|
Post by pbaztec17 on May 28, 2015 7:29:08 GMT -8
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 AzWm Maybe you should go to a charger game and see all of the folks who are scraping by but still love the team and spend the money that they have to see them, but its cool because you obviously know whats good for them. The picture you paint of the demographic that attends bolts games is wrong. I am sorry.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 28, 2015 7:47:10 GMT -8
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 You'd need to also stop the trolley extension running underneath the site. That is what would stop a stadium from being built in that site, not Viejas. Get over it already.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 28, 2015 8:20:29 GMT -8
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 I get the hate regarding helping a private company with public money but this sort of thing happens in the world with businesses all the time. Cities do shady things to entice big business to come to their cities or keep them in their cities. While I don't agree with the NFL's tactics of holding cities ransom for new stadiums, I do believe that a city with an NFL team is viewed much differently than one without in general. There is civic pride but there's also more. Obviously there are cities like Green Bay or Jacksonville or Tampa Bay that are smaller cities but in general, cities with NFL teams are viewed as major cities. And I think the exposure brought to a city through sporting events, especially the NFL, since it's the most popular sport in the US by far, is something that can't be easily measured by dollars and cents. Think about Green Bay or Tampa Bay. Would the general public know these cities if it weren't for their NFL team? Probably not. San Diego is a destination city so it wouldn't be some unknown like Green Bay but the exposure San Diego gets through the NFL is HUGE. Like it always gets said, the greatest commercial are the beautiful shots of San Diego that look like summertime in December during an NFL game, while half the country is snowed in. Why do you think we get so many visiting fans in town for Charger games? The only way the Aztecs could provide something like this is if they were a major program that was competing for a national championship. That's how big they would have to be to even try to compete with the exposure of the NFL. I don't like the Spanos family. They're just not very likable owners but fans don't root for a team because of their owner. People care about the players and about the team and the connection people have with the city. I think the Chargers are one of the biggest things going for this city. Yes, Spanos makes money off of all of this with some of it being public funds invested in a stadium. Who cares? Owners and CEOs of big companies are no different. They make their money in ways that are shady as well. Should we boycott every company that does something shady? Should we boot Qualcomm out of town because they have unsavory business practices and are screwing people over? Should we get rid of all of our Walmarts because they have money grubbing owners with no morals? The list can go on and on. What are we drawing the line at here? Just use of public money? Or should it go deeper? In my opinion, the money put into a stadium is an investment into the city that brings civic pride, brings people from all walks of life together for a common cause (something that really doesn't happen outside of some sort of tragedy IMO), brings an amount of exposure to the city that I don't think you could do in another way and gives the city the perception that it is a major city and yes, it's something many citizens can enjoy. Maybe it won't be a Charger game but maybe another event or concert. But you're right, not everyone is going to be able to afford going to a game. Your examples of a single parent in SE San Diego or of a family with a baby scraping by with $30k, aren't going to afford a Charger game, or Sea World, or Legoland or probably even a lot of the nicer restaurants in town. That's life. I don't understand your point. Sorry for the rant but this sort of short-sighted view irks me. Yes, there may be "better" use of this public money but there's no guarantee that it would be put to better use. In fact, I would probably bet against it based on our history of public officials. And everyone is going to have their opinion. I'm still trying to figure out the rationale of spending hundreds of millions on a library in this day and age. I went there once just to check it out and my conclusion was that, hey this is a shiny, fancy library compared to the one by my house. So what? Maybe it's good for some people but I think 95% of people are getting nothing out of it but maybe that's just me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 9:29:26 GMT -8
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 I get the hate regarding helping a private company with public money but this sort of thing happens in the world with businesses all the time. Cities do shady things to entice big business to come to their cities or keep them in their cities. While I don't agree with the NFL's tactics of holding cities ransom for new stadiums, I do believe that a city with an NFL team is viewed much differently than one without in general. There is civic pride but there's also more. Obviously there are cities like Green Bay or Jacksonville or Tampa Bay that are smaller cities but in general, cities with NFL teams are viewed as major cities. And I think the exposure brought to a city through sporting events, especially the NFL, since it's the most popular sport in the US by far, is something that can't be easily measured by dollars and cents. Think about Green Bay or Tampa Bay. Would the general public know these cities if it weren't for their NFL team? Probably not. San Diego is a destination city so it wouldn't be some unknown like