|
Post by aztecfan1 on Nov 25, 2015 16:21:47 GMT -8
My sense of public relations is that you make a big deal of this only when you can answer all the questions and not until. I believe SDSU leaders feel the same. Also remember that we have many friends in high places-- mayor Falconer and Supervisor Ron Roberts for example All right, fine. Let's get the questions answered, and pronto. My guess is that the hour is getting late. The issue (i.e., what to do with the Q site) could swing either way. That being the case, we need to build as much support as possible for the campus expansion plan. Remember, this plan goes way, way beyond where the Aztecs are going to play football. It's a once in a gazillion years opportunity which will not come again if something else is done with the Mission Valley site. Those of use who value SDSU as a school surely see that expanding the campus is a golden opportunity. I realize that in cases such as this, a lot of behind the scenes negotiating is taking place. I just want our side represented effectively in those negotiations. I don't want to have to hope that our case is being made. I want us to build as much public support as possible. As I see it, there is much to be gained if the principal decision makers understand that there is strong support in the community not to see this merely as a question of whether the Chargers get their wish. AzWm You can rest assured that things are going on behind the scenes but you won't read or hear it in general media until charger shoe drops. I am so hoping they get nfl to allow them to announce in March so SDSU can announce the plan with all the stakeholders present at site of new stadium with a very cool rendering. Believe it William. It is happening behind the curtain.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Nov 25, 2015 16:47:12 GMT -8
"The San Diego State University Aztecs football team hasn’t played on campus since 1966. And there’s nothing left of the old Aztec Bowl but the decaying stone terraces behind Viejas arena that once held the bleacher seats.
Longtime Aztec football fan Tom Ables sits there, on the east side of the old stadium and points to the opposing seats, which now enclose a parking lot.
“Oh it was a great place. It was fun,” Ables said. “And you can see what a great spectator stadium it was because the first seats, you had elevation. You weren’t down on the ground. And you were just a few feet from the sidelines. You were really in the game here.”As someone who was SO opposed to gutting Aztec Bowl for a basketball arena, when there were other options, including remaining at the Sports Arena, this part of the article is all that matters. The shortsightedness of the then administration is still a craw in my butt. Where I live, even Weber State has an on-campus stadium, so as far as I'm concerned who/whatever is willing to fight and pay for an off-campus stadium on city property, (in other words, business as usual), knock your self's out. (Yawn). So you didn't read the part where it is part of a campus expansion. Also, the average ticket price in Mexico for Club America, the biggest name in the country, is M$150 or about $10. If you draw 40,000 in Mexico that is $400,000 in ticket revenue. If you pay them $600,000 for one of their home games and bring it to a new stadium on campus you would make a ton of cash. Getting 40k from SoCal at an average ticket price of $30 or $40 is a no brainers. We would make like $1m just in ticket revenue per game. Now do that for the Top 10 teams in Mexico and you have some serious reveune. Add in 20 or so home dates for an MLS team and you are set. Oh and don't forget six straight weeks of concerts and motorcycles and Pastana's crazyness. Oh and then 2 home dates for the Mexican National team. Oh wait,then you can add in at least one US National team match. All of that in addition to 6 or 7 Aztec home dates. There is no reason to believe that one of the Qualcomm founder's kids or someone like that couldn't be put in place to either purchase a team and move to SD or get a new franchise. It really is not that hard and i haven't even thought that hard about it.
