|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 1, 2015 18:22:03 GMT -8
I find it odd that you think people who disagree with you must be desperate and nervous. Definitely not the case. Not true. Just you and a couple others. What's there to be nervous about as far as the Aztecs go? One outcome would be better than the others (the one where SDSU takes over the Q site) but in almost all cases SDSU will not be substantially harmed. Now Chargers fans on the other hand have much to fear ...
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 1, 2015 20:54:27 GMT -8
The Honks are freaking the F out.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 1, 2015 23:06:16 GMT -8
Not true. Just you and a couple others. What's there to be nervous about as far as the Aztecs go? One outcome would be better than the others (the one where SDSU takes over the Q site) but in almost all cases SDSU will not be substantially harmed. Now Chargers fans on the other hand have much to fear ... Regarding whether SDSU football might be harmed by having to play in (and pay rent for) a new NFL stadium, you are apparently a lot more confident than am I. My guess is that the accountants in the AD's office know darned well that, especially with stipends coming, any additional rent to be paid for a place to play would certainly make running in the black a lot more difficult. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 2, 2015 8:01:33 GMT -8
What's there to be nervous about as far as the Aztecs go? One outcome would be better than the others (the one where SDSU takes over the Q site) but in almost all cases SDSU will not be substantially harmed. Now Chargers fans on the other hand have much to fear ... Regarding whether SDSU football might be harmed by having to play in (and pay rent for) a new NFL stadium, you are apparently a lot more confident than am I. My guess is that the accountants in the AD's office know darned well that, especially with stipends coming, any additional rent to be paid for a place to play would certainly make running in the black a lot more difficult. AzWm Thus the use of the word "substantially" ... I would imagine there is a cost-benefit analysis that compares 20 years rent at a new stadium vs. 20 years of payments on an OCS (factoring in secondary revenue streams like advertising and concessions) and the negotiating team for SDSU has a idea of what they will be able to work with in terms of a new stadium vs. another course of action. I use 20 years, because that is about when the Chargers will once again demand an new stadium (or massive renovations) -- it could make financial sense for the SDSU to hang in there for 20 years then take over something newer than the Q and not act hastily at this moment in time. The bigger prize for SDSU right now is the land at the mission valley site. If 75 acres becomes available, the university should work to obtain that land (at a lower cost than is in the stadium plan). Then when the Chargers leave (be it now or in 20 years, the rest of the site will be available for SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Jun 2, 2015 8:07:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 2, 2015 8:54:16 GMT -8
Quite good info, thanks for the links. Nice to see more and more people calling out the Chargers for almost certainly engaging the city in an effort that falls well short of being in good faith.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 2, 2015 9:24:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jun 2, 2015 9:44:04 GMT -8
Only if they have any vestigial desire to stay in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Jun 2, 2015 9:56:55 GMT -8
I have the transcripts from this morning's meeting...
Chargers: Give us money, and land, and a stadium.
COSD: Well, we've got firefighters and police that need...
Chargers: Give us money, and land, and a stadium -- and lollipop.
COSD: Well, see we've got these pipes that are breaking...
Chargers: FEED ME, SEYMOUR! FEEEEEED ME! I'm huunnnnnnn-gry.
COSD: Well, see our libraries are still on reduced...
Chargers: But I'm STARRRRRR-ving! Money, land, stadium. Lollipop.
COSD: Can I interest you in ripping out your field for cash?
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jun 2, 2015 13:00:53 GMT -8
So essentially a six page thread to amount to "no details of OP's topic will be released"?
Sweet......
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 3, 2015 8:46:02 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. So let's see. Almost 2/3 of respondents are upset with how the Spanoi and Fibiani have approached this, which is bad enough, but much worse is that only 1/3 of respondents said they would consider buying a PSL whereas 64% said they wouldn't. Even assuming any deal reached isn't voted down or if it is voted down that city leaders go ahead anyway, there is no chance of the CSAG plan being financially feasible without the sale of tens of thousands of PSLs. And IIRC, that plan assumes the Chargers would contribute 50% more money toward the stadium than they've offered to this point. So "aren't good" is an understatement.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 3, 2015 14:19:24 GMT -8
Not true. Just you and a couple others. What's there to be nervous about as far as the Aztecs go? One outcome would be better than the others (the one where SDSU takes over the Q site) but in almost all cases SDSU will not be substantially harmed. Now Chargers fans on the other hand have much to fear ... There's no reason to worry about something you have no control over. Clueless Aztecs like md (see above), seem to think he has a clue what's going on behind closed doors when in reality NONE of us do. It's comments like his shows he's got his nuts out of place. FWIW- All of y'all who think that State is going to be handed the Q property on a silver platter are freakin whacked. People in this City, who have no affiliation for SDSU will expect the City to get top dollar for that property and if they don't, the majority will really be pissed. Expect to pay to play and again, where's the $$ coming from? Are y'all lined up to donate your life savings? Is the JAM Center all paid up?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 3, 2015 14:22:56 GMT -8
Any poll prior to the final proposal IF supported by the City/County/Chargers is as useless as tits on a bull. But then again md, you should be familiar with that.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 3, 2015 14:24:39 GMT -8
Quite good info, thanks for the links. Nice to see more and more people calling out the Chargers for almost certainly engaging the city in an effort that falls well short of being in good faith. another "expert" comment by hoobs. I'm sure you know exactly what went on in the room, what will go on, and the end result. Bravo Anybody who believes half the horseshit that the "Voice of San Diego" publishes is just wasting their time. Why does anybody give them the time of day when virtually nobody has ever read their rag?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 3, 2015 14:28:43 GMT -8
the fact is that most people in this City/County are busy and don't take the time to read up on all the comments by those in the 'know". The scribes and talking heads know no more than the rest of us. We're all guessing. People "hear" something and believe it no matter where it comes from. Someone I recently talked to said that she heard the Chargers aren't moving. I asked where she heard that and her answer was a friend. WTF. Really?
