|
Post by fanhood on Jul 17, 2017 10:54:08 GMT -8
Look at the breakdowns from the thread I created the other day about joining their club. Sacramento, Cincinnati, Nashville, Tampa Bay, San Antonio, Raleigh, Detroit, etc are all tracking forward. Sacramento and Cinci are basically sure things. Many of the other cities already have teams, and cities. SD will get a team sometime in 2024 when they expand to 32, but not this time around. Miami seems like a lock as well right? Thats already 3 cities that are far ahead of San Diego i believe. Miami and LA are teams 23-24. They are already in. There are four more spots for teams 25-28. Sacramento and Cincinnati are basically sure things. Nashville is gaining steam. Phoenix has a USL team, and expects a bid. Detroit has a strong ownership group. San Antonio already has a team, and thinks they are competitive. Tampa Bay has a team, and already has a stadium, that they will expand. Honestly, they will probably keep things even and go two in the West, and two in the East. If that is the case, Sacramento and Phoenix will take the two spots. Then, Soccer City SD is dead even before the vote is scheduled.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 17, 2017 11:19:22 GMT -8
And yet Voice of San Diego broke down the costs associated with the Q, and of that $12 million annual stadium operating costs, $4.8 million (approximately) is the bond payment. Not to mention another $1.1 million the city had to pay police and fire services for all Charger games, which I imagine would pretty much disappear for Aztec games. That's about half of the $12 million right there. Finally, through the great lease terms the Chargers had with the city, the city basically paid the Chargers to play at the Q--the $3 million the Chargers paid in rent was more than offset by rent credits. Methinks the city is full of bovine excrement. Even if the real "costs" are closer to $3-4MM/year where does SDSU come up with that money? The athletic program struggles to finish in the black, and I really doubt suite sales and stadium naming rights over 2 extra years will make up the difference. The city will need to be extremely confident they can book the stadium with concerts, etc., to effectively bridge the gap. Plus, every year development is pushed is another year the development doesn't lead to new taxes & additional revenue, so opportunity costs come into play. I hope SDSU manages to get another year or two out of the lease but I definitely understand the city's position. Mainly just pointing out the $12 million figure (now that the Chargers, and all the costs associated with the Chargers playing at the Q) is nowhere near accurate. Who gets the ad revenue now? The Chargers got all of that before. Do the Aztecs work out a deal with the city to split it? What about concessions? While it is definitely not a long-term solution by keeping the Q open for now, it may not cost the city much more than the $4.8 million owed annually for the last expansion--a figure that would be paid whether or not the Q is still standing, until (I believe) the year 2027 (unless the city finds money magically to pay the debt off early).
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 17, 2017 11:21:31 GMT -8
I wouldn't be so confident about that. I think the arbitrary timeline was just that. This is a very viable soccer town and until the MLS picks all four new cities, and San Diego is not one of them, SoccerCity is not dead. And it's on the ballot, not coming off of the ballot. So if there is still a city available come Nov. 18, it still has a chance. And with no plan from SDSU STILL, except urging the city to come back to the table and give us an extension, I'm not terribly confident right now in our future. Look at the breakdowns from the thread I created the other day about joining their club. Sacramento, Cincinnati, Nashville, Tampa Bay, San Antonio, Raleigh, Detroit, etc are all tracking forward. Sacramento and Cinci are basically sure things. Many of the other cities already have teams, and cities. SD will get a team sometime in 2024 when they expand to 32, but not this time around. Where has it ever been said that MLS would expand to 32 teams?
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 17, 2017 11:35:16 GMT -8
Look at the breakdowns from the thread I created the other day about joining their club. Sacramento, Cincinnati, Nashville, Tampa Bay, San Antonio, Raleigh, Detroit, etc are all tracking forward. Sacramento and Cinci are basically sure things. Many of the other cities already have teams, and cities. SD will get a team sometime in 2024 when they expand to 32, but not this time around. Where has it ever been said that MLS would expand to 32 teams? They have not. Kind of my point. Soccer City is dead.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 17, 2017 11:36:49 GMT -8
Where has it ever been said that MLS would expand to 32 teams? They have not. Kind of my point. Soccer City is dead. Unfortunately, Soccer City is not dead. Definitely not doing well, but not dead.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 17, 2017 13:50:31 GMT -8
Source who's has been right on every aspect of this issue, just stated that plan for Mission Valley will be unveiled within two weeks. Sounds about right, considering the Council Meeting on 26 June.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jul 17, 2017 14:17:24 GMT -8
Source who's has been right on every aspect of this issue, just stated that plan for Mission Valley will be unveiled within two weeks. Sounds about right, considering the Council Meeting on 26 June. When is the CC going to discuss the whole surplus land issue?
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 17, 2017 14:44:35 GMT -8
Source who's has been right on every aspect of this issue, just stated that plan for Mission Valley will be unveiled within two weeks. Sounds about right, considering the Council Meeting on 26 June. McGrory did say 30-45 days. That fits within that time frame.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 17, 2017 14:56:40 GMT -8
Source who's has been right on every aspect of this issue, just stated that plan for Mission Valley will be unveiled within two weeks. Sounds about right, considering the Council Meeting on 26 June. When is the CC going to discuss the whole surplus land issue? I think it is next Tuesday... 25th?
