Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 8:49:24 GMT -8
Just for the record, any taxes used to fund a new stadium would come from an increase in hotel taxes, not an increase of taxes for the citizens of the city (unless they book a hotel room). If I'm not mistaken didn't the hotel owners try and fund the convention center expansion the same way? Didn't the courts rule that it was a tax and had to be put before a public vote? In addition the tax payers would be on the hook for millions in infrastructure costs which would come directly from the tax payers. Why don't the Goofuses pay for it themselves, they are the ones who will get the majority of the profits, the rest of the profits go to the hotel owners. Please show all of us where a city paid for the cost of a new stadium and the city made money. If there were profits to be made from new stadiums why aren't the venture capitalist jumping all over this? Why are only the citizens of the cities asked to pay the costs? It needs to be a public vote.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 16, 2014 9:19:46 GMT -8
Please tell us how the Chargers moving , showing most sports fans/ recruits/ families..,B12 that San Diego is not a true sports county it does not have enough football fans. It does not solve the problem of the quality of the: team ,coaches, conference we are in...... Does not mean a better stadium any where or getting thousands of fans attending Aztec football games . The issues are with the Aztecs football team , not the Chargers ( yes the NFL is king for sports in the US, so we are not top dog) , that is making it way too easy for the FB Coach , AD .. saying if Chargers go the Aztecs will be successful is not going to be the answer . Does that mean we can finally learn that recruiting and developing QB's is the most important part of your football team ? Sure does not help those pushing for B12 that we are a great football area . Rocky Uses the stadium to help recruit . Could a state of the art facility help attract players , better then BSU , Fresno .... having a facility for Final 4 or Big College Bowl Game .... improves us more for recruits ( players win games ). My point is basic the issue is improving the Aztec football team in every way so it is a football champion stays the main focus rather then see losing the Chargers as a victory on the field for the Aztecs and the reason for SDSU not being where it needs to be . The Football Team is the issue and all those involved with it. . Funding a facility is a very separate issue that can be discussed in another thread for the whole county .
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Dec 16, 2014 9:48:17 GMT -8
You know, it's really kind of pathetic the way that Aztec fans have become so bitter when it comes to the Chargers. Don Coryell would be appalled and saddened by the attitude of many Aztec fans towards his OTHER team. Both the Aztecs AND the Chargers were Don Coryell's teams. He loved and supported both. Too bad Aztec fans can't realize that. When the Chargers made it to the Super Bowl almost everyone in San Diego felt great. It was just like when the Padres made it to the World Series. You can't get that kind of good feeling from a convention center. The Chargers (and Padres, if they ever get their act together) can unify people in town that otherwise have little in common. The Chargers are SAN DIEGO's team. It's an issue of civic pride and good feelings. Frankly, the Aztecs cannot provide that since a majority of people in town have not attended school there and have no connection to it. But you guys go on hating the Chargers and perpetuating the Little Brother syndrome. The Chargers leaving San Diego will NOT be a good thing for the city. That's why EVERY city that lost an NFL team did anything and everything they could to get one back. If the Chargers leave, we're never getting one back because the NFL hates San Diego. They LOVE L.A. and see San Diego as that better looking, smarter little brother. He's a nuisance. Like I said, Don Coryell would be both appalled and saddened by most of your attitudes towards the Chargers. I don't hate the Chargers, I am just totally apathetic towards them in general. Their current ownership, however, does elicit a bit more negative sentiment. However, the issue is the Q site. SDSU needs the Chargers to leave that site. If the residents of San Diego City/County want to support ($$$) a new Chargers stadium downtown as a matter of civic pride... terrific. If not, and the Chargers move, fine.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Dec 16, 2014 9:51:17 GMT -8
Don't care about the NFL or the Chargers; only SDSU matters to me. Then you would fall into the idiotic category. B.S.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Dec 16, 2014 9:54:40 GMT -8
Don't care about the NFL or the Chargers; only SDSU matters to me. Then you would fall into the idiotic category. How exactly does not being an NFL or Charger fan make me an idiot? As I have stated I don't care if the Chargers stay or leave. I simply want them to move off the Q site so SDSU can move forward and develop a West Campus. This is in the best interest of SDSU and the city of San Diego. As far as SDSU and the Chargers sharing a stadium... obviously neither organization wants to share a facility. They are only doing it now because it is the only option. They will also only share a stadium in the future after all other options have been exhausted. For the record, I find it unlikely that the Chargers will leave San Diego; but who really knows.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 16, 2014 10:21:52 GMT -8