Green Bay but the exposure San Diego gets through the NFL is HUGE. Like it always gets said, the greatest commercial are the beautiful shots of San Diego that look like summertime in December during an NFL game, while half the country is snowed in. Why do you think we get so many visiting fans in town for Charger games? The only way the Aztecs could provide something like this is if they were a major program that was competing for a national championship. That's how big they would have to be to even try to compete with the exposure of the NFL. I don't like the Spanos family. They're just not very likable owners but fans don't root for a team because of their owner. People care about the players and about the team and the connection people have with the city. I think the Chargers are one of the biggest things going for this city. Yes, Spanos makes money off of all of this with some of it being public funds invested in a stadium. Who cares? Owners and CEOs of big companies are no different. They make their money in ways that are shady as well. Should we boycott every company that does something shady? Should we boot Qualcomm out of town because they have unsavory business practices and are screwing people over? Should we get rid of all of our Walmarts because they have money grubbing owners with no morals? The list can go on and on. What are we drawing the line at here? Just use of public money? Or should it go deeper? In my opinion, the money put into a stadium is an investment into the city that brings civic pride, brings people from all walks of life together for a common cause (something that really doesn't happen outside of some sort of tragedy IMO), brings an amount of exposure to the city that I don't think you could do in another way and gives the city the perception that it is a major city and yes, it's something many citizens can enjoy. Maybe it won't be a Charger game but maybe another event or concert. But you're right, not everyone is going to be able to afford going to a game. Your examples of a single parent in SE San Diego or of a family with a baby scraping by with $30k, aren't going to afford a Charger game, or Sea World, or Legoland or probably even a lot of the nicer restaurants in town. That's life. I don't understand your point. Sorry for the rant but this sort of short-sighted view irks me. Yes, there may be "better" use of this public money but there's no guarantee that it would be put to better use. In fact, I would probably bet against it based on our history of public officials. And everyone is going to have their opinion. I'm still trying to figure out the rationale of spending hundreds of millions on a library in this day and age. I went there once just to check it out and my conclusion was that, hey this is a shiny, fancy library compared to the one by my house. So what? Maybe it's good for some people but I think 95% of people are getting nothing out of it but maybe that's just me. Long rant... which nearly made me want to launch into one. But I realized there would really be no point to that because, the bottom line here is you are irked because you think other's views are short-sighted because their views are not in line with your opinion. And the basis for most of your argument is sort of two wrongs do make a right. You just happen to think a 'better' use is building a football stadium for the chargers. Me? I'd rather spend tax money on improving roads or helping poor folks out or some such but maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 28, 2015 9:35:07 GMT -8
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 Of course, you may be correct, but I've never seen such a study. I do have some familiarity with construction and I see no way to convert that old mini-coliseum into a modern style football stadium---even if they were able to increase it to 42,000. It would have looked totally amateurish. Remember, Balboa stadium also had a race track around it to give a wider base with which to work. But it was antiquated before it was finished. The "new" Aztec Bowl would have been a dinosaur upon completion. And in any case, I believe that a new stadium for football is the very last thing we need right now. We still haven't paid for the tiny basketball practice facility. And contrary to many others, I don't seen anyway that State could possibly come up with at least $150 million for a stadium, unless there are unforeseen changes in the "landscape". And those changes can only begin with new leadership at all levels.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on May 28, 2015 10:00:09 GMT -8
Right now when the Aztecs play a game it is said they are playing at the "Q " . If a new facility is built they will be playing at the name of the company that pays for the naming rights . Same thing with basketball we play at Viejas Arena . Some see paying and getting revenue from SDSU's own facility , that will also need to sell Naming rights , as the answer to creating a top 25 team . Some see the idea of a state of the art NFL facility with all the bells and whistles could help the Aztecs recruit , and possibly create a better team .( you win games with better recruits / players ). Bottom line we need to be able to out recruit BSU , and every other G5 school . Plus try to find an edge in getting more 4 star recruits over some of the P5 schools . We could have that opportunity with an incredible facility , better then even some of the P5 schools . How many teams in MW , PAC or B12 would have that ? The Aztec Bowl is history , there is a basketball facility there . Fans go watch a winner , so if we are not the top team in the West of MW or better , forget getting fans showing up . Build a new state of the art facility and those fans who may not be able to afford Charger tickets could come to Aztec games at a much better price . play well be a winner and they will come back . So the team on the field and if you have the state of the art facility are key .
