|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 18, 2016 9:21:09 GMT -8
No offense meant, but what you say is, if not nonsense, at least fuzzy thinking. We are talking here about the citizens of San Diego giving a private firm, one owned by very a rich family, hundreds of millions of dollars. Those dollars could be used in so many other ways that would really benefit the community. I really wish the Charger fans would just think for a moment of how many hundreds of thousands of San Diegans either have no interest in American football, are struggling to get along paycheck-to-paycheck, or both. Those folks are simply not interested or are not financially capable, of attending Charger games. Does anyone think that going to Chargers games is cheap? Please, give me a break! This is obviously a case of crony capitalism. It the Spanos family wants to build a stadium using their own money, I have no objection. But it is really unconscionable to ask San Diegans, especially those of very modest means, to help a very rich family have what they either cannot or do not wish to pay for themselves. Question: If we help the Spanoses with public money, do you not think that there are plenty of other private companies that would like to have the taxpayers help fund new offices, headquarters, warehouses, etc.? What do we tell them? AzWm I had a feeling you would bite on that AW. I will just answer you with a simple question. What are your memories of the Q/Jack Murphy Stadium? The minority of mine involve the Chargers. Most include concerts like Pink Floyd and the Beach Boys, Billy Graham, the Padres, and Monster Trucks. I am sure others have many other events in mind. San Diego needs a new facility that can host these events and more moving forward. The Chargers are just one piece of the puzzle. Looking at this as being just about the Chargers is short sighted. BTW, crony capitalism is based on individuals in government doing favors for business. This would not be the case at all. The only way a stadium gets built is if the people vote for it to happen. All those events you just mentioned (except NFL football) are currently held at Petco Park.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 18, 2016 9:40:42 GMT -8
The City owns the Q, but the Chargers have final say in what facilities are used and how they are used. These events MUST negotiate with the greedy bastards to use the facilities, and you can bett you A$$ the Spanos try their best to take as much of their revenue as possible. Rather than deal with the Spanos, it is easier and more profitable to go to Petco/Padres, which have proven 1000's of time to actually want to be part of the Community. SDSU Basball game, winter events, movies, SDSU/USD basketball, the driving range, bring your dof to the park etc... Events are held at Petco on almost a monthly basis when it isn't baseball season, vs the Q where the only events the Chargers approve is a parking lot tent sale. We know the Chargers lease with the City is unbelievable and rife with credits. One of the many reasons Qualcomm needs to be razed. The City is going to come out ahead of in this new stadium vs. the current deal. But the City owns and operates Qualcomm. Can you provide me a link where the Chargers get final say and have vetoed events? And the reason Petco has been getting more events is b/c its a much better facility and the new ownership group has been aggressive acquiring these events. This isn't a zero sum game.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 18, 2016 9:55:45 GMT -8
Simply kills me people care so much about a half percent of the annual budget. I can guarantee I'd find so much waste in our cities budget totalling much more than a half a percent that delivers nothing like a civic asset and infrastructure as a stadoum. And people are willing to lose it all over a half percent. Just smh. Because no one but Charger Honks looks at it's an itty bitty teeny weeny widdle half percent. They see it as $350M (minimum) in public funds going to a private business that $#!+ on the City of San Diego for the last year and charges the public a helluva lot of additional money for the "privilege" of seeing events there.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 18, 2016 9:59:48 GMT -8
Because no one but Charger Honks looks at it's an itty bitty teeny weeny widdle half percent. They see it as $350M (minimum) in public funds going to a private business that $#!+ on the City of San Diego for the last year and charges the public a helluva lot of additional money for the "privilege" of seeing events there. Really, just Charger honks huh? And I'll continue saying it. When the City and Chargers forward the proposal, the $$ is going to pencil out in favor of a new stadium. It costs the City 10-15 million to operate Qualcomm + over a hundred million in deferred maintenance. We'll see how this new deal presents - but if the Chargers are responsible to operate - then the Cities debt service is going to nearly net out from what they currently pay to operate Qualcomm. We can save the numbers talk for when the proposal comes out. If it's more money out than what the City is currently paying - it won't be much more IMO.
|
|
|
Post by pbaztec17 on Feb 18, 2016 10:17:39 GMT -8
Simply kills me people care so much about a half percent of the annual budget. I can guarantee I'd find so much waste in our cities budget totalling much more than a half a percent that delivers nothing like a civic asset and infrastructure as a stadoum. And people are willing to lose it all over a half percent. Just smh. Because no one but Charger Honks looks at it's an itty bitty teeny weeny widdle half percent. They see it as $350M (minimum) in public funds going to a private business that $#!+ on the City of San Diego for the last year and charges the public a helluva lot of additional money for the "privilege" of seeing events there. And this sportsfans, is the epitome of small time thinking. Thank you sir, for affirming my beliefs. Much obliged.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 18, 2016 10:29:22 GMT -8
Really, just Charger honks huh? And I'll continue saying it. When the City and Chargers forward the proposal, the $$ is going to pencil out in favor of a new stadium. It costs the City 10-15 million to operate Qualcomm + over a hundred million in deferred maintenance. We'll see how this new deal presents - but if the Chargers are responsible to operate - then the Cities debt service is going to nearly net out from what they currently pay to operate Qualcomm. So the city has such a sh!tty deal with the Chargers now that they should make a new deal with them? Based on all the terrible decisions the City has made with ticket guarantee and expanding the stadium only to have the Chargers ask for a new stadium 4 years later why the hell would anyone in their right mind think it will work out better this time?