Please tell us how the Chargers moving , showing most sports fans/ recruits/ families..,B12 that San Diego is not a true sports county it does not have enough football fans. LOL. The Big 12 is mostly made up of teams that don’t have an NFL team in the region so I don’t think they’ll give a rats ass. Think most of those recruits and their families you mention above will also not consider Oregon, USC, UCLA, Oklahoma, Alabama, Auburn, Nebraska etc. since they don’t have what you call a “true sports county”? If the Chargers leave SDSU football becomes the big dog by default despite us being a Gang of Five school playing in the sh!tty MWC. It would allow SDSU to take over the Qualcomm site and control our own destiny on the stadium front. It would be a gamechanger. I think it would mean a couple thousand fans initially and more than that long term. You’ll disagree…shocker. You think the Big 12 prefers teams that have to compete with the NFL? I’m guessing you didn’t major in Economics at State. He also tells recruits that attend the skyshow that all the games are like that. Rocky can’t stand the Q….ask him and he’ll tell you. The mayor said in an article on Friday that the vote would require 2/3 approval to pass. If that is the case the Chargers could win the Super Bowl next year and it still would sniff 66.6% in November ’16.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 16, 2014 11:30:06 GMT -8
By the Chargers moving does not solve the KEY ISSUE the QUALITY of the FB Program . IMO that is the Issue . Does to some provide an easy victory over Charger fans but not fix the Football team.
That does not make us a quality football team , . The way you play on the field does, no matter where the stadium is.
It does guarantee that SDSU gets the Q , would have to work out a deal with the City and they are going to be looking at MONEY. There is no way you can count on how many fans are going to rush over to the Q to watch a G5 team play other G5 teams next year. You do not become a fan favorite by "default" you need to earn the fans . By the quality of your team. Many of the Charger fans are just that . NFL fans . Who could decide to go up to LA for games or watch on TV , or just go to their HS game . They have shown little interest in the college game . Again Quality of the Team is the issue. People do not have to go to football games , you need to earn their attendance by the quality of your game.
We disagree on what recruits,fans and B12 could want . I believe a state of the art facility could attract both recruits , B12 and the average fans . , Could provide sizzle to out recruit BSU , Fresno, CSU ..... Recruits/ players do make a difference on the field . Yes Rocky would use it to recruit and why not . Fans could come just to see the new facility but still need win . The B12 does play in stadiums that have at least 40 ,000 or many a lot more . Think they would appreciate the opportunity to play there, as would their fans, as they do at the Cowboys stadium . You may believe an on campus smaller facility is the better option ,. I believe it may take some sizzle to attract better recruits , fans and even a chance at B12 ( but really believe that is a MONEY issue ) Could be another problem to convince TV networks we have the viewing fans if we lose an NFL team ? One rumor has B12 looking at CINCY , who has the Bengals nearby .
My main issue is that the focus needs to stay on the quality of the football team . nothing else . Cheering the departure of the Chargers is an easy victory for some, it diverts the issue, it does not provide any more W's for the football team. and making it a better team. As we have seen there are not enough football fans here in San Diego . By declaring you either need to be a Aztec fan or a Charger fan . May secure some Aztec fans but also drive away others if forced to make a choice . Including those fans you think will attend by default. Also maybe important to realize that for the Aztecs to fill any facility it will need the average fan , not just the alums, students and die hards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 11:57:09 GMT -8
I still don't think LA is an NFL market, they have tried and failed multiple times. The Rams drew well for 30 years until the Raiders came. That includes in the first half dozen years of the sixties when the Rams consistently had one of the worst teams in the league. So I think when the Rams move back, with a new stadium, they'll be fine. Unless, of course, the Chargers or Raiders also move back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 12:04:06 GMT -8
As a Niners fan, I would love to have Carr. Anything to get rid of that cancer Kap. Well, he's really not a cancer, he's just not very smart. Agreed. Has any 4th year QB who wasn't injured ever regressed as much as Kaepernick? Speculation is he was very successful initially mainly because NFL defenses weren't prepared for the pistol formation. Now that they are, to borrow a Hacksaw Hamilton phrase, Kap is "just a guy." Gimme Carr over him any day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by onelittleindian on Dec 16, 2014 12:27:10 GMT -8
Not saying that it's right or wrong, but my view on local politics (in general) is such: 1. Nobody is ever going to get everything they want. 2. Pick your battles. 3. The vocal minority often grabs the headlines and give the rest of the city perceived "pulse." 4. If you truly care that much about something, get involved, don't just talk (sound familiar, Aztecs fans?).
