|
|
Post by laaztec on Jul 22, 2010 13:12:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jul 22, 2010 13:16:01 GMT -8
It would be the bst thing to happen to SDSU since Marshall Faulk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 13:59:28 GMT -8
I too hope we lose Qualcomm, but not until the year after we have an 11 win season and a bowl win. That should assure us of a nice new on campus stadium once and for all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 14:17:00 GMT -8
The first time I heard Fabiani interviewed on the radio, I was highly impressed. Not only was he articulate as most attorneys are, he came off as a complete straight shooter. However that was on the Philly Bill and the vanilla dude's show so they threw him nothing but softballs which allowed Fabiani to make the Chargers look as altruistic as possible when it came to the city and SDSU's interests in a new stadium. Since then, I've heard the guy interviewed a couple other times by people more akin to actual journalists and he has seemed slimy as hell.
Here, the guy gets major chutzpah points. Even after BS was called on his statement that SDSU will absolutely cease to be a DIA university if Qualcomm is torn down without a new stadium being built he still insists that is the case. Sure seems to me that in so doing, he may have evolved from mere deceptiveness to outright untruth.
I once really wanted to see a new stadium built for the Chargers. I'm not a fan of the team but have friends who are and therefore didn't want to see them leave SD. Then, because of their incessant demands on a city which was facing a budget crisis over the horrible mismanagement of the pension system, I had very mixed feelings about the Chargers. Now, however, I really want them to get the hell out. Or at least I want the Spanosites to sell the damn team and get the hell out.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 22, 2010 14:27:07 GMT -8
I too hope we lose Qualcomm, but not until the year after we have an 11 win season and a bowl win. That should assure us of a nice new on campus stadium once and for all. Don't count on it. Somebody still has to pay for a new stadium. Who will that be? The Univ. of Minnesota has a brand new stadium despite a medioicre record in recent years. Somehow the state and school found the money. Their record, far below 11 wins a year, was not a factor. Given the economic situation here, 11 win season might very well not be enough to open wallets. By the way, there is a case of a college that finished undefeated and then dropped football. The Univ. of San Francisco (the Dons) were 9-0 in 1951. Following that season the school canceled the program. (Oh, yes, for the record, USF was playing at the then equivalent of Division I-A / FBS.) AzWm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 14:50:38 GMT -8
William:
USF: According to an excellent documentary I saw on I believe it was Between the Lines, they dropped football as the result of one thing mainly. That is, the Dons were invited to I think it was the Orange Bowl but on the condition their two African American players not play. The team unanimously voted not to play and then IIRC, rumor had it that the good old boy network of the bowl system put the kibosh on them ever playing anywhere besides the Rose Bowl, for which they could never qualify. (Damn Jesuits and their ethics.)
Minnesota: There's a guy on this board who's a Gopher like my dad and may know more then me but I think they're to be commended for realizing that being a second-class citizen to an NFL team with whom they shared a stadium was a really bad idea and needed to change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 14:57:35 GMT -8
I liked, was it the Cincinnati deal, where they built a nice stadium on the cheap. We don't have to have the moon. Just a nice 30-40 seat stadium. Surely we can find a way to fund that.
|
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jul 22, 2010 15:17:12 GMT -8
the most important thing SDSU football needs to do is win football
games. Winning brings in fans., not the location of the stadium.The media in San Diego is in love with the USC team - why because it wins and San Diego loves a winner. The Brady bunch is starting to create a solid program if it does then I believe the fans will attend where ever the field is. WIN FOOTBALL GAMES- then you will get more top recruits and maybe
alums to show their pride in SDSU
|
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jul 22, 2010 15:18:02 GMT -8
I liked, was it the Cincinnati deal, where they built a nice stadium on the cheap. We don't have to have the moon. Just a nice 30-40 seat stadium. Surely we can find a way to fund that. i think you are thinking of the UCF Stadium. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_House_Networks_Stadium |
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Jul 22, 2010 15:31:06 GMT -8
See my topic about the budget at SDSU.
You can argue what if's, but if we can't sell tickets now we will not be around, because you can't raise money unless you win a BCS Bowl game in my eyes.
There is the real world and there is the legalese world.
Do you rent or own if your a business? If you can't stay in business you don't have to worry about buying a building.
Sears is selling buildings and not products.
The building has no value.
So did they not build the nuclear bomb under the seats of the football field at the University of Chicago?
They had a football stadium and never got a football team back. I bet they are sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by boblowe on Jul 22, 2010 15:38:15 GMT -8
Let's keep in mind some things before we say the sky is falling.
-There's a five-year notice by either party, so five years for a plan B Stadium.
-If Qualcomm is gone but the Chargers are here, their stadium is a viable Aztec venue.