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 28, 2015 10:36:08 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. McQ- The Aztecs themselves are responsible for their own community focus. Play exciting football, win a high %, and play foes that people care to see and they'll be there with or without the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 28, 2015 10:38:13 GMT -8
I get the hate regarding helping a private company with public money but this sort of thing happens in the world with businesses all the time. Cities do shady things to entice big business to come to their cities or keep them in their cities. While I don't agree with the NFL's tactics of holding cities ransom for new stadiums, I do believe that a city with an NFL team is viewed much differently than one without in general. There is civic pride but there's also more. Obviously there are cities like Green Bay or Jacksonville or Tampa Bay that are smaller cities but in general, cities with NFL teams are viewed as major cities. And I think the exposure brought to a city through sporting events, especially the NFL, since it's the most popular sport in the US by far, is something that can't be easily measured by dollars and cents. Think about Green Bay or Tampa Bay. Would the general public know these cities if it weren't for their NFL team? Probably not. San Diego is a destination city so it wouldn't be some unknown like Green Bay but the exposure San Diego gets through the NFL is HUGE. Like it always gets said, the greatest commercial are the beautiful shots of San Diego that look like summertime in December during an NFL game, while half the country is snowed in. Why do you think we get so many visiting fans in town for Charger games? The only way the Aztecs could provide something like this is if they were a major program that was competing for a national championship. That's how big they would have to be to even try to compete with the exposure of the NFL. I don't like the Spanos family. They're just not very likable owners but fans don't root for a team because of their owner. People care about the players and about the team and the connection people have with the city. I think the Chargers are one of the biggest things going for this city. Yes, Spanos makes money off of all of this with some of it being public funds invested in a stadium. Who cares? Owners and CEOs of big companies are no different. They make their money in ways that are shady as well. Should we boycott every company that does something shady? Should we boot Qualcomm out of town because they have unsavory business practices and are screwing people over? Should we get rid of all of our Walmarts because they have money grubbing owners with no morals? The list can go on and on. What are we drawing the line at here? Just use of public money? Or should it go deeper? In my opinion, the money put into a stadium is an investment into the city that brings civic pride, brings people from all walks of life together for a common cause (something that really doesn't happen outside of some sort of tragedy IMO), brings an amount of exposure to the city that I don't think you could do in another way and gives the city the perception that it is a major city and yes, it's something many citizens can enjoy. Maybe it won't be a Charger game but maybe another event or concert. But you're right, not everyone is going to be able to afford going to a game. Your examples of a single parent in SE San Diego or of a family with a baby scraping by with $30k, aren't going to afford a Charger game, or Sea World, or Legoland or probably even a lot of the nicer restaurants in town. That's life. I don't understand your point. Sorry for the rant but this sort of short-sighted view irks me. Yes, there may be "better" use of this public money but there's no guarantee that it would be put to better use. In fact, I would probably bet against it based on our history of public officials. And everyone is going to have their opinion. I'm still trying to figure out the rationale of spending hundreds of millions on a library in this day and age. I went there once just to check it out and my conclusion was that, hey this is a shiny, fancy library compared to the one by my house. So what? Maybe it's good for some people but I think 95% of people are getting nothing out of it but maybe that's just me. Long rant... which nearly made me want to launch into one. But I realized there would really be no point to that because, the bottom line here is you are irked because you think other's views are short-sighted because their views are not in line with your opinion. And the basis for most of your argument is sort of two wrongs do make a right. You just happen to think a 'better' use is building a football stadium for the chargers. Me? I'd rather spend tax money on improving roads or helping poor folks out or some such but maybe that's just me. Different budgets.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 28, 2015 10:42:36 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 Could it be because the Aztecs aren't putting any money into this deal? Not only $$$ but they're keeping quiet and showing no support for a new stadium. Their (Hirshman/Sterk) strategy could backfire in their faces. Rather than you help me, I'll help you, they're choosing to sit quiet on the sidelines hoping it all falls in their laps the way they want. What if it doesn't? We'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 28, 2015 10:44:19 GMT -8
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 William- You're living in the past. Aztec Bowl has NOTHING to do with this thread. It's over. Move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 11:17:21 GMT -8
Long rant... which nearly made me want to launch into one. But I realized there would really be no point to that because, the bottom line here is you are irked because you think other's views are short-sighted because their views are not in line with your opinion. And the basis for most of your argument is sort of two wrongs do make a right. You just happen to think a 'better' use is building a football stadium for the chargers. Me? I'd rather spend tax money on improving roads or helping poor folks out or some such but maybe that's just me. Different budgets. Shouldn't be. And what budget does 'or some such' fit into?
