|
Post by ab on May 27, 2015 16:56:52 GMT -8
FWIW
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 27, 2015 17:08:12 GMT -8
(sets calendar reminder to put popcorn in microwave to watch the ridiculousness unfold...)
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 27, 2015 18:00:03 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today.
We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program.
Yes, I know. Too late now.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 27, 2015 18:03:28 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm Could it be because the Aztecs aren't putting any money into this deal?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 27, 2015 18:35:08 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm I would have to disagree. Nothing would have screamed "small time" more, than to have kept, then struggled to make that tiny playground suffice as a new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 27, 2015 20:42:13 GMT -8
Great. Let's get this crap over with one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Luchador El Guerrero Azteca on May 28, 2015 2:12:36 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm Because it will be their stadium. We will merely be a tenant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 4:53:21 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm Decades of mediocre to gawdawful football have nothing to do with it. It's "throwing in our lot" with the Chargers that's the root cause. You are irrational. The reason I'm not a mufti-millionaire is because I don't own a home in Rancho Santa Fe.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 28, 2015 5:54:22 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm Could it be because the Aztecs aren't putting any money into this deal? No it's not, nor should SDSU do so under any circumstances other than purchasing 75 acres for its own use. Period.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 28, 2015 6:32:55 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm Could it be because the Aztecs aren't putting any money into this deal? You miss my point. Were Aztec Bowl still available, it could be turned into a 40K seat stadium for a fraction of the cost of such a stadium build from scratch. It's pretty clear that the admin. on the Mesa was not looking far enough ahead when it build the arena. And, now that I think of it, that mistake was made in the '80s. not the '60s. As for putting money on the table now, that is simply not realistic. And not a good idea in any case. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 28, 2015 6:43:50 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm Because it will be their stadium. We will merely be a tenant. It will NOT be "their stadium." It will be a stadium owned by a municipality that has allowed the fear of losing a pro franchise to outweigh its better judgment. A municipality that was doing its job, i.e., thinking of the general welfare of all it citizens, would not be engaged in a huge act of crony capitalism designed to benefit a private company and also those in the community well-enough off to afford the cost of attending Charger games. Who do you think can go to Charger games? Single parents with a couple of kids living in Southeast SD? Or perhaps a young couple with a new baby making between them 30,000 dollars a year? Or how about pensioners trying to make a go of it living on Social Security? No. We are talking about perhaps the 5% of the San Diego citizens who can afford to attend games. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 28, 2015 6:52:59 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm I would have to disagree. Nothing would have screamed "small time" more, than to have kept, then struggled to make that tiny playground suffice as a new stadium. Forty-two thousand seats, which is about what Aztec Bowl was designed to hold when expanded, would not be "small time." The beauty of having preserved Aztec Bowl for possible future expansion and modernization, is that the thing ACTUALLY EXISTED! No wondering which canyon could be used, at great expense, or which building (which would have to be replaced elsewhere) would have to be sacrificed if the site were to be on land already level. Seating could have been extended all the way around the horseshoe, and upper decks would have been added as well. (That last item was what was done to Balboa Stadium in preparation for the Chargers' arrival in 1961, by the way.) No way that could not have been done for perhaps half the cost of building elsewhere on campus. And that last point is crucial. It would have been ON CAMPUS! And, no, I do not have a time machine to go back to the '80s to convince the school NOT to destroy Aztec Bowl. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 28, 2015 7:09:52 GMT -8