Let's see where this all heads.
Latest rumor I read.....and I repeat rumor...... Kroenke sells the Rams, and then buys the Broncos from their ailing owner and his friend. How true that one is is only a guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 14:33:37 GMT -8
Whether you read every available word written on the subject or just take 5 minutes to look at the situation you would have to be pretty dense to think that Fabiani and the Chargers have operated in good faith with the city. People aren't pissed and not wanting to help the Chargers for no reason. It's obvious to everyone, except the willfully blind.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 3, 2015 14:43:28 GMT -8
Whether you read every available word written on the subject or just take 5 minutes to look at the situation you would have to be pretty dense to think that Fabiani and the Chargers have operated in good faith with the city. People aren't pissed and not wanting to help the Chargers for no reason. It's obvious to everyone, except the willfully blind. Personally I think it's more the demeanor that Fabiani acted with the past year or so minus the last 6 weeks, where he's been pretty much what I consider front and center. He pissed off most everybody until his change. The fence sitters probably fell off the fence due to his brash and smug ways. One night after the Pads game about a month or so ago, he was very polite, less of an asshole etc... and pretty much told it like it is. The Chargers will mirror everything the Rams do to protect their interest. But, as he and all the Spanos' have stated, their first choice is to stay in S.D. Quite frankly I think Spanos should have fired Fabiani if he truly wanted the vote in San Diego but he didn't. He apparently told him to tone it down so we'll see if that's enough to get the vote. FWIW- Every move that the Charges have made in Carson has been made public and NOT a big secret. So, as it relates to "good faith", I suspect it depends on ones definition of that term as it relates to this subject. NOBODY, who is dealing in billions of dollars is going to be totally upfront about all aspects and negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 3, 2015 14:49:38 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. So let's see. Almost 2/3 of respondents are upset with how the Spanoi and Fibiani have approached this, which is bad enough, but much worse is that only 1/3 of respondents said they would consider buying a PSL whereas 64% said they wouldn't. Even assuming any deal reached isn't voted down or if it is voted down that city leaders go ahead anyway, there is no chance of the CSAG plan being financially feasible without the sale of tens of thousands of PSLs. And IIRC, that plan assumes the Chargers would contribute 50% more money toward the stadium than they've offered to this point. So "aren't good" is an understatement. It's only the first round of negotiations so why jump to conclusions? People will either pay higher prices for tickets without PSLs or pay for the PSLs over a 10 year time period. Was that mentioned in the survey? 10 years to pay it? Do all Aztecs football tickets include a mandatory donation/psl that has to be paid annually? If they don't collect as much PSL $ one way or the other, then they'll have to figure out another way to collect it.... higher parking fees or ? CSAG provided a STARTING point. Not the finish line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 14:51:30 GMT -8
Whether you read every available word written on the subject or just take 5 minutes to look at the situation you would have to be pretty dense to think that Fabiani and the Chargers have operated in good faith with the city. People aren't pissed and not wanting to help the Chargers for no reason. It's obvious to everyone, except the willfully blind. Personally I think it's more the demeanor that Fabiani acted with the past year or so minus the last 6 weeks, where he's been pretty much what I consider front and center. He pissed off most everybody until his change. The fence sitters probably fell off the fence due to his brash and smug ways. One night after the Pads game about a month or so ago, he was very polite, less of an asshole etc... and pretty much told it like it is. The Chargers will mirror everything the Rams do to protect their interest. But, as he and all the Spanos' have stated, their first choice is to stay in S.D. Quite frankly I think Spanos should have fired Fabiani if he truly wanted the vote in San Diego but he didn't. He apparently told him to tone it down so we'll see if that's enough to get the vote. FWIW- Every move that the Charges have made in Carson has been made public and NOT a big secret. So, as it relates to "good faith", I suspect it depends on ones definition of that term as it relates to this subject. NOBODY, who is dealing in billions of dollars is going to be totally upfront about all aspects and negotiations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they don't want to stay or that they won't...only that they have done enough damage to ensure the deal they are presented could be insufficient for them or the NFL in terms of staying in SD. I think the NFL is leery of alienating a relatively large market like SD if they don't have to. But I also think that if the NFL and Spanos' feel that the stadium will be second rate in any way they are likely gone. In other words the pressure being applied to the Pols to either better support, or not provide too much(i.e. tax dollars), will make or brake this deal. Feels like a coin flip to me...but that's because as you said, no one knows what's being said/negotiated at this point.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 3, 2015 14:53:23 GMT -8
the fact is that most people in this City/County are busy and don't take the time to read up on all the comments by those in the 'know". The scribes and talking heads know no more than the rest of us. We're all guessing. People "hear" something and believe it no matter where it comes from. Someone I recently talked to said that she heard the Chargers aren't moving. I asked where she heard that and her answer was a friend. WTF. Really? Let's see where this all heads. Latest rumor I read.....and I repeat rumor...... Kroenke sells the Rams, and then buys the Broncos from their ailing owner and his friend. How true that one is is only a guess. At least the latter rumor has some basis in logic. Pat Bowlen has been ill for several years and although it will cost a pretty penny to buy the Broncos, Kroenke has so much of it he wouldn't need to first sell the Rams in order to do so. Also, Kroenke is suspected to want to become one of the NFL's wheeler dealers and he can't possibly do that in St. Louis. However, purchasing the Broncos, one of the primo franchises in the league, would offer him that opportunity.
|
|