|
|
|
Post by szshaps87 on Nov 25, 2015 16:47:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Nov 25, 2015 17:04:45 GMT -8
drip ... drip ... drip ... thump
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Nov 25, 2015 17:30:58 GMT -8
My sense of public relations is that you make a big deal of this only when you can answer all the questions and not until. I believe SDSU leaders feel the same. Also remember that we have many friends in high places-- mayor Falconer and Supervisor Ron Roberts for example All right, fine. Let's get the questions answered, and pronto. My guess is that the hour is getting late. The issue (i.e., what to do with the Q site) could swing either way. That being the case, we need to build as much support as possible for the campus expansion plan. Remember, this plan goes way, way beyond where the Aztecs are going to play football. It's a once in a gazillion years opportunity which will not come again if something else is done with the Mission Valley site. Those of use who value SDSU as a school surely see that expanding the campus is a golden opportunity. I realize that in cases such as this, a lot of behind the scenes negotiating is taking place. I just want our side represented effectively in those negotiations. I don't want to have to hope that our case is being made. I want us to build as much public support as possible. As I see it, there is much to be gained if the principal decision makers understand that there is strong support in the community not to see this merely as a question of whether the Chargers get their wish. AzWm The absolute WORST way to approach a situation of this magnitude is for the school to parade around and pit themselves against the Chargers. This isn't Walmart trying to convince a town/ bully their way into letting them build a superstore. Trying to sell people like a used car salesmen will only breed more contempt for SDSU and turn people off to the idea. The proper approach to the situation is grassroots. Let your heavy hitting supporters plant the seed of the idea, nurture it and let people decide for themselves. Especially with social media today, thoughts and ideas can spread very quickly... The idea has already been hatched publicly, and pops up every month or so with a bit more added information. As it comes close to the 11th hour for the Chargers/NFL, more passive publicity will come out about the benefits that SDSU brings to the City. Eventually it will be a legitimate "idea" in the community. At that point SDSU can stand up and say, "Hey, we would love to have the land for a campus annex, and here are out thoughts on how it can benefit not only SDSU, but the City and citizens."
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Nov 25, 2015 18:57:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Nov 25, 2015 20:04:18 GMT -8
Screw the Chargers waiting to get approval to move to LA; the city should just not renew their lease!
|
|
|
Post by mactec on Nov 25, 2015 20:10:15 GMT -8
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but all I'm seeing is that a rich dude supports the idea and donated $45,000 to raise awareness for the campaign. It's not like he's actually offering to fund it
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Nov 25, 2015 20:13:36 GMT -8
This article deserves its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Nov 25, 2015 20:23:32 GMT -8
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but all I'm seeing is that a rich dude supports the idea and donated $45,000 to raise awareness for the campaign. It's not like he's actually offering to fund it This isn't just some "rich dude" it is John Moores who just happens to be a former MAJOR SDSU booster. "Moores also contributed $45,000 to help gather signatures necessary to qualify the initiative for the June or November ballot. Campaign spokesman Jeff Powers called the sum an “initial investment” for Moores."This has serious positive implications for SDSU. The big players are now setting the machine in motion... Mayor Kevin Faulconer, SDSU President Hirshman, UCSD Chancellor Pradeep Khosla, CA Senator Marty Block, John Moores etc... "Moores is a long time benefactor to both SDSU and UCSD and a former UC Regent. He met with both UCSD and SDSU leadership to suggest that the Mission Valley QUALCOMM site should be dedicated to university expansion and a public park." "Moores said, "Universities make a difference. This site is uniquely positioned to serve the future housing, educational and job creation capacity of both SDSU and UCSD." "Moores said that he had been leaning toward supporting the initiative prior to receiving Frye's request but did not want to get involved in the Charger controversy." " He met one-on-one with the Mayor last week and came away confident that the Citizens' Plan protected the Mayor's efforts to negotiate with the NFL while allowing the City to move forward with other opportunities that are shared by residents and tourists." www.kusi.com/story/30608282/former-padres-owner-sdsu-and-ucsd-benefactor-joins-forces-with-supporters-of-the-citizens-plan
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Nov 25, 2015 20:58:21 GMT -8
A lot of smoke is starting to billow.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Nov 25, 2015 21:42:59 GMT -8
www.kpbs.org/news/2015/nov/25/could-chargers-departure-mean-better-stadium-aztec/Fantastic Article!!! "For many San Diego sports fans, the No. 1 question on their minds is whether the Chargers stay or go to Los Angeles. But the Aztecs aren’t going anywhere. If the Chargers abandon San Diego, you might say that’s bad news for SDSU. But you might also say it’s a chance to finally get a right-sized collegiate stadium for the Aztecs."“I think the stadium ultimately gets knocked down," said Block, a San Diego Democrat. "I don’t think anybody wants it for anything, and frankly it’s too big for San Diego State. And San Diego State as the sole tenant couldn’t make a go of it anyway. “So instead of the stadium, you put in the classrooms and housing and everything else I’ve mentioned. In a part of this huge parking lot you could build a much smaller stadium. Hopefully you’d bring in a major league soccer team. San Diego would be a great market for major league soccer, and it would be a public-private venture.” Take special note of this comment... "Neither MLS nor the San Diego State athletic department would not comment for this story."Its coming... Go Aztecs!
