|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 12, 2015 11:15:22 GMT -8
I can and will. I know what espn and fox considered PAC markets in the TV contract.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 11:18:01 GMT -8
I never said SDSU doesn't carry San Diego. I said the PAC does too and was included in their TV contract. I know that to be the case. Even in those ratings above, the two PAC games I am sure we're rated higher than other P5 games in San Diego. You guys are getting bent about SDSU. That Scott article would have read the exact same had you replaced SDSU and Boise State with SJSU, Fresno St., Nevada, UNLV, etc. losing arguments on all fronts and yet you are still posting... keep up the good work, this is like watching a sitcom on tv... thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 11:31:32 GMT -8
When will info come out regarding the December vote? I assume if a legal challenge is coming we'll know soon.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 12, 2015 11:48:06 GMT -8
I never said SDSU doesn't carry San Diego. I said the PAC does too and was included in their TV contract. I know that to be the case. Even in those ratings above, the two PAC games I am sure we're rated higher than other P5 games in San Diego. You guys are getting bent about SDSU. That Scott article would have read the exact same had you replaced SDSU and Boise State with SJSU, Fresno St., Nevada, UNLV, etc. losing arguments on all fronts and yet you are still posting... keep up the good work, this is like watching a sitcom on tv... thanks OK. I'll stop by in the future when SDSU has built a brand new stadium and gets that big 12 invite so you can tell me you told me so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 11:59:16 GMT -8
losing arguments on all fronts and yet you are still posting... keep up the good work, this is like watching a sitcom on tv... thanks OK. I'll stop by in the future when SDSU has built a brand new stadium and gets that big 12 invite so you can tell me you told me so. At no point in time did I tell you that... I have consistently said I have no idea what will happen just like you don't have any idea.
It is doubtful you will actually leave though so keep up the good work here.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 12, 2015 13:42:41 GMT -8
If you believe a sdsu conference game receives a higher rating in SD than SC vs. UCLA...... Explains everything. All those numbers you just posted and sdsu still can't get anyone to the games. I know, I know, it's all Qualcomms fault. Sure it is. Why did you ask another poster if he'd support a new sdsu stadium if the Chargers leave? It's not a done deal? Regardless of that, not like there will be a vote or anything. Like you said, not a dime of taxpayer money and sure as hell not for sdsu. It will be paid by the University and donations from all those Aztec fans who fill the stadium and TV ratings. The TV/market info comes directly from our athletic director and head football coach. Believe what you will. I asked the other poster the same question he asked me. Of course it's not a done deal; however preparations are in the works and contingency plans have been in place for years. www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/may/20/1s20azlease23858-sdsus-new-qualcomm-lease-would-ha/"SDSU would be given a five-year notice if the Chargers left and the city decided to exercise that option, SDSU Athletic Director Jeff Schemmel said. “We'd have five years to figure that out,” Schemmel said. “Clearly we'd build a stadium somewhere. We'd like to find a place on campus or close to campus if we had to.” … and that's from 2009 and our old AD Jeff Schemmel. Are you talking about a vote for the Chargers or SDSU? And yes, an SDSU stadium will primarily be privately funded by donors, alumni, Campanile Foundation, naming rights, student referendum and or a partnership with MLS (similar to CSU Dominguez Hills and the LA Galaxy). Any other brain busters?
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 12, 2015 13:51:55 GMT -8
San Diego State was never considered for PAC expansion. Period. Scott is playing politician to a direct question about two specific universities. If you expect him to say anything less, then I am at a loss for words. I'll leave SDSU out of this and just say this, if you think the PAC would EVER take that short bus school in Boise, you're hopeless Its interesting how politics work isn't it? We are seeing local politics play out in San Diego with regards to the stadium, city and Chargers. San Diego State University President Elliot Hirshman and our Athletic Director Jim Sterk are part politician in this whole process as well. They are handling this situation perfectly. SDSU will stand back quietly as the stadium situation implodes on itself. All the while they are quietly making preparations to initiate their contingency plans when the time is right.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 12, 2015 14:02:18 GMT -8
Wait a second, that five year window was a quote from 2009? Why didn't you mention that when I've been asking how that works with your lease being over in 2018?
Your President and AD may get it done. But you're argument that started all this was you're happy to see the Chargers leave so SDSU can build their own stadium. Nothing has been stopping your brilliant president and AD in building on their own. They are obviously waiting on their free lunch and meager rent for a shared NFL stadium.