Notice how every news outlet, regardless of the medium, keeps ignoring the Aztecs? It's always a new "Chargers stadium." Heard that most recently on an LA news radio station today. We are paying the price for having thrown in our lot with the Chargers nearly 50 years ago. If Aztec football eventually dies, whoever it was who could not see the wisdom of keeping Aztec Bowl as a backup just in case made a huge, huge mistake. Possibly a fatal one for the program. Yes, I know. Too late now. AzWm Decades of mediocre to gawdawful football have nothing to do with it. It's "throwing in our lot" with the Chargers that's the root cause. You are irrational. The reason I'm not a mufti-millionaire is because I don't own a home in Rancho Santa Fe. Seriously? The situation today is different from what existed 30 or 40 years ago. I maintain that today schools with their own stadiums will have an enormous advantage over those that do not. ESPECIALL G5 SCHOOLS! How about Viejas Arena? Do you think, even with Fisher here, that Aztec basketball would be as successful were we still playing at the Sports Arena? But there is another point that we should keep in mind. A school owned, on-campus stadium is especially advantageous to the program in lean years (i.e., years in which the team finishes under .500). Aztec football is likely to be hit by much higher costs if it's necessary to play in a "Chargers stadium." You cannot convince me that there is much change that SDSU is going to get its own locker room or a cut of the concussions. It looks like the city is going to bend over for the Spanoses. Let's use you analogy in a different way. Which is better for someone on a limited budget, paying a very high rent to use a room in a Rancho Santa Fe mansion, a room that is way to big for the hypothetical renter's needs, or buying a modest house in an average neighborhood? In the former, the rent is likely to go up and up over time. And god help the renter if his needs ever conflict with the those of the actual owner. In the second case, after the mortgage is paid off , the person owns the house free and clear. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by pbaztec17 on May 28, 2015 7:11:20 GMT -8
Because it will be their stadium. We will merely be a tenant. It will NOT be "their stadium." It will be a stadium owned by a municipality that has allowed the fear of losing a pro franchise to outweigh its better judgment. A municipality that was doing its job, i.e., thinking of the general welfare of all it citizens, would not be engaged in a huge act of crony capitalism designed to benefit a private company and also those in the community well-enough off to afford the cost of attending Charger games. Who do you think can go to Charger games? Single parents with a couple of kids living in Southeast SD? Or perhaps a young couple with a new baby making between them 30,000 dollars a year? Or how about pensioners trying to make a go of it living on Social Security? No. We are talking about perhaps the 5% of the San Diego citizens who can afford to attend games. AzWm Where do you get this stuff from? I try to be objective on this whole stAdium issue, but the 5%? Give me a break. If you buy tickets in advance to a charger game the are less than 80 bucks. Bring an 18 pack to tailgate and split the twenty bucks for parking with whoever you go with and its less than $110 bucks for easily 6-7 hrs of entertainment. I get if you dont think it is best idea, but even with the proposed ten percent ticket hike, that is hardly breaking the bank. You dont need to be floyd mayweather to take in a football game.
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on May 28, 2015 7:13:08 GMT -8
I sincerely hope the Chargers move. Enough of this BS and Spanos BS.
Chargers ownership need to get off the pot and move to a market that is anchored historically in NFL failure. Not that I want them to fail rather I believe their move will vault the Aztecs to be the community focus and inspire facility change.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 28, 2015 7:13:24 GMT -8
Because it will be their stadium. We will merely be a tenant.[/quote ]It will NOT be "their stadium." It will be a stadium owned by a municipality that has allowed the fear of losing a pro franchise to outweigh its better judgment. A municipality that was doing its job, i.e., thinking of the general welfare of all it citizens, would not be engaged in a huge act of crony capitalism designed to benefit a private company and also those in the community well-enough off to afford the cost of attending Charger games. Who do you think can go to Charger games? Single parents with a couple of kids living in Southeast SD? Or perhaps a young couple with a new baby making between them 30,000 dollars a year? Or how about pensioners trying to make a go of it living on Social Security? No. We are talking about perhaps the 5% of the San Diego citizens who can afford to attend games. AzWm Isn't this one of the things they will talk about? If the City coughs up enough to retain ownership, or if the Bolts decide to obtain the lot for themselves? And even if it is a municipal stadium, if SDSU doesn't considerably pay in, we shouldn't have a say in it. If we want a seat at the discussion table, we would have to pay to do so. All bias aside, isn't that a rational assumption?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 7:18:36 GMT -8
Because it will be their stadium. We will merely be a tenant. It will NOT be "their stadium." It will be a stadium owned by a municipality that has allowed the fear of losing a pro franchise to outweigh its better judgment. A municipality that was doing its job, i.e., thinking of the general welfare of all it citizens, would not be engaged in a huge act of crony capitalism designed to benefit a private company and also those in the community well-enough off to afford the cost of attending Charger games. Who do you think can go to Charger games? Single parents with a couple of kids living in Southeast SD? Or perhaps a young couple with a new baby making between them 30,000 dollars a year? Or how about pensioners trying to make a go of it living on Social Security? No. We are talking about perhaps the 5% of the San Diego citizens who can afford to attend games. AzWm Charger games. What the 1% do when not playing polo or sipping champagne aboard their yachts. LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 7:20:46 GMT -8