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 28, 2015 11:42:10 GMT -8
I get the hate regarding helping a private company with public money but this sort of thing happens in the world with businesses all the time. Cities do shady things to entice big business to come to their cities or keep them in their cities. While I don't agree with the NFL's tactics of holding cities ransom for new stadiums, I do believe that a city with an NFL team is viewed much differently than one without in general. There is civic pride but there's also more. Obviously there are cities like Green Bay or Jacksonville or Tampa Bay that are smaller cities but in general, cities with NFL teams are viewed as major cities. And I think the exposure brought to a city through sporting events, especially the NFL, since it's the most popular sport in the US by far, is something that can't be easily measured by dollars and cents. Think about Green Bay or Tampa Bay. Would the general public know these cities if it weren't for their NFL team? Probably not. San Diego is a destination city so it wouldn't be some unknown like Green Bay but the exposure San Diego gets through the NFL is HUGE. Like it always gets said, the greatest commercial are the beautiful shots of San Diego that look like summertime in December during an NFL game, while half the country is snowed in. Why do you think we get so many visiting fans in town for Charger games? The only way the Aztecs could provide something like this is if they were a major program that was competing for a national championship. That's how big they would have to be to even try to compete with the exposure of the NFL. I don't like the Spanos family. They're just not very likable owners but fans don't root for a team because of their owner. People care about the players and about the team and the connection people have with the city. I think the Chargers are one of the biggest things going for this city. Yes, Spanos makes money off of all of this with some of it being public funds invested in a stadium. Who cares? Owners and CEOs of big companies are no different. They make their money in ways that are shady as well. Should we boycott every company that does something shady? Should we boot Qualcomm out of town because they have unsavory business practices and are screwing people over? Should we get rid of all of our Walmarts because they have money grubbing owners with no morals? The list can go on and on. What are we drawing the line at here? Just use of public money? Or should it go deeper? In my opinion, the money put into a stadium is an investment into the city that brings civic pride, brings people from all walks of life together for a common cause (something that really doesn't happen outside of some sort of tragedy IMO), brings an amount of exposure to the city that I don't think you could do in another way and gives the city the perception that it is a major city and yes, it's something many citizens can enjoy. Maybe it won't be a Charger game but maybe another event or concert. But you're right, not everyone is going to be able to afford going to a game. Your examples of a single parent in SE San Diego or of a family with a baby scraping by with $30k, aren't going to afford a Charger game, or Sea World, or Legoland or probably even a lot of the nicer restaurants in town. That's life. I don't understand your point. Sorry for the rant but this sort of short-sighted view irks me. Yes, there may be "better" use of this public money but there's no guarantee that it would be put to better use. In fact, I would probably bet against it based on our history of public officials. And everyone is going to have their opinion. I'm still trying to figure out the rationale of spending hundreds of millions on a library in this day and age. I went there once just to check it out and my conclusion was that, hey this is a shiny, fancy library compared to the one by my house. So what? Maybe it's good for some people but I think 95% of people are getting nothing out of it but maybe that's just me. Long rant... which nearly made me want to launch into one. But I realized there would really be no point to that because, the bottom line here is you are irked because you think other's views are short-sighted because their views are not in line with your opinion. And the basis for most of your argument is sort of two wrongs do make a right. You just happen to think a 'better' use is building a football stadium for the chargers. Me? I'd rather spend tax money on improving roads or helping poor folks out or some such but maybe that's just me. Long rant because this is the "sleepy town" attitude that prevails in this city. I want to see San Diego be the most it can be. I'd like to see more big companies come here instead of LA or Orange County, or moving out of here. We're the eight largest city in the country but we sure don't act like it. I'm fine with people having a different viewpoint but I'm sure as hell not going to agree with it. My point is, there are benefits to having a NFL team in San Diego that goes beyond dollars and cents and can't really be measured. I think it's an assumption that the money would go to improving roads or helping the poor. Who knows where that money will be spent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 11:51:42 GMT -8
Long rant... which nearly made me want to launch into one. But I realized there would really be no point to that because, the bottom line here is you are irked because you think other's views are short-sighted because their views are not in line with your opinion. And the basis for most of your argument is sort of two wrongs do make a right. You just happen to think a 'better' use is building a football stadium for the chargers. Me? I'd rather spend tax money on improving roads or helping poor folks out or some such but maybe that's just me. Long rant because this is the "sleepy town" attitude that prevails in this city. I want to see San Diego be the most it can be. I'd like to see more big companies come here instead of LA or Orange County, or moving out of here. We're the eight largest city in the country but we sure don't act like it. I'm fine with people having a different viewpoint but I'm sure as hell not going to agree with it. My point is, there are benefits to having a NFL team in San Diego that goes beyond dollars and cents and can't really be measured. I think it's an assumption that the money would go to improving roads or helping the poor. Who knows where that money will be spent. I totally understand what your opinion is, it was clear in your long rant. I just don't agree with your opinion. (btw, it's also an assumption that having an nfl team does anything at all special for SD.)