Living in the coastal north county, the "granola gang" controls most of the council seats and of the 15 people who show-up to speak at meetings it's usually the same dozen people (the unofficial city council members) and one or two opponents and votes keep passing in their favor. Such is the nature of politics when people don't get involved. Now it takes 15 minutes during the summer to et from Roberto's to Via de la Valle, but the cyclists are happy.
My point is, when push comes to shove, I'm hoping that those who feel passionately about keeping the Chargers here do more than talk about it. While no decision will make anyone happy, if the Spanos' kick-in a portion, then I don't have a problem with hotel taxes paying the other portion. However, when the money starts rolling in for Super Bowls, Final Fours, conventions, etc., then I'm all for taking a bunch of THAT money and putting it back into the city infrastructure and projects those people bent on to give the stadium to help their causes. I know ... it's a pie-in-the-sky idea for such a selfish world we live in.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 16, 2014 12:54:36 GMT -8
If and when this comes to a vote , believe the Chargers hope that it is a County Vote not just the city . Another thing Arizona did was slap a tax on car rentals . They could add a tax on car rentals say $25 amount for 1 day , $75 for 3 to 5 day and $100 for more then 5 days .... for any one who does NOT have a San Diego County address on their Drivers License . Easy money from visitors . Arizona now has become part of the major Bowl picture so could San Diego as Bowl picture expands . If a multi purpose facility could get even more NCAA Basketball events . Soccer ......... How many tickets do you think they could sell for a Kansas vs SDSU Basketball game ?
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 16, 2014 13:02:23 GMT -8
By the Chargers moving does not solve the KEY ISSUE the QUALITY of the FB Program . IMO that is the Issue . Does to some provide an easy victory over Charger fans but not fix the Football team. That does not make us a quality football team , . The way you play on the field does, no matter where the stadium is. It does guarantee that SDSU gets the Q , would have to work out a deal with the City and they are going to be looking at MONEY. There is no way you can count on how many fans are going to rush over to the Q to watch a G5 team play other G5 teams next year. You do not become a fan favorite by "default" you need to earn the fans . By the quality of your team. Many of the Charger fans are just that . NFL fans . Who could decide to go up to LA for games or watch on TV , or just go to their HS game . They have shown little interest in the college game . Again Quality of the Team is the issue. People do not have to go to football games , you need to earn their attendance by the quality of your game. We disagree on what recruits,fans and B12 could want . I believe a state of the art facility could attract both recruits , B12 and the average fans . , Could provide sizzle to out recruit BSU , Fresno, CSU ..... Recruits/ players do make a difference on the field . Yes Rocky would use it to recruit and why not . Fans could come just to see the new facility but still need win . The B12 does play in stadiums that have at least 40 ,000 or many a lot more . Think they would appreciate the opportunity to play there, as would their fans, as they do at the Cowboys stadium . You may believe an on campus smaller facility is the better option ,. I believe it may take some sizzle to attract better recruits , fans and even a chance at B12 ( but really believe that is a MONEY issue ) Could be another problem to convince TV networks we have the viewing fans if we lose an NFL team ? One rumor has B12 looking at CINCY , who has the Bengals nearby . My main issue is that the focus needs to stay on the quality of the football team . nothing else . Cheering the departure of the Chargers is an easy victory for some, it diverts the issue, it does not provide any more W's for the football team. and making it a better team. As we have seen there are not enough football fans here in San Diego . By declaring you either need to be a Aztec fan or a Charger fan . May secure some Aztec fans but also drive away others if forced to make a choice . Including those fans you think will attend by default. Also maybe important to realize that for the Aztecs to fill any facility it will need the average fan , not just the alums, students and die hards. Well said Stan.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Dec 16, 2014 15:49:15 GMT -8