I sincerely hope the Chargers move. Enough of this BS and Spanos BS. Chargers ownership need to get off the pot and move to a market that is anchored historically in NFL failure. Not that I want them to fail rather I believe their move will vault the Aztecs to be the community focus and inspire facility change.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 28, 2015 7:24:36 GMT -8
It will NOT be "their stadium." It will be a stadium owned by a municipality that has allowed the fear of losing a pro franchise to outweigh its better judgment. A municipality that was doing its job, i.e., thinking of the general welfare of all it citizens, would not be engaged in a huge act of crony capitalism designed to benefit a private company and also those in the community well-enough off to afford the cost of attending Charger games. Who do you think can go to Charger games? Single parents with a couple of kids living in Southeast SD? Or perhaps a young couple with a new baby making between them 30,000 dollars a year? Or how about pensioners trying to make a go of it living on Social Security? No. We are talking about perhaps the 5% of the San Diego citizens who can afford to attend games. AzWm Where do you get this stuff from? I try to be objective on this whole stAdium issue, but the 5%? Give me a break. If you buy tickets in advance to a charger game the are less than 80 bucks. Bring an 18 pack to tailgate and split the twenty bucks for parking with whoever you go with and its less than $110 bucks for easily 6-7 hrs of entertainment. I get if you dont think it is best idea, but even with the proposed ten percent ticket hike, that is hardly breaking the bank. You dont need to be floyd mayweather to take in a football game. I get my facts from the real world. Many people, in other words folks with a modest income, would find attending Charger games an unwise use of their limited money. Maybe you should go to the poorer areas of San Diego and meet people who are just getting by. Building a park, a facility which EVERYBODY can enjoy simply by finding a way to get there, is a pretty good use of public money. On the other hand, using public money to help a private company build a facility that only a subset of the population will be able to afford to use is NOT a good use of that money. I would say the same thing about building a fancy new concert hall specifically for the San Diego Symphony. Although, in that case at least the Symphony is a non-profit. (In case you do not know it, the Symphony uses what was for decades the Fox Theater; they did not ask the city to build a new venue to rival the ones in Sydney and L.A.) AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 28, 2015 7:28:59 GMT -8
Because it will be their stadium. We will merely be a tenant. It will NOT be "their stadium." It will be a stadium owned by a municipality that has allowed the fear of losing a pro franchise to outweigh its better judgment. A municipality that was doing its job, i.e., thinking of the general welfare of all it citizens, would not be engaged in a huge act of crony capitalism designed to benefit a private company and also those in the community well-enough off to afford the cost of attending Charger games. Who do you think can go to Charger games? Single parents with a couple of kids living in Southeast SD? Or perhaps a young couple with a new baby making between them 30,000 dollars a year? Or how about pensioners trying to make a go of it living on Social Security? No. We are talking about perhaps the 5% of the San Diego citizens who can afford to attend games.AzWm That's just the way professional sports have gone. I used to be a huge baseball fan when I was younger but lost interest over the years and ironically after Petco Park was built because the team decided that they weren't going to spend money to compete. But I would go to a game here and there especially with the Park Pass and when I was still single but I haven't been to a game in 3 or 4 years now. Now that ownership finally decided to spend some money and try to win this year, I thought to myself, I'll go check out a game and maybe take the family. Lo and behold the Park Pass is no more and now you're looking at a minimum of $90 to get in (for three tickets) and close to $200 for decent seats. Baseball used to be something that was much more affordable since there were many home games but even now I think it's pricing people out. A hundred dollars for tickets to go watch a game wouldn't kill me but prices have skyrocketed and my family aren't huge baseball fans at all so for us it's not a good investment of money for something we're just very casual fans of. It's probably better for us to just go to the zoo or something so in that respect, baseball has priced us out. The NFL is a little different since there are only eight regular season games so demand is very high for those limited dates. The hardcore are the ones who go to football games. I remember hearing a stat maybe 5 or 6 years ago that said that something like 1 or 2 percent of NFL fans have ever attended an NFL game. I don't remember the exact percentage but it was very low. You can probably say the same thing for the NBA, especially in the big markets.
|
|