|
Post by ab on May 23, 2015 7:09:21 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. Stadium Maintenance dollars should be far less on a new stadium than what the City is currently paying to "maintain" the Q. the $ is currently coming from some pot now so it's safe to assume it would be from the same pot then, just LESS money.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 23, 2015 7:13:10 GMT -8
Why can't we just let the people vote on whether or not they want their tax money to go to building a stadium for billionaires... Don't let any issues with SDSU football cloud the issue... It's very simple...just let the people vote on the city build a new stadium (I say sooner the better)...what's wrong with that concept?... How much are you going to open your wallet up to build a SDSU only stadium? The admins had to beg for $14 mill for the jam center so where do you think the $200 million is going to come from? Hirshman's slush fund? Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 23, 2015 8:28:03 GMT -8
Why can't we just let the people vote on whether or not they want their tax money to go to building a stadium for billionaires... Don't let any issues with SDSU football cloud the issue... It's very simple...just let the people vote on the city build a new stadium (I say sooner the better)...what's wrong with that concept?... How much are you going to open your wallet up to build a SDSU only stadium? The admins had to beg for $14 mill for the jam center so where do you think the $200 million is going to come from? Hirshman's slush fund? Be careful what you wish for. I think "beg" is a loaded term. It is a capital project that didn't need a comprehensive financial scheme. If (huge if) it came down to SDSU having to fund it's own stadium, it would look closer to a model of funding of the Charger stadium than the JAM. Meaning more than "begging" for the total cost from the donors. I also think a needed stadium (if Charger stadium doesn't work/Bolts leave) would be a more attractive sell than a BB practice facility.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 23, 2015 9:08:56 GMT -8
Because with that "couple hundred mil" SDSU would be more than halfway to building their own stadium on campus (one of the sites already identified in the present campus area). Throwing what would amount to chump change into a Chargers' stadium would garner absolutely zero influence and would be a colossal waste of money and total leadership failure. Very glad you're not calling the shots in the administration. It would put SDSU in the game as a 20% equity stake holder in a 5-way deal with the city, county, Chargers and NFL. Not chump change, LEVERAGE. But I agree, a mythical stadium, built on mythical land is a better allocation of mythical resources. 5-way deal? Nonsense. Any stadium for the Chargers will be a 2-party deal... the city and the team. Period. The NFL stake comes directly in support of the team and any support from the county comes through the city. And you math adds up to a $1bil pricetag, and we all know that the true cost will be more like $1.6bil. SDSU would have no reasonable "equity" at all, investing money into the stadium is absolutely one of the stupidest suggestions I've ever heard. Now, if you're suggesting that SDSU use its $200mil to purchase the 75 acres, then we agree... that would be a good use of SDSU's resources... for the land upon which to develop a west campus expansion, not for "equity" in a stadium. But you aren't saying anything about that.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on May 23, 2015 9:16:16 GMT -8
SDSU administrators gave CSAG a list of items that would make a $1.25 annual rent palatable. Items included things already discussed in this thread like advertising and concessions revenue. It also included branding throughout the stadium, our own SDSU locker rooms, access to some of the top end suites, etc. that's all part of what CSAG is recommending the city negotiate with the university. Will the Chargers be ok with that? Yet to be seen. But I like that we aren't just sitting back and letting them dictate.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on May 23, 2015 9:34:10 GMT -8
Why can't we just let the people vote on whether or not they want their tax money to go to building a stadium for billionaires... Don't let any issues with SDSU football cloud the issue... It's very simple...just let the people vote on the city build a new stadium (I say sooner the better)...what's wrong with that concept?... How much are you going to open your wallet up to build a SDSU only stadium? The admins had to beg for $14 mill for the jam center so where do you think the $200 million is going to come from? Hirshman's slush fund? Be careful what you wish for. Once again...you're trying to cloud the issue with a "SDSU component"... The question we need to put to a vote: Do the citizens of San Diego want to use approximately $1B of their tax money (over a span of 30 years) to build a stadium for the Chargers? That is a straightforward question...if the citizens say "yes"...let's build it...if they say "no" then we won't (and then the Chargers will have a decision to make...stay in SD at Qualcomm, fund a new stadium themselves, or go someplace else) If the citizens do say "no" then we need to ask ourselves another question "what is the best use for the current stadium and the accompanying land?" It's as simple as that...why are we making it more complicated?
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 23, 2015 10:30:58 GMT -8
It's funny that you think the Chargers/NFL care about what San Diego State University wants or the City & County of San Diego for that matter. The Chargers/NFL are the ones that will make the demands and dictate contracts & policies not the other way around. All you have to do is look at how the NFL has done "business" in other cities. All the leverage is with the Chargers/NFL & if San Diego doesn't aquiest to their requests/demands (which we won't) they will simply leave for a city that will. They all have skin in the game. Where's SDSU's? The more they can bring to the table, the better for everybody. I understand that this is a difficult thing to do what with Dr. Hirshman sitting on his $600mil and his secret strategy, it might blow his cover. But he could kick a couple hundred mil into the conversation and see what happens. You might want to wait and see if the Chargers and City even come to an agreement first. And then see if the voters even approve it. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 23, 2015 11:00:45 GMT -8
SDSU administrators gave CSAG a list of items that would make a $1.25 annual rent palatable. Items included things already discussed in this thread like advertising and concessions revenue. It also included branding throughout the stadium, our own SDSU locker rooms, access to some of the top end suites, etc. that's all part of what CSAG is recommending the city negotiate with the university. Will the Chargers be ok with that? Yet to be seen. But I like that we aren't just sitting back and letting them dictate. I think the "Pro-SDSU people" should be thrilled with this. If the CSAG gave SDSU the finger, then I can see the reason for outrage. Why people are jumping up and down and stomping their feet right now doesn't make sense to me. Let's wait and see how it plays out first but for now, this is good to hear.
|
|
|
Post by La Mesa Aztec on May 23, 2015 15:30:08 GMT -8
Did you know the Chargers prevented SDSU from collecting revenue for concessions and parking from every Aztec home game since the time the Padres left the Q for Petco? Have you noticed how strained Athletic budgets are? Only someone who isn't primarly an Aztec fan would still love the Chargers after obtaining that knowledge...and I actually still want them to stay in town... If SDSU was getting the revenue before the Padres move, something must have changed contractually between the city, the Chargers, and SDSU. If so then hey, it's a big bad world out there. SDSU would control the revenue if they could.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on May 23, 2015 16:01:49 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. You're making too much sense here. Remember the element you're dealing with. Not everyone wants to throw in the towel bud.
|
|