When that doesn't happen and the Chargers leave, maybe you'll get it done. Maybe you won't and will have to drop football and join the WCC. Either outcome is possible and if you've spent any time in San Diego, you should know getting the former dine is going to be anything but easy
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 12, 2015 14:05:29 GMT -8
San Diego State was never considered for PAC expansion. Period. Scott is playing politician to a direct question about two specific universities. If you expect him to say anything less, then I am at a loss for words. I'll leave SDSU out of this and just say this, if you think the PAC would EVER take that short bus school in Boise, you're hopeless Its interesting how politics work isn't it? We are seeing local politics play out in San Diego with regards to the stadium, city and Chargers. San Diego State University President Elliot Hirshman and our Athletic Director Jim Sterk are part politician in this whole process as well. They are handling this situation perfectly. SDSU will stand back quietly as the stadium situation implodes on itself. All the while they are quietly making preparations to initiate their contingency plans when the time is right. I don't trust either of the two. How did that TV contract pan out for us? If the Qualcomm site is abandoned, it's going to the highest bidder. Start thinking around 400-500 mil. Now add 250 mil for a stadium? Not gonna happen. Finally, it would be stupid for state to make that investment with lout admissions to a p5 contract.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 12, 2015 14:05:59 GMT -8
Conference
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 12, 2015 14:15:52 GMT -8
OK. I'll stop by in the future when SDSU has built a brand new stadium and gets that big 12 invite so you can tell me you told me so. At no point in time did I tell you that... I have consistently said I have no idea what will happen just like you don't have any idea.
It is doubtful you will actually leave though so keep up the good work here.
Confucius say sports message board quality enhanced through continued posting by those too clueless to realize they lose every argument.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 12, 2015 14:17:43 GMT -8
Its interesting how politics work isn't it? We are seeing local politics play out in San Diego with regards to the stadium, city and Chargers. San Diego State University President Elliot Hirshman and our Athletic Director Jim Sterk are part politician in this whole process as well. They are handling this situation perfectly. SDSU will stand back quietly as the stadium situation implodes on itself. All the while they are quietly making preparations to initiate their contingency plans when the time is right. If the Qualcomm site is abandoned, it's going to the highest bidder. Uh, ever heard of eminent domain?
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Jun 12, 2015 14:31:01 GMT -8
When Government disposes of property Schools get the first shot at it so SDSU could very well purchase the property.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 12, 2015 14:36:46 GMT -8
At no point in time did I tell you that... I have consistently said I have no idea what will happen just like you don't have any idea.
It is doubtful you will actually leave though so keep up the good work here.
Confucius say sports message board quality enhanced through continued posting by those too clueless to realize they lose every argument. That Confucius guy was one smart dude.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 12, 2015 14:51:45 GMT -8
Wait a second, that five year window was a quote from 2009? Why didn't you mention that when I've been asking how that works with your lease being over in 2018? Your President and AD may get it done. But you're argument that started all this was you're happy to see the Chargers leave so SDSU can build their own stadium. Nothing has been stopping your brilliant president and AD in building on their own. They are obviously waiting on their free lunch and meager rent for a shared NFL stadium. When that doesn't happen and the Chargers leave, maybe you'll get it done. Maybe you won't and will have to drop football and join the WCC. Either outcome is possible and if you've spent any time in San Diego, you should know getting the former dine is going to be anything but easy I have already responded to/commented on almost all of these topics. If you can't recall just go back a few pages and re-read the posts in this thread. SDSU won't get admission to the WCC; all of their members are private faith-based institutions. If we drop football it would be the Big West or WAC. SDSU West Campus expansion and building a new SDSU stadium will certainly be a challenge. However, those are challenges SDSU will overcome. Actually, because San Diego State University is a public entity of the state of California it may be easier for them (compared to a private entity) to build a West Campus expansion and stadium because of their affiliation with the state and their political connections. SDSU POLITICAL CONNECTIONS CA Senator Marty Block (Chairman of Senate Education Financing Subcommittee) - Former SDSU professor of 26 years CA Assembly Member Shirley Weber - Current SDSU Professor SD Mayor Kevin Faulconer - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Ron Roberts - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Greg Cox - SDSU Alum SD County Supervisor Dianne Jacob - SDSU Alum SD City Council Member David Alvarez - SDSU Alum
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 12, 2015 14:57:17 GMT -8
It will be overcome? Way too confident for such an unknown. Way way too confident.
And again, that five year deal was from 2009? Is that intentionally disingenuous on your part?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 15:00:26 GMT -8
Wow ... take off for a week and you miss a lot around here
What I will respond to at the moment is what is in the City of San Diego's best interest in regards to the Q should the Chargers leave ...
First: The city will pay the same amount for outstanding bonds whether the stadium stands or is demoed ... as long as SDSU wants to play there and their rent covers operating costs, the city won't take on the extra expense of taking a wrecking ball to it until they have a long term plan to address the property as a whole and that could take a decade or more especially with the entitlement process (I think the Pontiac Silverdome is still standing and on sale for $30M). The City is already deferring maintenance on the site, what's 5 more years of deferred maintenance if the Chargers leave?
