|
Post by aardvark on Aug 25, 2015 17:47:10 GMT -8
I find the oft-mentioned MLS approach quite interesting because I've not heard San Diego referenced in any discussion as a possibility for expansion. The MLS will be expanding from 20 teams today to 22 teams in 2017 with the additions of Atlanta and either Los Angeles or Minnesota, and then to 23 teams in 2018 with the addition of Minnesota or Los Angeles, depending which team joins the league the preceding year. By 2020, the league plans to have 24 teams and I think Miami has the inside track to be the 24th team with David Beckham’s group continuing to make progress with the city officials in regards to building a soccer-specific stadium. And some think Sacramento is ahead of Miami, with their failed Fusion, except for Beckham. Still the question would be when does MLS decide to pause the express for a few years. 24, 26, ? It appears the goal is 24 teams by 2020.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 25, 2015 17:50:08 GMT -8
In the long run, financially, would it be better for the Aztecs, assuming that it could be done, to have their own stadium or share one with an NFL team? Over the years I've heard about the lost revenue to the Aztecs from paying rent, not getting money from parking fees (I think) and several other situations where the NFL team seems to reap the financial rewards. Just a question from someone who has no idea about these issues. Our own stadium OR a deal where we split control of signage, parking, etc. with the NFL team. Since the latter won't happen, I'd say the former.
There's no doubt SDSU wants the Chargers to Bolt, from a selfish perspective.
We seem to ignore the cost of building a new stadium and the current sweetheart deal on sharing the stadium. If we get a similar deal with a new NFL stadium, it would probably be cheaper. A new NFL stadium would be incredible for the Aztecs.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 25, 2015 17:51:30 GMT -8
I can't help but laugh at your attempt to refocus of the subject ... trying to side step the fact that in a short period of time $25M+ had been raised for both Football and Basketball projects. It has not only been reported that matching funds for the Fowler gift had been raised-- but a detailed accounting of how it was spent has been published as well. You either don't keep up with those things that you attempt to bash the admin and leadership over or you are intentionally ignorant of the goings on at SDSU so that you can continue to troll. I will guess that you have made no attempt to understand the multiple and coordinated fundraising efforts at SDSU since you tried to separate and compare the fundraising campaign by the university of which the AD fundraising is a part of (along with KPBS and other campus activities which have been rolled into one large effort). The "campaign for SDSU" has been so successful that it has been split in two ... one part to raise money for campus programs/projects and one to increase the endowment. Actually, the side-stepping is your specialty. In this discussion I don't care about basketball, so let's forget the $25 million and get back to the penurious $5 million. That is the total for football since Fowler's gift of $5 in 2011. Are you, or anyone else, not ashamed of that? Do you not see the problem? haha, the only thing I am ashamed of are "fans" like you that do nothing but post negatives and aren't happy unless you're complaining about something. The facts are that a donor put up $5M to improve the football program and those funds were matched by other donors for a total of $10M. All of this happened while a simultaneous effort was going on to raise $15M for the basketball practice facility ... and for the most part, both goals were achieved. $10M was raised and spent on behalf of the football program ... did you donate any money to the effort? Are you even aware of the current fundraising efforts for the athletic dept? I realize that you only care about football (yet are seemingly uniformed as to the goings on inside the program) ... are you clued in to the COA, Training Table and other expenditures that affect football that are the subject of fundraising? You talk a whole lot, yet say very little ... this leads me to believe that you participate even less (if at all) in the meaningful ways that would help football (and athletics) at SDSU. Do you attend the luncheons? Do you get face time with Rocky Long, Jim Sterk or Elliot Hirshman at any of the fundraising events that are held through out the year? I suspect you do none of these things as they would hinder your ability to sit back and criticize from your protected perch of ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 25, 2015 18:13:10 GMT -8