|
|
|
Post by Motown Monty on Nov 25, 2015 22:10:56 GMT -8
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but all I'm seeing is that a rich dude supports the idea and donated $45,000 to raise awareness for the campaign. It's not like he's actually offering to fund it Myopia.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Nov 25, 2015 22:25:45 GMT -8
Screw the Chargers waiting to get approval to move to LA; the city should just not renew their lease! Except I believe the Chargers have a current lease with the city until 2020--which I also believe they can buy their way out of for around $15 mil (and reduces each year).
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Nov 26, 2015 6:53:45 GMT -8
A lot of smoke is starting to billow. Coincidence? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Nov 26, 2015 9:32:28 GMT -8
California does not lease real estate for its campuses, it owns it. If and when the Q site becomes available, the priceless opportunity it provides for the growth of SDSU will surely compel the CSU suits upstate to exercise their statutory right of first refusal and buy it. You can bet nobody else will get a chance to even make a bid.
This is part of the reason Dr. Hirshman and Sterk have remained so quiet. The decision isn't theirs to make. If the city puts the acreage up for sale, Sacramento will be the buyer, not SDSU. Rank and file state employees tend to lose their jobs when they churn the political waters, and it wouldn't surprise me if CSU officials have instructed Hirshman to stay out of this. He is at the mercy of the city, county, Chargers, NFL, and state, and will have to make the best of whatever they end up giving him. He can't risk making enemies.
All Sterk and Hirshman can do is be prepared for any eventuality, and in no particular order of likelihood there are three: 1) the Chargers stay in Mission Valley, in which case SDSU has to see to it that a 62K stadium has accommodations for the Aztecs; 2) the NFL leaves, the state buys the Q site, and part of it is set aside for a facility the athletic department will have to construct; 3) the state buys the land but does not want athletic facilities on it, forcing us to go with an on-campus option, probably at the Albert site. In any case I would bet a month's pay that site plans and artists' renderings for each option are already in Sterk's office, tightly locked up.
I suppose there is a fourth possible outcome for our football program, but nobody wants to think about that one.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Nov 26, 2015 9:55:26 GMT -8
California does not lease real estate for its campuses, it owns it. If and when the Q site becomes available, the priceless opportunity it provides for the growth of SDSU will surely compel the CSU suits upstate to exercise their statutory right of first refusal and buy it. You can bet nobody else will get a chance to even make a bid. This is part of the reason Dr. Hirshman and Sterk have remained so quiet. The decision isn't theirs to make. If the city puts the acreage up for sale, Sacramento will be the buyer, not SDSU. Rank and file state employees tend to lose their jobs when they churn the political waters, and it wouldn't surprise me if CSU officials have instructed Hirshman to stay out of this. He is at the mercy of the city, county, Chargers, NFL, and state, and will have to make the best of whatever they end up giving him. He can't risk making enemies. All Sterk and Hirshman can do is be prepared for any eventuality, and in no particular order of likelihood there are three: 1) the Chargers stay in Mission Valley, in which case SDSU has to see to it that a 62K stadium has accommodations for the Aztecs; 2) the NFL leaves, the state buys the Q site, and part of it is set aside for a facility the athletic department will have to construct; 3) the state buys the land but does not want athletic facilities on it, forcing us to go with an on-campus option, probably at the Albert site. In any case I would bet a month's pay that site plans and artists' renderings for each option are already in Sterk's office, tightly locked up. I suppose there is a fourth possible outcome for our football program, but nobody wants to think about that one. #2 Please. As far as the 4th option (football folding) I just don't see that happening. Particularly because it would have negative repercussions across the entire athletic department.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Nov 26, 2015 9:57:26 GMT -8
California does not lease real estate for its campuses, it owns it. If and when the Q site becomes available, the priceless opportunity it provides for the growth of SDSU will surely compel the CSU suits upstate to exercise their statutory right of first refusal and buy it. You can bet nobody else will get a chance to even make a bid. This is part of the reason Dr. Hirshman and Sterk have remained so quiet. The decision isn't theirs to make. If the city puts the acreage up for sale, Sacramento will be the buyer, not SDSU. Rank and file state employees tend to lose their jobs when they churn the political waters, and it wouldn't surprise me if CSU officials have instructed Hirshman to stay out of this. He is at the mercy of the city, county, Chargers, NFL, and state, and will have to make the best of whatever they end up giving him. He can't risk making enemies. All Sterk and Hirshman can do is be prepared for any eventuality, and in no particular order of likelihood there are three: 1) the Chargers stay in Mission Valley, in which case SDSU has to see to it that a 62K stadium has accommodations for the Aztecs; 2) the NFL leaves, the state buys the Q site, and part of it is set aside for a facility the athletic department will have to construct; 3) the state buys the land but does not want athletic facilities on it, forcing us to go with an on-campus option, probably at the Albert site. In any case I would bet a month's pay that site plans and artists' renderings for each option are already in Sterk's office, tightly locked up. I suppose there is a fourth possible outcome for our football program, but nobody wants to think about that one. Tell me about the Alpert site. Is there a visual?
