|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 17, 2016 9:18:54 GMT -8
Pitt used to be a very good football program and attendance as a whole for CFB has been declining. As for negotiating your deal if the city decides in Mission Valley, you guys will do better than just signage. There is no question SDSU would be better off in your own smaller stadium. The question is whether you have the means and the numbers pencil out. If the city goes downtown or a vote in Mission Valley fails, we'll get to see if you can. We'll know within the next 30 months or so. Much sooner than that if mission Valley is as far along as some of you believe If Cincinnati, Houston, Boise State, Fresno State & Colorado State can build their own appropriate college stadium SDSU can as well.
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Feb 17, 2016 9:22:14 GMT -8
Tarps suck.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 9:40:24 GMT -8
If Cincinnati, Houston, Boise State, Fresno State & Colorado State can build their own appropriate college stadium SDSU can as well. Nippert's renovation not withstanding, Houston and Colorado State are the two that would be applicable to SDSU current situation. Both owned the land they are building on. Colorado State's is the more expensive of the two - coming in at 220 million and counting. As I said earlier in this thread - a SDSU stadium in Mission Valley is going to run ~300 million or so just to build. Not even counting acquiring the land. That is a lot of money to ask an upside down G5 school to front. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 17, 2016 10:11:11 GMT -8
If Cincinnati, Houston, Boise State, Fresno State & Colorado State can build their own appropriate college stadium SDSU can as well. Nippert's renovation not withstanding, Houston and Colorado State are the two that would be applicable to SDSU current situation. Both owned the land they are building on. Colorado State's is the more expensive of the two - coming in at 220 million and counting. As I said earlier in this thread - a SDSU stadium in Mission Valley is going to run ~300 million or so just to build. Not even counting acquiring the land. That is a lot of money to ask an upside down G5 school to front. We shall see. Yes. We shall. Best case is Chargers go downtown & SDSU expands campus to MV with a 40K stadium. Also, Fresno State is planning on renovating & expanding Bulldog Stadium in the near future. Estimated cost is $80 million. Target for completion is 2019. “For us to move forward in this conference, look around, the whole conference is doing it,” Bartko said. “Colorado State is doing it, Utah State is doing it, Nevada. UNLV is looking at it. Wyoming has done it. Boise did it. Air Force is doing it." www.fresnobee.com/sports/college/mountain-west/fresno-state/bulldogs-football/article25543174.html
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 17, 2016 10:23:28 GMT -8
If the Aztecs end up sharing with the Chargers in a new facility, the Aztecs definitely will NOT do better than just signage. OK. Sure thing. Guess all those city connections I keep hearing about are garbage huh? SDSU would be getting in from jump. Either as a partner or tenant. It will be a decent deal and more than likely pencil out more favorably than bonding hundreds millions in your own. Any new stadium that is built for the Chargers will be mainly for the Chargers, and the Chargers will extract as much money as they possibly can from that facility--especially if they put hundreds of millions of dollars into it. It is extremely doubtful the Aztecs would profit from this arrangement (similar to what they have--or don't have--now), and if you can't see that, you really are clueless.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Feb 17, 2016 10:31:07 GMT -8
OK. Sure thing. Guess all those city connections I keep hearing about are garbage huh? SDSU would be getting in from jump. Either as a partner or tenant. It will be a decent deal and more than likely pencil out more favorably than bonding hundreds millions in your own. Any new stadium that is built for the Chargers will be mainly for the Chargers, and the Chargers will extract as much money as they possibly can from that facility--especially if they put hundreds of millions of dollars into it. It is extremely doubtful the Aztecs would profit from this arrangement (similar to what they have--or don't have--now), and if you can't see that, you really are clueless. Furthermore, with the city's proposal a few months ago.... The terms for the Aztecs were AWFUL. And no one should expect Spanos to allow for any better terms for SDSU to be created in updated negotiations. The Chargers have been AWFUL "partners" for the Aztecs for decades. I wish nothing but good riddance of the Chargers at the Q site.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 10:35:39 GMT -8