Actually, the side-stepping is your specialty. In this discussion I don't care about basketball, so let's forget the $25 million and get back to the penurious $5 million. That is the total for football since Fowler's gift of $5 in 2011. Are you, or anyone else, not ashamed of that? Do you not see the problem? haha, the only thing I am ashamed of are "fans" like you that do nothing but post negatives and aren't happy unless you're complaining about something. The facts are that a donor put up $5M to improve the football program and those funds were matched by other donors for a total of $10M. All of this happened while a simultaneous effort was going on to raise $15M for the basketball practice facility ... and for the most part, both goals were achieved. $10M was raised and spent on behalf of the football program ... did you donate any money to the effort? Are you even aware of the current fundraising efforts for the athletic dept? I realize that you only care about football (yet are seemingly uniformed as to the goings on inside the program) ... are you clued in to the COA, Training Table and other expenditures that affect football that are the subject of fundraising? You talk a whole lot, yet say very little ... this leads me to believe that you participate even less (if at all) in the meaningful ways that would help football (and athletics) at SDSU. Do you attend the luncheons? Do you get face time with Rocky Long, Jim Sterk or Elliot Hirshman at any of the fundraising events that are held through out the year? I suspect you do none of these things as they would hinder your ability to sit back and criticize from your protected perch of ignorance. So again, interwoven in the interstices of your vituperations, we have the answer: 2011, with Fowler overwhelmed with enthusiasm (as was much of San Diego) that Hoke brought to the atrophied program, he drops $5 million. In the almost 5, intervening years---the administration rightly thumps their chests about going past the $500 million goal (for non-football business) and boasts the raising of the goal---the two Low Expectation-Pretenders pick up loose change in Hirshman's apartment, totally $5 million. Do you still not see the problem? Priorities for football are not there. Almost $700 million, contrasted with $5 million. Disinterest is high amongst the academics and energy is at a nadir, for anything with the word football in it, or in front of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 18:52:58 GMT -8
looks like we've fingered the issue. myownwiktionary has a man crush on Brady Hoke.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 25, 2015 19:15:36 GMT -8
haha, the only thing I am ashamed of are "fans" like you that do nothing but post negatives and aren't happy unless you're complaining about something. The facts are that a donor put up $5M to improve the football program and those funds were matched by other donors for a total of $10M. All of this happened while a simultaneous effort was going on to raise $15M for the basketball practice facility ... and for the most part, both goals were achieved. $10M was raised and spent on behalf of the football program ... did you donate any money to the effort? Are you even aware of the current fundraising efforts for the athletic dept? I realize that you only care about football (yet are seemingly uniformed as to the goings on inside the program) ... are you clued in to the COA, Training Table and other expenditures that affect football that are the subject of fundraising? You talk a whole lot, yet say very little ... this leads me to believe that you participate even less (if at all) in the meaningful ways that would help football (and athletics) at SDSU. Do you attend the luncheons? Do you get face time with Rocky Long, Jim Sterk or Elliot Hirshman at any of the fundraising events that are held through out the year? I suspect you do none of these things as they would hinder your ability to sit back and criticize from your protected perch of ignorance. So again, interwoven in the interstices of your vituperations, we have the answer: 2011, with Fowler overwhelmed with enthusiasm (as was much of San Diego) that Hoke brought to the atrophied program, he drops $5 million. In the almost 5, intervening years---the administration rightly thumps their chests about going past the $500 million goal (for non-football business) and boasts the raising of the goal---the two Low Expectation-Pretenders pick up loose change in Hirshman's apartment, totally $5 million. Do you still not see the problem? Priorities for football are not there. Almost $700 million, contrasted with $5 million. Disinterest is high amongst the academics and energy is at a nadir, for anything with the word football in it, or in front of it. So now your are speaking on behalf of Ron Fowler as to his interests and intents regarding SDSU? You still don't have any idea how the SDSU fundraising campaign works. Once again you're just talking outta your arse. As I said before, the only thing I am ashamed of are "fans" like you. It is obvious by your dodging of the questions regarding your actions (or lack therof) in engaging those you criticize directly at the many fundraising events they make themselves available at. You don't know what's going on with SDSU, the athletic dept or the football team and it seems to be that you don't want to. I actually feel sorry for you. The big picture is that to land the big recruits we not only have to have a successful program and competitive facilities but we also have to offer a competitive education and the campus experience that top recruits want. You keep denigrating the Hirshman, Sterk and Long yet they are the ones that are making the improvements that are making a difference. You can continue to live in your bubble of ignorance that has you kissing that enormous backside of Brady Hoke and thinking he's the one that got away (Michigan sure doesn't) ... the rest of us will continue to enjoy the reality that the current leadership is building a program.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 25, 2015 19:31:54 GMT -8
Our own stadium OR a deal where we split control of signage, parking, etc. with the NFL team. Since the latter won't happen, I'd say the former.
