|
Post by aztecbolt on Jun 12, 2015 19:21:34 GMT -8
Although, I'll praise Faulconer for doing a pretty good job overall with the stadium issue so far, he should have already taken a stand against the hoteliers and other parties downtown that are screwing everything up. Big thumbs down on that front.
Though it's more complicated, would have traffic issues (but so would MV) and supposedly more expensive, etc., a combined downtown stadium/convention center expansion makes so much sense. You can solve the stadium and convention center issues with one solution, save the Chargers, save Comic-Con and you can help SDSU expand into MV. It's a win-win all the way around as far as I can see.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 12, 2015 19:29:30 GMT -8
Although, I'll praise Faulconer for doing a pretty good job overall with the stadium issue so far, he should have already taken a stand against the hoteliers and other parties downtown that are screwing everything up. Big thumbs down on that front. Though it's more complicated, would have traffic issues (but so would MV) and supposedly more expensive, etc., a combined downtown stadium/convention center expansion makes so much sense. You can solve the stadium and convention center issues with one solution, save the Chargers, save Comic-Con and you can help SDSU expand into MV. It's a win-win all the way around as far as I can see. or you can solve them separately ... Let the Chargers, Goldman Sachs, City and County figure out a $1B football-centric stadium at the MTS site (without a roof) for which the City and County only contribute $242M and the land. Let SDSU purchase the 166+ acre Qualcomm site and stadium for $2M/acre and use the proceeds to pay down the $500M contiguous convention center expansion to a much more manageable $168M Everybody wins?
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Jun 12, 2015 21:37:53 GMT -8
Time will tell if Wilner is correct. The only network numbers available to him at the time of that article were 10.5 months from launch. Not to say they are much better now that we have 22.5 months. But even he said the networks weren't expected to make much a distribution the first few years. Does it need more penetration and DirecTV? Absolutely. But this was a long play from jump for the networks. A wholly owned media company in an evolving industry. Do you really believe SDSU could get a P5 invite? Or are you just offering g a what if? 2003, when was that Sterk interview conducted. And explain to me how a lease contract has an automatic extension past the end date? That just doesn't make sense to me. You obviously don't know anything about real estate related matters. It is simply an option, by the tenant, to renew the lease when it expires if certain conditions are met. It is a very common clause in commercial lease contracts. As the very knowledgeable, sophisticated, pro football fan you are let me put it in terms you might be more familiar with. It is not uncommon for a team to offer a player, especially an older player, a contract for one or two years with an option by the team to renew that contract one year at a time for a limited number of years. That way if the older player can still perform up to the team's standards they will renew his contract. If he is unable to perform at an acceptable level the team does not renew the contract and they are off the hook for any more salary.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 12, 2015 21:45:54 GMT -8
Although, I'll praise Faulconer for doing a pretty good job overall with the stadium issue so far, he should have already taken a stand against the hoteliers and other parties downtown that are screwing everything up. Big thumbs down on that front. Though it's more complicated, would have traffic issues (but so would MV) and supposedly more expensive, etc., a combined downtown stadium/convention center expansion makes so much sense. You can solve the stadium and convention center issues with one solution, save the Chargers, save Comic-Con and you can help SDSU expand into MV. It's a win-win all the way around as far as I can see. Oh please oh please have the city change the focus to downtown. That would be the biggest bait-and-switch checkmate Fabiani has ever pulled. Game over if it happens.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jun 12, 2015 22:06:55 GMT -8
Although, I'll praise Faulconer for doing a pretty good job overall with the stadium issue so far, he should have already taken a stand against the hoteliers and other parties downtown that are screwing everything up. Big thumbs down on that front. Though it's more complicated, would have traffic issues (but so would MV) and supposedly more expensive, etc., a combined downtown stadium/convention center expansion makes so much sense. You can solve the stadium and convention center issues with one solution, save the Chargers, save Comic-Con and you can help SDSU expand into MV. It's a win-win all the way around as far as I can see. or you can solve them separately ... Let the Chargers, Goldman Sachs, City and County figure out a $1B football-centric stadium at the MTS site (without a roof) for which the City and County only contribute $242M and the land. Let SDSU purchase the 166+ acre Qualcomm site and stadium for $2M/acre and use the proceeds to pay down the $500M contiguous convention center expansion to a much more manageable $168M Everybody wins? I'm fine with that but the Chargers and the NFL will never go for it. I do believe the team and the NFL should put up the majority of the money but that's just not how it works unfortunately. But the city is going to have to put up some public money and I think rightly so. The city benefits a lot from the Chargers being here. They just shouldn't be held hostage the way the NFL does it now. I think the CSAG numbers of $121M over 30 years ($4M/year) from the city and county each is very fair. But you know the NFL thinks that's not enough.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 13, 2015 2:41:40 GMT -8