Any new stadium that is built for the Chargers will be mainly for the Chargers, and the Chargers will extract as much money as they possibly can from that facility--especially if they put hundreds of millions of dollars into it. It is extremely doubtful the Aztecs would profit from this arrangement (similar to what they have--or don't have--now), and if you can't see that, you really are clueless. Don't call me clueless if you can't figure out how the numbers pencil out. I understand you WANT your own smaller stadium. I understand you think it would be better for the fan experience. What you don't understand - what you want is going to cost a lot of money. Money your athletic department doesn't have and doesn't have the revenue streams to pay back. Money your University is going to have to decide is worth it to carry your football program. I am not arguing as a SDSU fan you should want to be a partner/tenant in Mission Valley with the Chargers. I am saying I would put odds that is exactly what is going to end up happening. Not b/c the City and Chargers pushed SDSU around, but because the numbers will pencil out in favor of it.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 17, 2016 10:38:23 GMT -8
Any new stadium that is built for the Chargers will be mainly for the Chargers, and the Chargers will extract as much money as they possibly can from that facility--especially if they put hundreds of millions of dollars into it. It is extremely doubtful the Aztecs would profit from this arrangement (similar to what they have--or don't have--now), and if you can't see that, you really are clueless. Don't call me clueless if you can't figure out how the numbers pencil out. I understand you WANT your own smaller stadium. I understand you think it would be better for the fan experience. What you don't understand - what you want is going to cost a lot of money. Money your athletic department doesn't have and doesn't have the revenue streams to pay back. Money your University is going to have to decide is worth it to carry your football program. I am not arguing as a SDSU fan you should want to be a partner/tenant in Mission Valley with the Chargers. I am saying I would put odds that is exactly what is going to end up happening. Not b/c the Chargers pushed SDSU around, but because the numbers will pencil out more for your football program. I could have agreed with your last sentence, until you ended it saying the numbers would pencil out for the football program. You just doubled down on your cluelessness.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 10:43:28 GMT -8
I could have agreed with your last sentence, until you ended it saying the numbers would pencil out for the football program. You just doubled down on your cluelessness. OK. Go ahead and educate me how the numbers pencil out in favor of spending ~300 million on building the stadium plus the annual operating and maintenance costs vs. being a partner or tenant in a City/Chargers/Aztecs stadium. Yes, if you do it alone - you're going to receive all the signage, concessions, etc. Without knowing what the terms would be as a partner or tenant - I'll agree you'd receive more revenue on your own. But explain to me how that difference in revenue is going to make up for the building costs and annual operating/maintenance cost. Understanding we're shooting blind here - but if you're going as far as calling me clueless- then doubling down on my cluelessness - there must be an unbelievably massive revenue stream I am missing here.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 17, 2016 10:54:47 GMT -8
I could have agreed with your last sentence, until you ended it saying the numbers would pencil out for the football program. You just doubled down on your cluelessness. OK. Go ahead and educate me how the numbers pencil out in favor of spending ~300 million on building the stadium plus the annual operating and maintenance costs vs. being a partner or tenant in a City/Chargers/Aztecs stadium. Yes, if you do it alone - you're going to receive all the signage, concessions, etc. Without knowing what the terms would be as a partner or tenant - I'll agree you'd receive more revenue on your own. But explain to me how that difference in revenue is going to make up for the building costs and annual operating/maintenance cost. Understanding we're shooting blind here - but if you're going as far as calling me clueless- then doubling down on my cluelessness - there must be an unbelievably massive revenue stream I am missing here. Actually, we do agree on a few things--it will be very difficult for the Aztecs to pull this off on their own (or even with a partner--some have suggested a possible MLS franchise), and will be prohibitively expensive. You think they can't do it, but I and others think they can. The problem is, no one knows for sure, while this continuing Chargers saga goes on and on. While we undoubtedly will continue to disagree, I apologize for the name-calling.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 10:57:21 GMT -8
Fair enough. And I am not saying they can't - just that it won't come down to it. Again, if the Chargers leave there is nothing that would make me happier to see SDSU pull it off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 11:16:19 GMT -8
Fair enough. And I am not saying they can't - just that it won't come down to it. Again, if the Chargers leave there is nothing that would make me happier to see SDSU pull it off. Gonna call you out on this one... You have, in fact, several times told posters who think 'they can' that they are delusional for thinking they can. So, which is it... can they or can't they??? Troll on for victory...