There's no doubt SDSU wants the Chargers to Bolt, from a selfish perspective.
We seem to ignore the cost of building a new stadium and the current sweetheart deal on sharing the stadium. If we get a similar deal with a new NFL stadium, it would probably be cheaper. A new NFL stadium would be incredible for the Aztecs. Uh, doesn't the stadium deal last proposed by the city raise our rent by like 1,000%? Okay, I'm exaggerating but really... the current deal is faaaaaar from being a "sweetheart" and the city's proposal is even worse for SDSU. And wouldn't improve in the process of further negotiations (assuming the Chargers ever returned to the negotiation table). Very much NOT incredible. Totally the opposite. And by that, I do not mean 'credible,' I mean 'totally sh*tty.'
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Aug 25, 2015 20:09:09 GMT -8
haha, the only thing I am ashamed of are "fans" like you that do nothing but post negatives and aren't happy unless you're complaining about something. The facts are that a donor put up $5M to improve the football program and those funds were matched by other donors for a total of $10M. All of this happened while a simultaneous effort was going on to raise $15M for the basketball practice facility ... and for the most part, both goals were achieved. $10M was raised and spent on behalf of the football program ... did you donate any money to the effort? Are you even aware of the current fundraising efforts for the athletic dept? I realize that you only care about football (yet are seemingly uniformed as to the goings on inside the program) ... are you clued in to the COA, Training Table and other expenditures that affect football that are the subject of fundraising? You talk a whole lot, yet say very little ... this leads me to believe that you participate even less (if at all) in the meaningful ways that would help football (and athletics) at SDSU. Do you attend the luncheons? Do you get face time with Rocky Long, Jim Sterk or Elliot Hirshman at any of the fundraising events that are held through out the year? I suspect you do none of these things as they would hinder your ability to sit back and criticize from your protected perch of ignorance. So again, interwoven in the interstices of your vituperations, we have the answer: 2011, with Fowler overwhelmed with enthusiasm (as was much of San Diego) that Hoke brought to the atrophied program, he drops $5 million. In the almost 5, intervening years---the administration rightly thumps their chests about going past the $500 million goal (for non-football business) and boasts the raising of the goal---the two Low Expectation-Pretenders pick up loose change in Hirshman's apartment, totally $5 million. Do you still not see the problem? Priorities for football are not there. Almost $700 million, contrasted with $5 million. Disinterest is high amongst the academics and energy is at a nadir, for anything with the word football in it, or in front of it. I think BB is getting just desserts for their recent success. They also had a specific thing they requested. Football requested practice facility renovations, and got them. Not seeing the problem. What has the football program asked for that has failed to be acheived?
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Aug 25, 2015 20:57:16 GMT -8
This forum needs an Ignore mode. Click on the member's name (upper left of their post) that you want to ignore, then click on the gear icon on the far left, click "Block Member" and that should work. Or, as an option, you could choose to just refuse to reply to those members you wish to ignore, as I have. If every one did this a lot of threads would not go so far off the tracks.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Aug 25, 2015 21:59:03 GMT -8
The plan hasn't changed. There are contingencies in place for if the Chargers leave or if they stay. Since SDSU and Sterk by proxy are representatives of the school's best interest they are doing all they have the power to do at this time.