Stadium vote raising questions www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/12/chargers-stadium-question-answer-december-vote/Corey Briggs will sue if they try to get around CEQA and have the vote in December. He has advised that they way to get around his lawsuit would be to do it legally by gathering signatures and having the election in June 2016 as this process would make it immune to a lawsuit like Carson and Inglewood.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 13, 2015 8:04:31 GMT -8
or you can solve them separately ... Let the Chargers, Goldman Sachs, City and County figure out a $1B football-centric stadium at the MTS site (without a roof) for which the City and County only contribute $242M and the land. Let SDSU purchase the 166+ acre Qualcomm site and stadium for $2M/acre and use the proceeds to pay down the $500M contiguous convention center expansion to a much more manageable $168M Everybody wins? I'm fine with that but the Chargers and the NFL will never go for it. I do believe the team and the NFL should put up the majority of the money but that's just not how it works unfortunately. But the city is going to have to put up some public money and I think rightly so. The city benefits a lot from the Chargers being here. They just shouldn't be held hostage the way the NFL does it now. I think the CSAG numbers of $121M over 30 years ($4M/year) from the city and county each is very fair. But you know the NFL thinks that's not enough.This is true ... I purposefully left some numbers off book to artificially bring down the cost of a downtown football-centric stadium (without a roof). Those items are related to cost of providing the land downtown. First, the land itself has an incredible amount of value for purposes other than for a stadium. The market costs of the property should be included in the total cost of the stadium. There is also a question of whether the City would be buying the County out of the Stadium at some point (and at what cost?). I did not include the costs that will be incurred by the county to move the MTS bus facility to County property at Gillespie Field. Although the County owns both properties, they would still have to construct the new facility and clean up the old one. The City has a lease with the Padres for the part of Tailgate Park that will be needed for a football stadium. The City will have to buy the Padres out of the remainder of that lease (it runs until 2032). For all intents and purposes, the actual contributions of the City and the county would exceed the $121M each. The ability for each governmental entity to shift those costs to another account will create the illusion that the stadium would cost $1B or less at the onset, and that the Chargers were coming in with a majority of the money. That illusion would be shattered as those costs will be shifted back to the stadium (once approved) and reclassified as cost overruns.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jun 13, 2015 9:14:53 GMT -8
If they build it downtown, I would hope it would have a retractable roof to make it as multi-use as possible.
I still go by my prediction that the Chargers will be playing at Qualcomm in 2020, whether it's because nothing could be figured out by then or they're preparing to move into a new stadium here soon.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 13, 2015 9:42:58 GMT -8
I'm fine with that but the Chargers and the NFL will never go for it. I do believe the team and the NFL should put up the majority of the money but that's just not how it works unfortunately. But the city is going to have to put up some public money and I think rightly so. The city benefits a lot from the Chargers being here. They just shouldn't be held hostage the way the NFL does it now. I think the CSAG numbers of $121M over 30 years ($4M/year) from the city and county each is very fair. But you know the NFL thinks that's not enough.This is true ... I purposefully left some numbers off book to artificially bring down the cost of a downtown football-centric stadium (without a roof). Those items are related to cost of providing the land downtown. First, the land itself has an incredible amount of value for purposes other than for a stadium. The market costs of the property should be included in the total cost of the stadium. There is also a question of whether the City would be buying the County out of the Stadium at some point (and at what cost?). I did not include the costs that will be incurred by the county to move the MTS bus facility to County property at Gillespie Field. Although the County owns both properties, they would still have to construct the new facility and clean up the old one. The City has a lease with the Padres for the part of Tailgate Park that will be needed for a football stadium. The City will have to buy the Padres out of the remainder of that lease (it runs until 2032). For all intents and purposes, the actual contributions of the City and the county would exceed the $121M each. The ability for each governmental entity to shift those costs to another account will create the illusion that the stadium would cost $1B or less at the onset, and that the Chargers were coming in with a majority of the money. That illusion would be shattered as those costs will be shifted back to the stadium (once approved) and reclassified as cost overruns. Why would MTS move the bus yard to Gillespie Field? I thought the county had federal funds available to expand the airport. They would have to forfeit that federal govt. money, and lose the ability to expand the airport (which they said was so necessary, they had to close Cajon Speedway almost 10 years ago--nothing much has happened there since).