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 18, 2016 10:37:02 GMT -8
If the city/county did decide to contribute 300 - 500 million to a private business I would prefer to see it used as incentives to attract business to San Diego. That kind of money could result in the hiring of thousands of people to good paying jobs in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Feb 18, 2016 10:44:07 GMT -8
If the city/county did decide to contribute 300 - 500 million to a private business I would prefer to see it used as incentives to attract business to San Diego. That kind of money could result in the hiring of thousands of people to good paying jobs in San Diego. That is too good of an idea to gain traction.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Feb 18, 2016 10:46:15 GMT -8
There really aren't a ton of events going on at Petco.
I'm not really sure why because the events they do put on seem to get really good praise.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Feb 18, 2016 10:49:56 GMT -8
Whelp, I am born and raised in SD. I for one will vote for $ money to go to a SD stadium and know many others that will do so as well. It is about having a facility for the community, many see that. No offense meant, but what you say is, if not nonsense, at least fuzzy thinking. We are talking here about the citizens of San Diego giving a private firm, one owned by very a rich family, hundreds of millions of dollars. Those dollars could be used in so many other ways that would really benefit the community. I really wish the Charger fans would just think for a moment of how many hundreds of thousands of San Diegans either have no interest in American football, are struggling to get along paycheck-to-paycheck, or both. Those folks are simply not interested or are not financially capable, of attending Charger games. Does anyone think that going to Chargers games is cheap? Please, give me a break! This is obviously a case of crony capitalism. It the Spanos family wants to build a stadium using their own money, I have no objection. But it is really unconscionable to ask San Diegans, especially those of very modest means, to help a very rich family have what they either cannot or do not wish to pay for themselves. Question: If we help the Spanoses with public money, do you not think that there are plenty of other private companies that would like to have the taxpayers help fund new offices, headquarters, warehouses, etc.? What do we tell them? AzWm Who paid for the original Jack Murphy/San Diego Stadium? Didn't the city pay for a large chunk of Petco? Has SDSU even made a public effort to try to raise money for a football stadium?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 11:03:43 GMT -8
Here we go, now let's compare a public university's non-profit football program to a private for profit billion dollar business and ask why one can't contribute the resources of the other, even though the former doesn't need the opulence of the later.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 18, 2016 11:24:19 GMT -8
I had a feeling you would bite on that AW. I will just answer you with a simple question. What are your memories of the Q/Jack Murphy Stadium? The minority of mine involve the Chargers. Most include concerts like Pink Floyd and the Beach Boys, Billy Graham, the Padres, and Monster Trucks. I am sure others have many other events in mind. San Diego needs a new facility that can host these events and more moving forward. The Chargers are just one piece of the puzzle. Looking at this as being just about the Chargers is short sighted. BTW, crony capitalism is based on individuals in government doing favors for business. This would not be the case at all. The only way a stadium gets built is if the people vote for it to happen. All those events you just mentioned (except NFL football) are currently held at Petco Park. Beyonce is at the Q. Good luck to the Pads in fixing their field after Billy Joel's concert to be suitable for the All Star game and HR Derby. It was $#!+ all last year after the Stones concert.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 18, 2016 11:26:27 GMT -8
Really, just Charger honks huh? And I'll continue saying it. When the City and Chargers forward the proposal, the $$ is going to pencil out in favor of a new stadium. It costs the City 10-15 million to operate Qualcomm + over a hundred million in deferred maintenance. We'll see how this new deal presents - but if the Chargers are responsible to operate - then the Cities debt service is going to nearly net out from what they currently pay to operate Qualcomm. So the city has such a sh!tty deal with the Chargers now that they should make a new deal with them? Based on all the terrible decisions the City has made with ticket guarantee and expanding the stadium only to have the Chargers ask for a new stadium 4 years later why the hell would anyone in their right mind think it will work out better this time? The City can't afford not to.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 18, 2016 11:51:17 GMT -8
Really, just Charger honks huh? And I'll continue saying it. When the City and Chargers forward the proposal, the $$ is going to pencil out in favor of a new stadium. It costs the City 10-15 million to operate Qualcomm + over a hundred million in deferred maintenance. We'll see how this new deal presents - but if the Chargers are responsible to operate - then the Cities debt service is going to nearly net out from what they currently pay to operate Qualcomm. So the city has such a sh!tty deal with the Chargers now that they should make a new deal with them? Based on all the terrible decisions the City has made with ticket guarantee and expanding the stadium only to have the Chargers ask for a new stadium 4 years later why the hell would anyone in their right mind think it will work out better this time? All eyes are watching and it needs voter approval. You really think the city is going to get bent over like before? Would you prefer to operate under the current deals going forward? Some of you guys are just so far out there and opinions really antithetical to what I would expect from an Aztecs fan. Putting a lot of faith in SDSU coming up with the land cost, building costs and annual operating/maintenance costs to keep aztecs football alive.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 18, 2016 11:58:54 GMT -8