The best thing for SDSU as a whole and football as it relates to this thread is for the Chargers to bail. At least that's the way I see it. If the Chargers stay and they redeveloped the Q site, SDSU becomes the tenant in a billion dollar facility.
I actually don't see a loss anywhere for State. Just wait for the city and the Chargers to figure out what they are doing. There's really nothing else to do...
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Aug 25, 2015 22:17:01 GMT -8
The plan hasn't changed. There are contingencies in place for if the Chargers leave or if they stay. Since SDSU and Sterk by proxy are representatives of the school's best interest they are doing all they have the power to do at this time. The best thing for SDSU as a whole and football as it relates to this thread is for the Chargers to bail. At least that's the way I see it. If the Chargers stay and they redeveloped the Q site, SDSU becomes the tenant in a billion dollar facility. I actually don't see a loss anywhere for State. Just wait for the city and the Chargers to figure out what they are doing. There's really nothing else to do... And that is about the size of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 6:24:42 GMT -8
Sterk said "that's speculation" and whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. (re sharing a stadium w/ MLS) i.e. ITS ALL SPECULATION Where you (md) get that Sterk is eager for the NFL to make a decision...yada yada is only in your biased head. oh brother. Not certain what would be best for SDSU. It seems to me if any early announcement were to come out it would be that The Chargers will stay. They could still be staying if an announcement were after the current season, but it would be more likely that The chargers will want to squeeze every dollar out of San Diego if they had approval and wanted to move and therefore would delay announcing their intentions. I really liked the idea of a downtown stadium with the Aztecs redeveloping the Qualcomm site. The longer things drag out the less likely that would be the outcome. I think Spanos wants a downtown stadium, not one at Qualcomm. I am not one of those on the "Use Taxpayer money" for sports teams; however, I think the best possible outcome for the Aztecs would be a high speed, uber expensive downtown stadium [heck if you are going to go big, why not expand the convention center and also put in a new downtown arena]. Everyone talks about how the Jam center will be awesome for Hoops recruiting, I think a new state of the art downtown stadium would be also for the football team. Furthermore, to spice it up a little more, perhaps they can build a "Jam" type center for the football team [do they already have something like this?] on campus at the same time a new stadium is built downtown.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Aug 26, 2015 6:41:50 GMT -8
Not certain what would be best for SDSU. It seems to me if any early announcement were to come out it would be that The Chargers will stay. They could still be staying if an announcement were after the current season, but it would be more likely that The chargers will want to squeeze every dollar out of San Diego if they had approval and wanted to move and therefore would delay announcing their intentions. I really liked the idea of a downtown stadium with the Aztecs redeveloping the Qualcomm site. The longer things drag out the less likely that would be the outcome. I think Spanos wants a downtown stadium, not one at Qualcomm. I am not one of those on the "Use Taxpayer money" for sports teams; however, I think the best possible outcome for the Aztecs would be a high speed, uber expensive downtown stadium [heck if you are going to go big, why not expand the convention center and also put in a new downtown arena]. Everyone talks about how the Jam center will be awesome for Hoops recruiting, I think a new state of the art downtown stadium would be also for the football team. Furthermore, to spice it up a little more, perhaps they can build a "Jam" type center for the football team [do they already have something like this?] on campus at the same time a new stadium is built downtown. Nope. The administration has already made it quite clear that a downtown stadium in a non-starter for the Aztecs. If that happens, SDSU will take over the Q site and build our own stadium.