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 13, 2015 9:55:39 GMT -8
If they build it downtown, I would hope it would have a retractable roof to make it as multi-use as possible. I still go by my prediction that the Chargers will be playing at Qualcomm in 2020, whether it's because nothing could be figured out by then or they're preparing to move into a new stadium here soon. Unless the Chargers are paying for a roof, there isn't going to be one -- considering the team doesn't even want to pay for the stadium, the roof is not happening. A stadium could be designed so that a roof could be added down the line ... when a remodel or upgrades are demanded to keep up with whatever other teams' new stadiums have.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 13, 2015 10:04:35 GMT -8
This is true ... I purposefully left some numbers off book to artificially bring down the cost of a downtown football-centric stadium (without a roof). Those items are related to cost of providing the land downtown. First, the land itself has an incredible amount of value for purposes other than for a stadium. The market costs of the property should be included in the total cost of the stadium. There is also a question of whether the City would be buying the County out of the Stadium at some point (and at what cost?). I did not include the costs that will be incurred by the county to move the MTS bus facility to County property at Gillespie Field. Although the County owns both properties, they would still have to construct the new facility and clean up the old one. The City has a lease with the Padres for the part of Tailgate Park that will be needed for a football stadium. The City will have to buy the Padres out of the remainder of that lease (it runs until 2032). For all intents and purposes, the actual contributions of the City and the county would exceed the $121M each. The ability for each governmental entity to shift those costs to another account will create the illusion that the stadium would cost $1B or less at the onset, and that the Chargers were coming in with a majority of the money. That illusion would be shattered as those costs will be shifted back to the stadium (once approved) and reclassified as cost overruns. Why would MTS move the bus yard to Gillespie Field? I thought the county had federal funds available to expand the airport. They would have to forfeit that federal govt. money, and lose the ability to expand the airport (which they said was so necessary, they had to close Cajon Speedway almost 10 years ago--nothing much has happened there since). Let me start by saying I don't think a downtown stadium is gonna happen. Having said that, I honestly don't know what is happening with Gillespie field in terms of federal funds for expansion -- but if the Chargers stay in San Diego for the next 20-30 years, an abandoned airport in El Cajon would be an ideal place to build the next stadium. In the short-term, the bus yard could move to the El Cajon Speedway site while a longer term solution is constructed (perhaps in Kearny Mesa). This would expedite the availability of the MTS site downtown, while not technically affecting a federal expansion grant for the airport as the bus yard would be "temporary".
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 13, 2015 10:08:55 GMT -8
And explain to me how a lease contract has an automatic extension past the end date? That just doesn't make sense to me. Lol. Please assure us you're not a college graduate.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 13, 2015 10:13:39 GMT -8
Time will tell if Wilner is correct. The only network numbers available to him at the time of that article were 10.5 months from launch. Not to say they are much better now that we have 22.5 months. But even he said the networks weren't expected to make much a distribution the first few years. Does it need more penetration and DirecTV? Absolutely. But this was a long play from jump for the networks. A wholly owned media company in an evolving industry. Do you really believe SDSU could get a P5 invite? Or are you just offering g a what if? 2003, when was that Sterk interview conducted. And explain to me how a lease contract has an automatic extension past the end date? That just doesn't make sense to me. Are politics your thing? Politics and political pressure are usually at cause behind things that don't make sense to people. In this case, be the politician that kicked SDSU football to the curb without an extension that covers at least 5 years or until the bonds are paid off in 2027. The loss of SDSU football would cause SDSU basketball to find a new and lesser conference to join -- the citizens would not take kindly to that action. It is a well known secret in SD that should the Chargers leave, the City will turn to SDSU as one of the few entities in San Diego with enough money and need to make use of the whole property and have a positive economic impact on the