Just for the record, any taxes used to fund a new stadium would come from an increase in hotel taxes, not an increase of taxes for the citizens of the city (unless they book a hotel room). If I'm not mistaken didn't the hotel owners try and fund the convention center expansion the same way? Didn't the courts rule that it was a tax and had to be put before a public vote? In addition the tax payers would be on the hook for millions in infrastructure costs which would come directly from the tax payers. Why don't the Goofuses pay for it themselves, they are the ones who will get the majority of the profits, the rest of the profits go to the hotel owners. Please show all of us where a city paid for the cost of a new stadium and the city made money. If there were profits to be made from new stadiums why aren't the venture capitalist jumping all over this? Why are only the citizens of the cities asked to pay the costs? I am just putting out the facts about what type of taxes are being considered. They are TOT taxes, not property or income taxes. As you point out the approval of such would be suject to a public vote. I didn't make any claims otherwise. As to your question about why should the city put up any funds it would be because, like it or not, they do realize financial benefits from having an NFL team here. They also benefit from having conventions here. They also benefit from having Qualcomm here, and they (well, actually the county) benefits from me having my business here. I would say that the economic benefit of an NFL stadium trumps having a state of the art central library but we found a way to spend $300M on that. Every time someone comes here and uses the airport, rents a car, rents a hotel room, goes to a local attraction or has dinner at a restaurant the local government (county or one of the various cities in the region) benefits because each one of these activities is taxed. Having a stadium that hosts an NFL team as well as things like the Holiday Bowl, Super Bowls, MM (if the downtown option is used) benefits our #2 biggest economic industry (tourism) immensely. And I am not just talking about who shows up for the games, it is about the type of exposure the region gets when people at home see all those wonderful blimp shots of San Diego (especially since most of those events happen in the winter, when people in much of the country are shoveling snow). While they are suffering through yet another cold winter they turn on the TV and see people playing golf at Torrey Pines or taking a walk on the beach at the Hotel Del and that is going to have an influence on them the next time they plan a vacation. If we didn't need the publicity then why does the city pay to advertise us as a tourist destination? The SB is a two week commercial for the city of San Diego, all without having to pay for the TV time. So, I would argue that the city should be involved in some portion of the cost of building a new stadium. The only point, in my opinion, to consider is how much that should be.
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Dec 16, 2014 18:02:16 GMT -8
If the Aztecs fold football, will that make the Toreros the top draw in San Diego for football? Chargers leaving will not help SDSU. Fans want the best P5 or bust. and according to the UT that isnt going to happen
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Dec 16, 2014 18:03:53 GMT -8
If I'm not mistaken didn't the hotel owners try and fund the convention center expansion the same way? Didn't the courts rule that it was a tax and had to be put before a public vote? In addition the tax payers would be on the hook for millions in infrastructure costs which would come directly from the tax payers. Why don't the Goofuses pay for it themselves, they are the ones who will get the majority of the profits, the rest of the profits go to the hotel owners. Please show all of us where a city paid for the cost of a new stadium and the city made money. If there were profits to be made from new stadiums why aren't the venture capitalist jumping all over this? Why are only the citizens of the cities asked to pay the costs? I am just putting out the facts about what type of taxes are being considered. They are TOT taxes, not property or income taxes. As you point out the approval of such would be suject to a public vote. I didn't make any claims otherwise. As to your question about why should the city put up any funds it would be because, like it or not, they do realize financial benefits from having an NFL team here. They also benefit from having conventions here. They also benefit from having Qualcomm here, and they (well, actually the county) benefits from me having my business here. I would say that the economic benefit of an NFL stadium trumps having a state of the art central library but we found a way to spend $300M on that. Every time someone comes here and uses the airport, rents a car, rents a hotel room, goes to a local attraction or has dinner at a restaurant the local government (county or one of the various cities in the region) benefits because each one of these activities is taxed. Having a stadium that hosts an NFL team as well as things like the Holiday Bowl, Super Bowls, MM (if the downtown option is used) benefits our #2 biggest economic industry (tourism) immensely. And I am not just talking about who shows up for the games, it is about the type of exposure the region gets when people at home see all those wonderful blimp shots of San Diego (especially since most of those events happen in the winter, when people in much of the country are shoveling snow). While they are suffering through yet another cold winter they turn on the TV and see people playing golf at Torrey