-If Qualcomm and the Chargers are gone, there's obviously a need for a 35-40K stadium in town.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 15:43:08 GMT -8
I liked, was it the Cincinnati deal, where they built a nice stadium on the cheap. We don't have to have the moon. Just a nice 30-40 seat stadium. Surely we can find a way to fund that. i think you are thinking of the UCF Stadium. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_House_Networks_StadiumYes, but as was once - or thrice? - pointed out before, UCF is really apples and oranges. Florida is a right-to-work state which therefore doesn't have a Little Davis-Bacon Act requiring union labor for large public construction projects so labor costs were maybe half what they would be for us, Florida doesn't have earthquakes so mitigation for that would run up our costs far more, etc. As MD would point out, particularly if we were to renovate Qualcomm, the best comparison is Stanford. |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jul 22, 2010 15:50:21 GMT -8
The loss of the Q without a replacement, to say the obvious, would be a disaster. Our best plan is to support a downtown Charger stadium at this point. Should that fail and they leave town we have big problems. Whether this city can get off it's duff and put together an alternative for SDSU is a huge question. This is very much a do nothing city at present. After the Chargers leave there would be two coices: the current site or on campus. The time required for an on campus site would be extensive. Finding the money will be very difficult while getting through the litigation will be very frustrating. We need to be pragmatic in all of this and showing the Chargers and a downtown stadium the door because some of us do not like them and would prefer an on campus stadium like a Big 10 school is less than pragmatic and dangerous at best. What is required of us is an assessment of cold reality and pure self interest. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 22, 2010 16:00:43 GMT -8
is it football season yet, helmets, jerseys, logos, stadiums - ugh
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 22, 2010 16:04:02 GMT -8
and just to fabini or however you spell it, it is flat out absurd to think we wouldn't not only be invited to the big west, but they would like all line up and make like circus seals if they could get us
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 16:13:50 GMT -8
We need to be pragmatic in all of this and showing the Chargers and a downtown stadium the door because some of us do not like them and would prefer an on campus stadium like a Big 10 school is less than pragmatic and dangerous at best. Based on one too many years of terrible football, I've also had a change of heart about the above. That is, if the Chargers leave but SDSU and its fans can't get it together to build a stadium, there is probably insufficient interest in the Aztecs to think we will ever again have a winning program. And if mediocrity at best is all that lies ahead, it really wouldn't bother me if we just stopped fielding a team altogether. (Sorry.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 22, 2010 16:14:39 GMT -8
The point that people tend to miss about the Q is that even if the Chargers leave town tomorrow, nobody is going to immediately tear down the stadium. The amount of environmental contamination, as well as impacts to the river area will have even it's demolition held up in courts for 5-10 years. This is San Diego, the most litigious city in America .See: Seals/Childrens pool, Soledad Cross, Airport
Somebody archive this somewhere: We will be playing football at Qualcomm stadium 20 years from now.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 22, 2010 16:16:59 GMT -8
So did they not build the nuclear bomb under the seats of the football field at the University of Chicago? They had a football stadium and never got a football team back. I bet they are sorry. They play football. Interesting Aztec reference. The D3 all stars play the Mexican college football all stars in Mexico. The Aztec Bowl. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 22, 2010 17:25:21 GMT -8
The loss of the Q without a replacement, to say the obvious, would be a disaster. Our best plan is to support a downtown Charger stadium at this point. Should that fail and they leave town we have big problems. Whether this city can get off it's duff and put together an alternative for SDSU is a huge question. This is very much a do nothing city at present. After the Chargers leave there would be two coices: the current site or on campus. The time required for an on campus site would be extensive. Finding the money will be very difficult while getting through the litigation will be very frustrating. We need to be pragmatic in all of this and showing the Chargers and a downtown stadium the door because some of us do not like them and would prefer an on campus stadium like a Big 10 school is less than pragmatic and dangerous at best. What is required of us is an assessment of cold reality and pure self interest. I have more than a little self-interest in the City obligating itself to upwards of 700 million in debt, even if the stadium is in a redevelopment area. I'm not about to blindly support whatever the Chargers want simply because SDSU might need a stadium. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 22, 2010 17:26:27 GMT -8
The loss of the Q without a replacement, to say the obvious, would be a disaster. Our best plan is to support a downtown Charger stadium at this point. Should that fail and they leave town we have big problems. Whether this city can get off it's duff and put together an alternative for SDSU is a huge question. This is very much a do nothing city at present. After the Chargers leave there would be two coices: the current site or on campus. The time required for an on campus site would be extensive. Finding the money will be very difficult while getting through the litigation will be very frustrating. Getting through the litigation wouldn't be much of a problem at all if the EIR were properly written. =Bob |
|
)