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Aug 26, 2015 7:09:34 GMT -8
Valid points. I just disagree. This might have been a wise approach 10 years ago. The landscape has suffered seismic disruptions since then, and we can no longer afford to maintain a "wait and see" stance--in my opinion. Others around the country, who care nothing about the Chargers, may have at least one eye on us. If we want them to care at all, we have to make bold statements and take even bolder actions. To Sterk and Hirshman, it would appear that "bold", is just another 4-letter word. Just as Sterk took the low expectations route when he slipped us Rocky. Disagree. Sterk went the CONTINUITY route when he selected Rocky from HOKE'S staff. That makes sense especially when you consider we returned Lindley and Hillman on offense and McFadden on Defense that year. Agreed. If I recall, Hoke ran out on us with about two weeks to go until LOI Day. Sterk sized up the situation the way any of us would--he had to have a football coach before that day was over. A nationwide search for a name-brand guy was an impossibility. He wanted and needed continuity, and saw a veteran MWC head man right there in his office. Rocky was the logical choice, and once you’ve made any choice you give the guy at least three years, so it’s no scandal that Long is still here. Please bear with Sterk a little longer, naysayers. He really is in a bind; the stadium situation is emphatically not under his control, and public agitation on his part to seize control would only risk political repercussions and perhaps diminish the likelihood of his preferred outcome. I believe Sterk doesn’t want to go for the on-campus option, but I still would bet a month’s pay that he has an on-campus plan in his filing cabinet should the wheels come off in Mission Valley. Any talk about rising to a better conference depends on first getting our stadium situation in order. True, Sterk’s low profile can be read as apathy toward football, but it can also be seen as a smart man knowing when to keep his mouth shut.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 26, 2015 8:21:18 GMT -8
Sterk said "that's speculation" and whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. (re sharing a stadium w/ MLS) i.e. ITS ALL SPECULATION Where you (md) get that Sterk is eager for the NFL to make a decision...yada yada is only in your biased head. oh brother. Listening to the interview a second time I have to admit that it sounds to me like Sterk wants a decision made. It has to be frustrating to not be able to make a move, but at the same time standing on the sidelines will do that to you. Everybody wants a decision made but unfortunately it's not that simple. Just think of all the Chargers season ticket holders who want to support the players/team but don't want to support Spanos at this time. Life is full of decisions. They will come when the commissioner and the rest of the NFL cronies decide to make it.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 26, 2015 8:23:46 GMT -8
To whatever extent he has leverage, he has used none. He needs to be privately and publically promoting a new venue for the Aztecs---no matter whether it's with the Chargers or alone. There is a lot he could do. It's going to take enormous investments, especially from the public. Whatever options are eventually thrown down, he needs political and public momentum. Right now, we have NO momentum, especially not from playing field. If he doesn't ask for support, guess what, he won't get it during "crunch" time(sorry for the overused slang). He has been promoting a new venue for the Aztecs by saying it'll be one or the other (new Chargers; solo football facility). It's a win-win. It'd be stupid to thrown down on just one option without knowing how the whole Chargers situation is going to play out. You'd only alienate potential partners as a result, and right now Faulkner, et al are our allies. Once the Chargers situation plays out, and if they leave, we'll have time to gain momentum on the most viable stadium option.
Thankfully we have an AD who knows what needs to be done & is taking the right path until this all plays out.