Pines or taking a walk on the beach at the Hotel Del and that is going to have an influence on them the next time they plan a vacation. If we didn't need the publicity then why does the city pay to advertise us as a tourist destination? The SB is a two week commercial for the city of San Diego, all without having to pay for the TV time. So, I would argue that the city should be involved in some portion of the cost of building a new stadium. The only point, in my opinion, to consider is how much that should be. Did I miss something and they stopped showing blimp shots when the Chargers play? What does Torrey Pines have to do with the cost of a new stadium paid for by the tax payers. So for 8 weeks a year and maybe once in a generation SB we should forsake our infrastructure and pay for a billionaire's new sandbox? Can you show us the numbers? I don't mean made up BS propaganda numbers that the hotel owners, city government and pro give away tax payers money proponents numbers, but real numbers that show what it costs a city to build a new stadium and host one SB, and what the city actually takes in. If there is money to be made who makes out the most? I'll bet it isn't the tax payer. A tax is a tax regardless of what it is called TOT or DOT or what ever, paying for a convention center expansion or a stadium it has already been ruled illegal, to pay for it that way it must be voted on by the citizens. You say you have a business here in San Diego are the tax payers paying for a new building to house your business? Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 16, 2014 18:39:53 GMT -8
According to the U-T, this thread is now a bit premature. The Chargers have announced they are staying in San Diego for 2015. Maybe some real progress can now be made on the Chargers long-term future (if there is one) in San Diego, and how this will affect SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Dec 16, 2014 19:00:06 GMT -8
I will donate a 100 dollars to the aztec alumni foundation the day the chargers move out of San diego.
There is a greater chance that the aztecs get an invite to the pax 12 then San diego chargers leaving to la.
Btw the city spent 270 million on a library which is an institution that was popular during the time of Alexander and lost favor around the advent of the internet
And the county paid a 120 million on a jail to house 3000 inmates that have of which shouldn't be in jail.
The governer wants to spend the 37 billion on a remote control train and people are getting pissed at an investment that actually creates revenue.
LOL
|
|
|
Post by junior on Dec 16, 2014 19:26:51 GMT -8
The notion that the public should subsidize a few very wealthy individuals for the sake of "team loyalty" is pretty crazy when you stop to think about it.
What does the public have to gain from any of this besides a tremendous amount of debt? 8 games a year? Maybe a super-duper bowl once a decade?
And exactly how much are the few very wealthy individuals we're talking about actually willing to pony up for this? As of this point, the amount is zero. Have the Spanos' ever offered a dime towards their own stadium?
If they ever get serious about making a new stadium a reality - by detailing how THEY will contribute to the costs, maybe the public will get serious about it, too. Until then, it's just ass-gas.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Dec 16, 2014 19:32:47 GMT -8
You know, it's really kind of pathetic the way that Aztec fans have become so bitter when it comes to the Chargers. Don Coryell would be appalled and saddened by the attitude of many Aztec fans towards his OTHER team. Both the Aztecs AND the Chargers were Don Coryell's teams. He loved and supported both. Too bad Aztec fans can't realize that. When the Chargers made it to the Super Bowl almost everyone in San Diego felt great. It was just like when the Padres made it to the World Series. You can't get that kind of good feeling from a convention center. The Chargers (and Padres, if they ever get their act together) can unify people in town that otherwise have little in common. The Chargers are SAN DIEGO's team. It's an issue of civic pride and good feelings. Frankly, the Aztecs cannot provide that since a majority of people in town have not attended school there and have no connection to it. But you guys go on hating the Chargers and perpetuating the Little Brother syndrome. The Chargers leaving San Diego will NOT be a good thing for the city. That's why EVERY city that lost an NFL team did anything and everything they could to get one back. If the Chargers leave, we're never getting one back because the NFL hates San Diego. They LOVE L.A. and see San Diego as that better looking, smarter little brother. He's a nuisance. Like I said, Don Coryell would be both appalled and saddened by most of your attitudes towards the Chargers. In one of the stupider moves in San Diego sports history, Don Coryell was kicked out of his head coaching job in 1986 by Old Man Alex Spanos. I don't think Don would give a rat's ass about any of the Spanos family if he were still around.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Dec 16, 2014 19:54:16 GMT -8
|
|