City, County and State -- and all the City of San Diego has to do is let the university take control of the property. There doesn't even have to be a vote on it because it would not be for private development and entitlement would not be an issue. Do I think a P5 invite is possible? Yes. Is it probable? Not in the immediate future, but the conference re-alignment carousel is by no means done spinning. I believe that both the CFP will have to expand beyond the present 4 teams (my guess is to 8) and the other members of the P5 will compel the B12 to expand beyond its 10 members. My personal belief is the carousel will stop after the conferences try to expand to 16 -- (lessons learned from the WAC16) ... when that becomes unmanageable it will result in eight 10-team autonomy conferences each sending their champion to the quarter-finals of the CFP . It actually works out nicely for basketball too. That would be a total of 80 "P5's" You could argue for four 16-team conferences but who gets left out when you have to account for the 65th "P5" in Notre Dame? No, I think they will go to 72 or 80 teams rather than cut one out. You're being much too nice to dolt1963. If he's actually interested in reasonably debating whether SDSU has a chance for a P5 invitation - as opposed to being nothing more than a troll as I believe is the case - let him respond to this from a knowledgeable and OBJECTIVE source: frankthetank.me/2013/10/30/the-big-12-expansion-index-wake-me-up-when-its-all-over/
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 13, 2015 10:27:45 GMT -8
Are politics your thing? Politics and political pressure are usually at cause behind things that don't make sense to people. In this case, be the politician that kicked SDSU football to the curb without an extension that covers at least 5 years or until the bonds are paid off in 2027. The loss of SDSU football would cause SDSU basketball to find a new and lesser conference to join -- the citizens would not take kindly to that action. It is a well known secret in SD that should the Chargers leave, the City will turn to SDSU as one of the few entities in San Diego with enough money and need to make use of the whole property and have a positive economic impact on the City, County and State -- and all the City of San Diego has to do is let the university take control of the property. There doesn't even have to be a vote on it because it would not be for private development and entitlement would not be an issue. Do I think a P5 invite is possible? Yes. Is it probable? Not in the immediate future, but the conference re-alignment carousel is by no means done spinning. I believe that both the CFP will have to expand beyond the present 4 teams (my guess is to 8) and the other members of the P5 will compel the B12 to expand beyond its 10 members. My personal belief is the carousel will stop after the conferences try to expand to 16 -- (lessons learned from the WAC16) ... when that becomes unmanageable it will result in eight 10-team autonomy conferences each sending their champion to the quarter-finals of the CFP . It actually works out nicely for basketball too. That would be a total of 80 "P5's" You could argue for four 16-team conferences but who gets left out when you have to account for the 65th "P5" in Notre Dame? No, I think they will go to 72 or 80 teams rather than cut one out. You're being much too nice to dolt1963. If he's actually interested in reasonably debating whether SDSU has a chance for a P5 invitation - as opposed to being nothing more than a troll as I believe is the case - let him respond to this from a knowledgeable and OBJECTIVE source: frankthetank.me/2013/10/30/the-big-12-expansion-index-wake-me-up-when-its-all-over/Chalk it up to me just getting back from a vacation and still feeling the "Aloha", haha ... but you are right about redirecting him to an objective source. I don't mind a reasonable debate, and I get the feeling he's either not from (or not in) the local area -- my guess would be OC or LA as his ties seem stronger to the Bolts than the City of SD. He also exudes that "The PAC OWNS CA" mentality when it comes to SDSU. In any event, he seemed to get some new information through our exchange and that is easier to do when the conversation is non-confrontational.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 13, 2015 10:31:37 GMT -8
Did you really just link frank the Tank?
Listen, if you guys want to believe the Big 12 is going to expand, fine. Who knows what the future landscape holds. But I can tell you with certainty Texas does not want to expand. And Texas has to want to. And if they do, Texas would expand east and South to get some stroke back they lost with aggy to the SEC.
Does that mean sdsu sucks and doesn't have some value? No. Only means you're going to have to jump a lot of schools to get the big 12 IF something changes and they do expand.
PAC is a non starter, you guys know that. So don't get pissed at the obvious.