|
|
|
Post by standiego on May 28, 2015 11:58:54 GMT -8
Can not keep trying to change the past on buildings .... blame Chargers , AD , President or ..... time to see what the Aztecs can do to put a better team on the field and win championships . Plain and simple . You need to be able to recruit better players . Be the best recruiter of all G5 teams and even steal some four star recruits from the P5 schools . One thing that could help is a state of the art facility that may attract Quality recruits . It needs to be better then BSU or other schools we try to out recruit . Produce winners and people support you , lose and you can forget it . The SDSU administration at SDSU has said it prefers the MV site , there is a frame work now that the Mayor , County , Chargers are going to talk over , believe that the mayor and county who are SDSU alums , know the Aztec thoughts . Try to get a deal done so all San Diego teams and fans can use it to benefit , the city and fans of San Diego . Every time Chargers are on National TV helps brings business to San Diego and possible players . No multi millionaire owner does enough in their city . But the team does numerous things for a lot of organizations from Blood Bank , Toys for Tots , Cancer group, Schools, ... to other groups , many times these things do not get the publicity. Players spend their time on off days , players pay taxes spend a lot of money here , over 100 staff people have houses pay taxes, spend money .... it would be very similar to losing another company in San Diego with over 100 people picking up and moving .we lose a lot when any good sized business and people leave , and that takes away a business and money that most likely will not be back . so a hit on revenue to the city . Also a lot of people who make money part time from the Chargers .
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 28, 2015 12:26:36 GMT -8
Of course, you may be correct, but I've never seen such a study. I do have some familiarity with construction and I see no way to convert that old mini-coliseum into a modern style football stadium---even if they were able to increase it to 42,000. It would have looked totally amateurish. Remember, Balboa stadium also had a race track around it to give a wider base with which to work. quote] I am not here to argue, but if you would like an example of teams that used antiquated setups as a part of their stadiums, look at Kenan in Chapel Hill, Sanford in Athens, Memorial in Clemson. They just built up, concoursed the existing top level, and added decks. I'm not advocating for anything, just that some great venues are in old bowls.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 28, 2015 12:34:10 GMT -8
Long rant because this is the "sleepy town" attitude that prevails in this city. I want to see San Diego be the most it can be. I'd like to see more big companies come here instead of LA or Orange County, or moving out of here. We're the eight largest city in the country but we sure don't act like it. I'm fine with people having a different viewpoint but I'm sure as hell not going to agree with it. My point is, there are benefits to having a NFL team in San Diego that goes beyond dollars and cents and can't really be measured. I think it's an assumption that the money would go to improving roads or helping the poor. Who knows where that money will be spent. I totally understand what your opinion is, it was clear in your long rant. I just don't agree with your opinion. (btw, it's also an assumption that having an nfl team does anything at all special for SD.) Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 28, 2015 13:30:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 28, 2015 13:33:57 GMT -8
Long rant because this is the "sleepy town" attitude that prevails in this city. I want to see San Diego be the most it can be. I'd like to see more big companies come here instead of LA or Orange County, or moving out of here. We're the eight largest city in the country but we sure don't act like it. I'm fine with people having a different viewpoint but I'm sure as hell not going to agree with it. My point is, there are benefits to having a NFL team in San Diego that goes beyond dollars and cents and can't really be measured. I think it's an assumption that the money would go to improving roads or helping the poor. Who knows where that money will be spent. I totally understand what your opinion is, it was clear in your long rant. I just don't agree with your opinion. (btw, it's also an assumption that having an nfl team does anything at all special for SD.) Every time they're on National TV it gives FREE Advertising for San Diego as a place to visit, whether it's for pleasure or business. They always show the beaches, the sunsets, the parks/zoo during the broadcast. I can't imagine the cost of that time if the Visitors Bureau had to buy the time for their advertisements. That's just one simple benefit.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 28, 2015 13:34:44 GMT -8
Shouldn't be. And what budget does 'or some such' fit into? General bull$#!+!
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on May 28, 2015 13:42:33 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 Oh please, get real. If the Aztecs had followed up Coryell with another great coach and kept their winning ways, they would have their own stadium and be in a P5 conference. Don't try to blame the Chargers for their self made problems.
|
|