Second: There is a difference between the highest bidder for a property and the best use of that property -- the City will elect to do with the property whatever makes the most financial sense in the long term. This works in SDSU's favor as a huge economic engine that will offer a larger and longer ROI than a one time sale ... when one factors in infrastructure costs to the city for a mixed use commercial/residential development (industrial use is pretty much a non-starter).
Third: Let's not forget that in order for the City to sell the property for private development, it would have to either pass a vote of the electorate or be sub-divided, graded and prepared into lots smaller than 80 acres to avoid a vote. Right now, without entitlement -- the 166+ acre property is valued at approximately $2M per acre. 80 of those acres are owned by the Water Dept. Even if the City should choose to sell their half for development, SDSU could still work with the Water Department for those 80 acres.
It is my guess that the City will choose to avoid a lot of hassle regarding the Q if the Chargers leave by negotiating with SDSU to assume control of the property similar to what USC did with Los Angeles in terms of the Coliseum. SDSU and the City could enter into a long term lease of 100 years or more for the entire property with a provision for SDSU to purchase the property at some point. Much like the USC/LA deal, the lease would require SDSU to perform certain actions regarding the stadium that coincide with the retiring of the bond debt in 2027 like addressing the deferred maintenance issues either directly or through a renovation/rebuild.
I will agree that no one really knows what is going to happen, but there are some really strong possibilities as to what would happen should the Chargers abandon San Diego.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 15:18:03 GMT -8
then I am at a loss for words. Couldn't tell
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 15:23:47 GMT -8
In terms of covering a market vs. owning a market ...
The Chargers cover Los Angeles -- right now they are having to prove they own it in order to be compensated if another team moves there. The Chargers claim that 25% of their fanbase comes from LA. That 25% claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny which challenges their "ownership" of that market.
One could draw a parallel to the Pac-12 Network covering San Diego, but the Pac-12 itself not owning the market. If the amount of alumni living in a city were the basis for owning a market, then the B1G & the B12 both own both San Diego and Los Angeles. The B1G and the SEC also cover the San Diego market, neither could make a claim to own it nor can the Pac-12.
As one of the 10 most populous cities in America, San Diego is desired by a lot of networks and as such they choose to make themselves available here. The Pac-12 Network could choose to make their network available in New York, Houston, Dallas or Chicago too, but they could not claim to own it if they did
The B1G Network was available on the East Coast before the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. I'll guess that adding those schools was an effort to drive viewership on a network that was already in the market. An increase in advertising and sponsorship money comes with increased viewership and is just as important to a network as is increased subscriptions. Of course adding those schools might have got the network moved from the sports tier to the basic package in those markets -- something that drives both subscription revenue and advertising dollars.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 12, 2015 15:57:02 GMT -8
Wow ... take off for a week and you miss a lot around here What I will respond to at the moment is what is in the City of San Diego's best interest in regards to the Q should the Chargers leave ...First: The city will pay the same amount for outstanding bonds whether the stadium stands or is demoed ... as long as SDSU wants to play there and their rent covers operating costs, the city won't take on the extra expense of taking a wrecking ball to it until they have a long term plan to address the property as a whole and that could take a decade or more especially with the entitlement process (I think the Pontiac Silverdome is still standing and on sale for $30M). The City is already deferring maintenance on the site, what's 5 more years of deferred maintenance if the Chargers leave? Second: There is a difference between the highest bidder for a property and the best use of that property -- the City will elect to do with the property whatever makes the most financial sense in the long term. This works in SDSU's favor as a huge economic engine that will offer a larger and longer ROI than a one time sale ... when one factors in infrastructure costs to the city for a mixed use commercial/residential development (industrial use is pretty much a non-starter). Third: Let's not forget that in order for the City to sell the property for private development, it would have to either pass a vote of the electorate or be sub-divided, graded and prepared into lots smaller than 80 acres to avoid a vote. Right now, without entitlement -- the 166+ acre property is valued at approximately $2M per acre. 80 of those acres are owned by the Water Dept. Even if the City should choose to sell their half for development, SDSU could still work with the Water Department for those 80 acres. It is my guess that the City will choose to avoid a lot of hassle regarding the Q if the Chargers leave by negotiating with SDSU to assume control of the property similar to what USC did with Los Angeles in terms of the Coliseum. SDSU and the City could enter into a long term lease of 100 years or more for the entire property with a provision for SDSU to purchase the property at some point. Much like the USC/LA deal, the lease would require SDSU to perform certain actions regarding the stadium that coincide with the retiring of the bond debt in 2027 like addressing the deferred maintenance issues either directly or through a renovation/rebuild. I will agree that no one really knows what is going to happen, but there are some really strong possibilities as to what would happen should the Chargers abandon San Diego. The Pontiac Silverdome is still standing--barely. It was sold in 2009 for the bargain price of $583,000, and now I understand that what remains inside the building is being auctioned off. The roof is gone, and it's open to the elements.
|
|