And not hiding anything. I was born and raised in del Mar, Torrey Pines class of 91
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 10:43:20 GMT -8
And not hiding anything. I was born and raised in del Mar, Torrey Pines class of 91 What a surprise... DM and TPHS. well, that explains the attitude. You know no more than the rest of the folks here... stop with your absolutes since you, like the rest of us, can't predict the future.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 13, 2015 11:04:34 GMT -8
Did you really just link frank the Tank? Listen, if you guys want to believe the Big 12 is going to expand, fine. Who knows what the future landscape holds. But I can tell you with certainty Texas does not want to expand. And Texas has to want to. And if they do, Texas would expand east and South to get some stroke back they lost with aggy to the SEC. Does that mean sdsu sucks and doesn't have some value? No. Only means you're going to have to jump a lot of schools to get the big 12 IF something changes and they do expand. PAC is a non starter, you guys know that. So don't get pissed at the obvious. And not hiding anything. I was born and raised in del Mar, Torrey Pines class of 91 Nothing like diverting via a lame ad hominem argument. If you think Frank the Tank is FOS - like the rest of us believe YOU are - try to prove that you're not the intellectual lightweight you've heretofore shown yourself to be and attempt to refute his rationale. And Torrey Pines HIGH SCHOOL class of 1991? Translation: Despite a quarter century to obtain one, still no college degree. Gee, what a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 13, 2015 11:09:28 GMT -8
Did you really just link frank the Tank? Listen, if you guys want to believe the Big 12 is going to expand, fine. Who knows what the future landscape holds. But I can tell you with certainty Texas does not want to expand. And Texas has to want to. And if they do, Texas would expand east and South to get some stroke back they lost with aggy to the SEC. Does that mean sdsu sucks and doesn't have some value? No. Only means you're going to have to jump a lot of schools to get the big 12 IF something changes and they do expand. PAC is a non starter, you guys know that. So don't get pissed at the obvious. And not hiding anything. I was born and raised in del Mar, Torrey Pines class of 91 Texas will do what is best for Texas earning power -- they were opposed to TCU for years and now they share a conference because that was best for Texas earning power. B12 expansion can look East and compete in markets with the ACC, B1G & SEC or it can expand West and compete in markets with just the Pac12. Kick off times for some West coast based B12 schools would be beneficial to B12 media partners in terms of competing with the P12 and providing more content later in the day -- a much easier task than competing for viewers in the East. An easy solution for the B12 to get to 14 is to add Cincinnati to give West Virginia a travel partner, and then 3 teams from the West -- would SDSU be among them? We are in the 8th largest city in the country, bring a good sports program and excellent recruiting grounds -- so yeah we have a good chance of making the cut. It would be up to the Pac12 to defend their market by inviting SDSU if the Aztecs get an offer from the B12, so I'd back off that "never gonna happen" idea. The choice to the PAC would be to invite SDSU or let the B12 into So Cal and erode P12network viewership even more, allowing any future B12network to charge carriage fees throughout Southern California -- because it works both ways in a footprint (if LA based Pac teams can claim the SD market, then a SD based B12 team can claim the LA market too). Again, nothing is in the immediate future ... but the B12 media contracts are going to be up for negotiation in 2022 (or there about) -- it will be interesting to see how the media landscape changes between now and then with all the other contracts also being negotiated in the interim (B1G, AAC, MWC) and the possible sale of a large stake in the P12network to a media partner as well.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Jun 13, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -8
If they build it downtown, I would hope it would have a retractable roof to make it as multi-use as possible. I still go by my prediction that the Chargers will be playing at Qualcomm in 2020, whether it's because nothing could be figured out by then or they're preparing to move into a new stadium here soon. I dunno. I was kinda lookin' forward to catchin' the Southern California Chargers in Carson, then hitting Legends in Belmont Shores after the game. When you live in another state, you got a lotta latitude.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jun 13, 2015 11:36:41 GMT -8
This is true ... I purposefully left some numbers off book to artificially bring down the cost of a downtown football-centric stadium (without a roof). Those items are related to cost of providing the land downtown. First, the land itself has an incredible amount of value for purposes other than for a stadium. The market costs of the property should be included in the total cost of the stadium. There is also a question of whether the City would be buying the County out of the Stadium at some point (and at what cost?). I did not include the costs that will be incurred by the county to move the MTS bus facility to County property at Gillespie Field. Although the County owns both properties, they would still have to construct the new facility and clean up the old one. The City has a lease with the Padres for the part of Tailgate Park that will be needed for a football stadium. The City will have to buy the Padres out of the remainder of that lease (it runs until 2032). For all intents and purposes, the actual contributions of the City and the county would exceed the $121M each. The ability for each governmental entity to shift those costs to another account will create the illusion that the stadium would cost $1B or less at the onset, and that the Chargers were coming in with a majority of the money. That illusion would be shattered as those costs will be shifted back to the stadium (once approved) and reclassified as cost overruns. Why would MTS move the bus yard to Gillespie Field? I thought the county had federal funds available to expand the airport. They would have to forfeit that federal govt. money, and lose the ability to expand the airport (which they said was so necessary, they had to close Cajon Speedway almost 10 years ago--nothing much has happened there since). Regarding anything the various governmental agencies proclaim that their current possessions are "vital"; consume it with either Pepto, or take a Valium. In the City's last impotent and otiose attempt to move Lindbergh, the Navy told them that the jets at Miramar MUST stay there, Miramar was absolutely critical to the Navy's "mission". Within a few years they moved them to Yuma/El Centro and the Marines rolled in with helicopters.
|
|