up. A new stadium is a marketing opportunity for the school. There will be an entire market of folks that want to come experience the new stadium that can't afford Charger tickets. The other opportunity is for SDSU to finally capture advertising revenue. The new stadium will be equipped with electronic signage, unlike the static signage at the Q which is static and controlled by the Chargers. There's just way too much negativity around this discussion coming from Aztec fans. When the "nightmare" scenario envisioned is that your team will be "forced" to play in the nicest, most expensive stadium of any college team in the country, all logic has been abandoned and emotion has taken over. This is especially true when the "alternative","A Stadium Of Our Very Own!"....sigh..... is nothing but pure fantasy. A SDSU only stadium is no less a fantasy than the Chargers trying to get 2/3 of the people to vote to fund a new stadium for a billionaire who sucks money from the San Diego economy...good luck with that... Let's put it to a vote this November...so we can start backing up the moving vans as soon as the Chargers miss the payoffs A 2/3 vote at this point is not required. However, there will be a vote that will require 51% of the vote at minimum. I don't believe 51% of the voters in San Diego will even approve the current CSAG proposal. If, and it is a BIG IF, the city/Chargers/NFL even come to an agreement I can guarantee you the public contribution will be even more than what is in the CSAG proposal. The stadium is DOA. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 22, 2015 8:31:15 GMT -8
"President Elliot Hirshman and athletic director Jim Sterk both declined comment through a spokesman, who instead issued a three-paragraph statement" Sounds like resounding support for the stadium doesn't it.  |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 22, 2015 8:31:42 GMT -8
There will be no 2/3 vote. There never would be. Why even bring it up? Maybe because Fabiani told the Task Force not to try to get around the 2/3rd vote. The following is from Fabiani's letter to the Task Force in February: •The third principle: Any proposal that emerges from the work of your Task Force should be subjected to serious, real world stress tests. In particular, any Task Force proposal should pass each of the following three real world tests: ◦First, is the proposal one that has a strong chance of being approved by two-thirds of the voters?
◦As you commence your work, you will find yourselves again and again running squarely into the California Constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement.
◦The City of San Diego has just wasted five years and many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement with an illegal Convention Center expansion tax.
◦The Chargers have no interest in participating in another half- baked scheme to attempt to get around the two-thirds rule.
◦If the funding mechanisms that this Task Force considers cannot win two-thirds approval, when such approval is required by the California Constitution, then they should not be part of your final recommendations.
I agree there won't be a 2/3rds vote...because this thing isn't even going to make it on the ballot. If the Chargers are demanding a vote of the public and a 2/3rds vote at that do you really think they want to be here? |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 22, 2015 8:38:34 GMT -8
There will be no 2/3 vote. There never would be. Why even bring it up? Maybe because Fabiani told the Task Force not to try to get around the 2/3rd vote. The following is from Fabiani's letter to the Task Force in February: •The third principle: Any proposal that emerges from the work of your Task Force should be subjected to serious, real world stress tests. In particular, any Task Force proposal should pass each of the following three real world tests: ◦First, is the proposal one that has a strong chance of being approved by two-thirds of the voters?
◦As you commence your work, you will find yourselves again and again running squarely into the California Constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement.
◦The City of San Diego has just wasted five years and many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement with an illegal Convention Center expansion tax.
◦The Chargers have no interest in participating in another half- baked scheme to attempt to get around the two-thirds rule.
◦If the funding mechanisms that this Task Force considers cannot win two-thirds approval, when such approval is required by the California Constitution, then they should not be part of your final recommendations.
I agree there won't be a 2/3rds vote...because this thing isn't even going to make it on the ballot. If the Chargers are demanding a vote of the public and a 2/3rds vote at that do you really think they want to be here? I agree; I don't believe the Chargers/City will come to terms. However, IF they do it will not require a 2/3 vote unless a new tax is required. That is not part of the current proposal. However, IF there is a vote it will require a 51% voter approval. And guess what... they ain't gonna even get close to 51%. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 8:39:43 GMT -8
Do the people who keep acting like the Chargers are so swell toward SDSU and our Aztecs know that we aren't currently collecting revenue from parking or concessions at our FB games...because of the Chargers. Do you guys think they will suddenly start treating us differently? I don't get it? Marketing opportunities? Why so the Chargers can collect more revenue when we play in their stadium?
I don't want the Chargers to leave town, but I'm not going to pretend like the Chargers are eager to help us be successful in THEIR new stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 22, 2015 8:44:19 GMT -8
This is all conjecture as to what the Aztecs will receive once negotiations between the City / County & the Chargers are concluded.