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Nov 26, 2015 10:38:40 GMT -8
California does not lease real estate for its campuses, it owns it. If and when the Q site becomes available, the priceless opportunity it provides for the growth of SDSU will surely compel the CSU suits upstate to exercise their statutory right of first refusal and buy it. You can bet nobody else will get a chance to even make a bid. This is part of the reason Dr. Hirshman and Sterk have remained so quiet. The decision isn't theirs to make. If the city puts the acreage up for sale, Sacramento will be the buyer, not SDSU. Rank and file state employees tend to lose their jobs when they churn the political waters, and it wouldn't surprise me if CSU officials have instructed Hirshman to stay out of this. He is at the mercy of the city, county, Chargers, NFL, and state, and will have to make the best of whatever they end up giving him. He can't risk making enemies. All Sterk and Hirshman can do is be prepared for any eventuality, and in no particular order of likelihood there are three: 1) the Chargers stay in Mission Valley, in which case SDSU has to see to it that a 62K stadium has accommodations for the Aztecs; 2) the NFL leaves, the state buys the Q site, and part of it is set aside for a facility the athletic department will have to construct; 3) the state buys the land but does not want athletic facilities on it, forcing us to go with an on-campus option, probably at the Albert site. In any case I would bet a month's pay that site plans and artists' renderings for each option are already in Sterk's office, tightly locked up. I suppose there is a fourth possible outcome for our football program, but nobody wants to think about that one. Tell me about the Alpert site. Is there a visual? Here is an image made, and posted earlier, by matteosandiego that shows 3 possible sites on campus. The one in the upper left is where the Albert Apartments are. The lower left is the Hardy School site and the one on the far right is Alvarado. There is also a good image of the Albert Apartment site showing a closer view. I can't put my finger on it right now. I'll post it again if I can find it. EDIT: I can't find the image on my computer and it appears that every link where I posted it here have disappeared and the original link from rebelrobert, who made the image, is dead. Hopefully someone has saved a copy and will post it.
|
|
|
Post by sdsu1975 on Nov 26, 2015 14:29:12 GMT -8
"The San Diego State University Aztecs football team hasn’t played on campus since 1966. And there’s nothing left of the old Aztec Bowl but the decaying stone terraces behind Viejas arena that once held the bleacher seats.
Longtime Aztec football fan Tom Ables sits there, on the east side of the old stadium and points to the opposing seats, which now enclose a parking lot.
“Oh it was a great place. It was fun,” Ables said. “And you can see what a great spectator stadium it was because the first seats, you had elevation. You weren’t down on the ground. And you were just a few feet from the sidelines. You were really in the game here.”As someone who was SO opposed to gutting Aztec Bowl for a basketball arena, when there were other options, including remaining at the Sports Arena, this part of the article is all that matters. The shortsightedness of the then administration is still a craw in my butt. Where I live, even Weber State has an on-campus stadium, so as far as I'm concerned who/whatever is willing to fight and pay for an off-campus stadium on city property, (in other words, business as usual), knock your self's out. (Yawn).
|
|