Your definition of promoting is different than most. If Sterk had been promoting a new venue then we'd ALL know about it. He's chosen to take the quiet route, hence no promotion of a new stadium or funding it has been made public to most.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 26, 2015 8:27:15 GMT -8
For those of you that keep forgetting ... SDSU Athletics Launches Rise to 25 CampaignDec. 23, 2014"To date, the football program already has accomplished several milestones on and off the field. A generous $5 million challenge gift from Ron and Alexis Fowler in 2011 resulted in $5 million in matching gifts for athletic improvements, including:• Football practice field grass renovation • Turf field replacement • New film towers for football practice field • New lights for football practice field • Renovated football locker room in Fowler Athletics Center • Renovated football locker room at Qualcomm Stadium • Compensation for coaching staff • Added athletic medicine staff • Added rehabilitation equipment to the athletic medicine area • New computers for football staff • Renovated Fowler Athletics Center football suite and meeting rooms • Improved stadium branding • Upgraded video system for coach and student-athlete viewing • Increased department staffing In the coming months, SDSU will unveil additional program information and details." So where does this Rise to 25 campaign stand? How many of these items listed are checked off?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 26, 2015 8:38:29 GMT -8
Disagree. Sterk went the CONTINUITY route when he selected Rocky from HOKE'S staff. That makes sense especially when you consider we returned Lindley and Hillman on offense and McFadden on Defense that year. Agreed. If I recall, Hoke ran out on us with about two weeks to go until LOI Day. Sterk sized up the situation the way any of us would--he had to have a football coach before that day was over. A nationwide search for a name-brand guy was an impossibility. He wanted and needed continuity, and saw a veteran MWC head man right there in his office. Rocky was the logical choice, and once you’ve made any choice you give the guy at least three years, so it’s no scandal that Long is still here. Please bear with Sterk a little longer, naysayers. He really is in a bind; the stadium situation is emphatically not under his control, and public agitation on his part to seize control would only risk political repercussions and perhaps diminish the likelihood of his preferred outcome. I believe Sterk doesn’t want to go for the on-campus option, but I still would bet a month’s pay that he has an on-campus plan in his filing cabinet should the wheels come off in Mission Valley. Any talk about rising to a better conference depends on first getting our stadium situation in order. True, Sterk’s low profile can be read as apathy toward football, but it can also be seen as a smart man knowing when to keep his mouth shut. If Sterk & Co truly have a plan for an on-campus (not including the Q site) stadium then they should just build the damn thing. They don't like playing in a half - empty NFL stadium so build a suitable stadium and quit waiting to see what the Chargers are going to do. If the Chargers move out of MValley then take over that land and build housing, classrooms etc.. That is, if they truly have the funding in place as a few seem to think.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Aug 26, 2015 8:41:30 GMT -8
Sterk said "that's speculation" and whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. (re sharing a stadium w/ MLS) i.e. ITS ALL SPECULATION Where you (md) get that Sterk is eager for the NFL to make a decision...yada yada is only in your biased head. oh brother. Just to be clear, are you deaf? Just to be clear but how far is your head up Sterk's darkside?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 8:56:43 GMT -8
Agreed. If I recall, Hoke ran out on us with about two weeks to go until LOI Day. Sterk sized up the situation the way any of us would--he had to have a football coach before that day was over. A nationwide search for a name-brand guy was an impossibility. He wanted and needed continuity, and saw a veteran MWC head man right there in his office. Rocky was the logical choice, and once you’ve made any choice you give the guy at least three years, so it’s no scandal that Long is still here. Please bear with Sterk a little longer, naysayers. He really is in a bind; the stadium situation is emphatically not under his control, and public agitation on his part to seize control would only risk political repercussions and perhaps diminish the likelihood of his preferred outcome. I believe Sterk doesn’t want to go for the on-campus option, but I still would bet a month’s pay that he has an on-campus plan in his filing cabinet should the wheels come off in Mission Valley. Any talk about rising to a better conference depends on first getting our stadium situation in order. True, Sterk’s low profile can be read as apathy toward football, but it can also be seen as a smart man knowing when to keep his mouth shut. If Sterk & Co truly have a plan for an on-campus (not including the Q site) stadium then they should just build the damn thing. They don't like playing in a half - empty NFL stadium so build a suitable stadium and quit waiting to see what the Chargers are going to do. If the Chargers move out of MValley then take over that land and build housing, classrooms etc.. That is, if they truly have the funding in place as a few seem to think. ...Right, because building a new stadium on campus versus building it on a newly acquired MV site is such a minor detail they should just go for it, amirite?
|
|