There is nothing to stop the Chargers from demanding all stadium advertising and other venue related revenue streams (the way it is now) during those negotiations and that those revenue streams should be considered part of the teams' contribution to stadium construction.
The NFL has already declared that any surcharges for tickets or parking would be considered part of the teams contribution -- meaning that line item in the CSAG report would shift from a City contribution to part of the Chargers $300M. That could easily extend to the Aztecs in 1 of 3 ways -- surcharges on Aztecs tickets & parking apply to the Chargers construction contribution, the City's construction contribution or the Aztecs Rent. Either way, the Aztecs will not be making any income from the stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 22, 2015 8:55:29 GMT -8
Did the financial proposal change to 1.5M? I thought it was 1.25?
If we were locked into that for long-term, I just hope that would allow us advertising revenue opportunities, concessions, and the stadium would be properly maintained, at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 22, 2015 9:06:38 GMT -8
Did the financial proposal change to 1.5M? I thought it was 1.25? If we were locked into that for long-term, I just hope that would allow us advertising revenue opportunities, concessions, and the stadium would be properly maintained, at least. according to the original release, the amount expected from the Aztecs is $1.25M -- but as of yet, no funding source has been identified for stadium maintenance ... everything in the CSAG proposal only relates to construction of the Stadium and Parking structure. Nothing has been identified as a funding source for improving the surrounding infrastructure, the creation of the 25 acre river park, repayment of the outstanding expansion bonds from the Q or future maintenance of the new stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 22, 2015 9:20:48 GMT -8
Did the financial proposal change to 1.5M? I thought it was 1.25? If we were locked into that for long-term, I just hope that would allow us advertising revenue opportunities, concessions, and the stadium would be properly maintained, at least. according to the original release, the amount expected from the Aztecs is $1.25M -- but as of yet, no funding source has been identified for stadium maintenance ... everything in the CSAG proposal only relates to construction of the Stadium and Parking structure. Nothing has been identified as a funding source for improving the surrounding infrastructure, the creation of the 25 acre river park, repayment of the outstanding expansion bonds from the Q or future maintenance of the new stadium. Huh, I thought the $1B covered demo/site prep and infrastructure. $1B for materials and labor? That seems steep for an open top stadium, even with the CA premium. |
|
|
|
Post by wayno503 on May 22, 2015 9:31:04 GMT -8
Everybody on here always says they want SDSU to be treated like a major power. Well let's start proving it. Of course the rent is going to increase. But now with the advent of electronic signage, SDSU needs the opportunity to create revenue streams and its own identity at the new stadium. It's a tremendous opportunity. I have come around that we're never going to get our own stadium. Well to me, this is the next best thing. There will be some people who can't afford Chargers tickets who will check out an Aztec game just to see the new digs. We better win!!!
I think SDSU alums and leaders should try to not only exact influence on the Chargers for what they want out of the new stadium but also the city and county who will be footing a lot of the bill. If we get our act together we may have more leverage than you might think.
But yes, rent and tickets and parking will be going up. Don't be shocked when this happens. Hopefully the $11 dollar beers will suffice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 10:23:47 GMT -8
Everybody on here always says they want SDSU to be treated like a major power. Well let's start proving it. Of course the rent is going to increase. But now with the advent of electronic signage, SDSU needs the opportunity to create revenue streams and its own identity at the new stadium. It's a tremendous opportunity. I have come around that we're never going to get our own stadium. Well to me, this is the next best thing. There will be some people who can't afford Chargers tickets who will check out an Aztec game just to see the new digs. We better win!!! I think SDSU alums and leaders should try to not only exact influence on the Chargers for what they want out of the new stadium but also the city and county who will be footing a lot of the bill. If we get our act together we may have more leverage than you might think. But yes, rent and tickets and parking will be going up. Don't be shocked when this happens. Hopefully the $11 dollar beers will suffice. You're not paying attention...if you were you would know we currently don't make advert, concession, or parking revenue and the new stadium proposal does not specifically address that issue. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 22, 2015 10:30:51 GMT -8
Jim Steeg said that SDSU would be able to make money off the electronic advertising in a new stadium. That's in the CSAG proposal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 10:33:45 GMT -8
Jim Steeg said that SDSU would be able to make money off the electronic advertising in a new stadium. That's in the CSAG proposal. My impression was that it was"negotiable". And what about parking and concessions for our games? Like I said previously, if this is "negotiable", and the Chargers previously wouldn't allow us to collect any of that revenue why should SDSU supports believe that will change? |
|