No offense meant, but what you say is, if not nonsense, at least fuzzy thinking. We are talking here about the citizens of San Diego giving a private firm, one owned by very a rich family, hundreds of millions of dollars. Those dollars could be used in so many other ways that would really benefit the community. I really wish the Charger fans would just think for a moment of how many hundreds of thousands of San Diegans either have no interest in American football, are struggling to get along paycheck-to-paycheck, or both. Those folks are simply not interested or are not financially capable, of attending Charger games. Does anyone think that going to Chargers games is cheap? Please, give me a break! This is obviously a case of crony capitalism. It the Spanos family wants to build a stadium using their own money, I have no objection. But it is really unconscionable to ask San Diegans, especially those of very modest means, to help a very rich family have what they either cannot or do not wish to pay for themselves. Question: If we help the Spanoses with public money, do you not think that there are plenty of other private companies that would like to have the taxpayers help fund new offices, headquarters, warehouses, etc.? What do we tell them? AzWm Who paid for the original Jack Murphy/San Diego Stadium? Didn't the city pay for a large chunk of Petco? Has SDSU even made a public effort to try to raise money for a football stadium? The city (through a ballot measure that was overwhelmingly approved). Yes. Not yet.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 18, 2016 13:21:27 GMT -8
I had a feeling you would bite on that AW. I will just answer you with a simple question. What are your memories of the Q/Jack Murphy Stadium? The minority of mine involve the Chargers. Most include concerts like Pink Floyd and the Beach Boys, Billy Graham, the Padres, and Monster Trucks. I am sure others have many other events in mind. San Diego needs a new facility that can host these events and more moving forward. The Chargers are just one piece of the puzzle. Looking at this as being just about the Chargers is short sighted. BTW, crony capitalism is based on individuals in government doing favors for business. This would not be the case at all. The only way a stadium gets built is if the people vote for it to happen. All those events you just mentioned (except NFL football) are currently held at Petco Park. Exactly. Petco was "more than a ballpark" while the Chargers theme is "Another stadium."
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 18, 2016 13:24:04 GMT -8
So the city has such a sh!tty deal with the Chargers now that they should make a new deal with them? Based on all the terrible decisions the City has made with ticket guarantee and expanding the stadium only to have the Chargers ask for a new stadium 4 years later why the hell would anyone in their right mind think it will work out better this time? The City can't afford not to. It's great the mayor is letting the electorate decide this.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Feb 18, 2016 14:56:14 GMT -8
The City can't afford not to. It's great the mayor is letting the electorate decide this. by the way a nice photo of yourself there md. Look at the current deal and how much the City has to pay to maintain that old relic and tell me that the fools are ok with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 15:23:02 GMT -8
Fools are the sort who are ok with a billion dollar project because of a multi-million dollar lease. This money pit isn't deep enough, better make it bigger...
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 18, 2016 15:46:19 GMT -8
Here's a little exercise in "What if?" Let's imagine an alternate world in which the Chargers had never come to San Diego but Don Coryell had. The Aztecs would probably have continued to play in old Balboa Stadium, quite probably with the second deck additions that were added for Charger games. Assuming the same trend of increasingly successful Aztec football (maybe even assuming that St. Don never left for the NFL), perhaps Aztec Bowl would have been expanded to about 40K capacity. (My information says that it was designed to facilitate expansion to slightly over 40K in the first place.)
As for basketball, something better than Peterson Gymnasium, though likely not as big as Viejas Arena, would probably have been built. (Maybe the school would have understood that Peterson was going to be way too small and decided to built one seating 7,000 or more in the first place!)
Here's the point. I am suggesting that Aztec football would have been successful without the Chargers. In fact, considering the pickle we are now in, it seems clear to me that any success SDSU football has enjoyed since 1961 has been in spite of the Chargers. Finally, I concur with those who think it is folly to let the Chargers control any new stadium. There is no reason not to believe that any benefits (signage, etc.) we might get from such a deal will probably only come if we kidnap Dean's grandchildren and threaten to raise them as Rams fans.
AzWm
|
|