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Jul 17, 2017 15:03:31 GMT -8
When is the CC going to discuss the whole surplus land issue? I think it is next Tuesday... 25th? We expecting that to get shot down or what? Haven't heard much on the topic lately.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jul 17, 2017 15:19:41 GMT -8
When is the CC going to discuss the whole surplus land issue? I think it is next Tuesday... 25th? Fanhood has a credible source here and I'm hopeful and excited that SDSU will be going public with a plan soon now that will rock SD and shove FS investors into oblivion.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jul 17, 2017 15:22:05 GMT -8
I think it is next Tuesday... 25th? We expecting that to get shot down or what? Haven't heard much on the topic lately. It might just be a public announcement that is not related to city council meeting.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jul 17, 2017 18:10:14 GMT -8
Source who's has been right on every aspect of this issue, just stated that plan for Mission Valley will be unveiled within two weeks. Sounds about right, considering the Council Meeting on 26 June. Right in every aspect? Why haven't you posted his information until now? What has he been right about? As of today, no one here has posted any inside information that has been the least bit credible Did your "source" give you anything other than two weeks? One of these days, that time frame is bound to be correct. We've been hearing it for months. Taking the shotgun approach?
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 17, 2017 18:22:59 GMT -8
Source who's has been right on every aspect of this issue, just stated that plan for Mission Valley will be unveiled within two weeks. Sounds about right, considering the Council Meeting on 26 June. Right in every aspect? Why haven't you posted his information until now? What has he been right about? As of today, no one here has posted any inside information that has been the least bit credible Did your "source" give you anything other than two weeks? One of these days, that time frame is bound to be correct. We've been hearing it for months. Taking the shotgun approach? Welcome back money bags.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jul 17, 2017 18:47:38 GMT -8
Right in every aspect? Why haven't you posted his information until now? What has he been right about? As of today, no one here has posted any inside information that has been the least bit credible Did your "source" give you anything other than two weeks? One of these days, that time frame is bound to be correct. We've been hearing it for months. Taking the shotgun approach? Welcome back money bags. I haven't gone anywhere. Asked some fair and easy questions. Why haven't you ever posted what this "source" told you before? How has he been right every step? In what respect? Did he not tell you anything other than a two week time frame? Again, that's bound to be correct one of these days. What are the details? Are you building that 125M stadium you said was a done deal? Was he right about that?
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 17, 2017 19:01:55 GMT -8
I think it is next Tuesday... 25th? We expecting that to get shot down or what? Haven't heard much on the topic lately. Here is Myrtle's tweet about the 25th...
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 17, 2017 19:08:07 GMT -8
Source who's has been right on every aspect of this issue, just stated that plan for Mission Valley will be unveiled within two weeks. Sounds about right, considering the Council Meeting on 26 June. Right in every aspect? Why haven't you posted his information until now? What has he been right about? As of today, no one here has posted any inside information that has been the least bit credible Did your "source" give you anything other than two weeks? One of these days, that time frame is bound to be correct. We've been hearing it for months. Taking the shotgun approach? Go back and look at posts by many on this board. I guarantee you that you will find folks that had the FSI "partnership" pegged back in November as well as many other things correct. I posted a little over a month ago that something would come out in the next two weeks. I was wrong, but the support from the council and others in and around the city/county caused leadership to "slow their roll" and wait to announce "plans". For example, I am 100% certain that one of the potential plans being worked on right now is a 12-17 acre carve out that would be rezoned and sold to SDSU through surplus property. It is a real possibility. Just because it doesn't happen won't mean that it wasn't seriously considered, even if the SDSU leadership at some point scoffs at the option as something that they never really considered. They may not publicly say everything...
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jul 17, 2017 19:12:30 GMT -8
Go Myrtle go!!!
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jul 17, 2017 19:15:08 GMT -8
I haven't gone anywhere. Asked some fair and easy questions. Why haven't you ever posted what this "source" told you before? How has he been right every step? In what respect? Did he not tell you anything other than a two week time frame? Again, that's bound to be correct one of these days. What are the details? Are you building that 125M stadium you said was a done deal? Was he right about that? Because he just heard about it yesterday, as did I. Soon we shall see if our source (who would reveal no details) is tuned in or not.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jul 17, 2017 19:17:33 GMT -8
Right in every aspect? Why haven't you posted his information until now? What has he been right about? As of today, no one here has posted any inside information that has been the least bit credible Did your "source" give you anything other than two weeks? One of these days, that time frame is bound to be correct. We've been hearing it for months. Taking the shotgun approach? Go back and look at posts by many on this board. I guarantee you that you will find folks that had the FSI "partnership" pegged back in November as well as many other things correct. I posted a little over a month ago that something would CE out in the next two weeks. I was wrong, but the support from the council and others in and around the city/county caused leadership to "slow their roll" and wait to announce "plans". For example, I am 100% certain that one of the potential plans being worked on right now is a 12-17 acre carve out that would be rezoned and sold to SDSU through surplus property. It is a real possibility. Just because it doesn't happen won't mean that it wasn't seriously considered, even if the SDSU leadership at some point acoffs at the option as something that they never really considered. They may. It publicly say everything... Yes, a carve out is a good way to put it. No full SDSU west is gonna happen.
|
|