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 11:29:09 GMT -8
Gonna call you out on this one... You have, in fact, several times told posters who think 'they can' that they are delusional for thinking they can. So, which is it... can they or can't they??? Troll on for victory... I think they "can" but that it will be much more difficult than being a tenant/partner with the City/Chargers. I think the posters who believe its a lay up and are wanting to kick the Chargers out of town are delusional for thinking its a done deal. I think there is a chance those people will end up cutting their nose off to spite their face and will regret it. OTOH - if the Chargers leave or go downtown and SDSU pulls it off - that's a great deal for Aztec fans. Whether its a great deal for SDSU - we'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 11:32:59 GMT -8
Gonna call you out on this one... You have, in fact, several times told posters who think 'they can' that they are delusional for thinking they can. So, which is it... can they or can't they??? Troll on for victory... I think they "can" but that it will be much more difficult than being a tenant/partner with the City/Chargers. I think the posters who believe its a lay up and are wanting to kick the Chargers out of town are delusional for thinking its a done deal. I think there is a chance those people will end up cutting their nose off to spite their face and will regret it. OTOH - if the Chargers leave or go downtown and SDSU pulls it off - that's a great deal for Aztec fans. Whether its a great deal for SDSU - we'll see. No one thinks SDSU getting MV is a done deal. The only thing we think is a done deal is the Chargers not getting the votes they need to have access to public funding, and every bit of information that comes out about that issue reaffirms that belief. Getting MV is our number 1 choice, not something we think will just happen with no issues. You get that those are two different things right?
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Feb 17, 2016 11:43:57 GMT -8
Pitt should definitely tarp off the uppder deck. It would look rocking if they did. SDSU should do the same. I don't get it. Better yet, SDSU should build its own 40,000 seat college stadium. That would be rockin'! Screw the tarps. Of course, but they had the chance to build it on campus and they blew it. That would have been the ideal situation. I still don't understand the decision not to do it.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 11:45:29 GMT -8
No one thinks SDSU getting MV is a done deal. The only thing we think is a done deal is the Chargers not getting the votes they need to have access to public funding, and every bit of information that comes out about that issue reaffirms that belief. Getting MV is our number 1 choice, not something we think will just happen with no issues. You get that those are two different things right? Yes. I understand they are two different things. I also understand public funding for a brand new stadium and public funding to continue operating Qualcomm are two different things as well. Even though the amount will be in the same ballpark. Which is why half this thread is arguing how long it will take for the City to raze Qualcomm. OTOH, we disagree whether the City and Chargers not getting 50%+1 vote is a done deal. We haven't seen the deal they're going to present and we haven't seen what 8 months of campaigning will do.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Feb 17, 2016 13:37:28 GMT -8
Yawn . . .
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 17, 2016 14:27:03 GMT -8
Let's imagine for a moment that a vote is held asking the citizens of the city of San Diego to provide several hundred million dollars as partial funding for the construction of a new "Chargers" stadium. I believe that there will be significant opposition to that plan. (No doubt there will also be many San Diegans who will be in favor of the idea.)
Question: How strong will be the opposition to public funding of a new "Chargers" stadium, and what prominent groups or persons might we expect to lead that opposition effort? Also, does anybody care to predict the outcome of such a vote? Some posters have indicated their belief that a vote would not garner oven 50%. (I'm assuming that a 2/3 majority would be required.) As of this date, I am unaware of any polling that has been done on the question.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 17, 2016 14:38:48 GMT -8
Better yet, SDSU should build its own 40,000 seat college stadium. That would be rockin'! Screw the tarps. Of course, but they had the chance to build it on campus and they blew it. That would have been the ideal situation. I still don't understand the decision not to do it. Me either. It wasn't the current administrations decision. But it's water under the bridge at this point.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 14:49:00 GMT -8
Let's imagine for a moment that a vote is held asking the citizens of the city of San Diego to provide several hundred million dollars as partial funding for the construction of a new "Chargers" stadium. I believe that there will be significant opposition to that plan. (No doubt there will also be many San Diegans who will be in favor of the idea.) Question: How strong will be the opposition to public funding of a new "Chargers" stadium, and what prominent groups or persons might we expect to lead that opposition effort? Also, does anybody care to predict the outcome of such a vote? Some posters have indicated their belief that a vote would not garner oven 50%. (I'm assuming that a 2/3 majority would be required.) As of this date, I am unaware of any polling that has been done on the question. AzWm They aren't going to bring a proposal that requires new taxes - which is where you get your 2/3. The proposal will only need 50% plus one vote. Polling to date IMO is absolutely worthless and depends on how the the question is worded. Would you vote for public funding of a new stadium? That question in the latest polling has received around 65% opposed. Would you vote for public funding if the NFL/Chargers paid for 2/3 of it? That poll was 51% in favor. But I guarantee most those people polled to date haven't a clue how much money San Diego spends to operate Qualcomm right now per year. Nor do they understand the deferred maintenance. If the City and Chargers (and Aztecs?) make a proposal that is fair to San Diego - then you'll see a massive campaign explaining the current costs to keeping Qualcomm and the costs building brand new. Then with the City, Chargers, Business (Aztecs?) on board pushing the same message with a unified front - I personally believe they'll get that 50% + 1 vote. But its all way premature until we see the deal.
|
|