|
Post by standiego on Dec 17, 2014 9:22:30 GMT -8
The Aztecs/ Chargers issue is not going to ever be resolved and splits the low number of football fans . Some think the Chargers are the Aztecs biggest problem . I do not think if the go it solves the FB teams problems . Being a QUALITY FOOTBALL TEAM that wins Championships and gets to the G5 Bowl . With the hope of B12 . The focus needs to remain on the football team .When you shift the discussion to the Chargers or stadium you defer the main issue away from the football team . The HC and AD are the key elements and the goal for success is only a quality team . A move by the Chargers does not provide the quality QB , winning , fans in the stands , getting to MW Champ game , G5 Bowl, B12 invite... . It does remove the Chargers as the favorite team in San Diego but does not mean as some have stated that fans will flock to SDSU games to watch G5 teams . But to some a move is a victory over Charger fans, but not a W on the field or in the stands . The important issues . So stay on the topic of the football team .
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 9:22:34 GMT -8
False analogy. Building a library is very different than taxing citizens to help a wealthy business owner in his attempts to generate greater profits. The Chargers are not a major employer in the region. Spanos already has a sweetheart deal on land use so let him build his own stadium. If a citizen is wealthy or not has nothing to do with the conversation. If the investment will make a positive impact to the City's economy is the issue. Keying in that the stadium is only for the Chargers is the false statement. The major employer in the region is tourism, and the exposure the City receives from events held at the Q (NFL included) give a boost to our tourism. A stadium will be used for far more events than just the Chargers and will benefit the City and the community, not just a "wealthy business owner". BTW, investment of public money in the future of it's economy is not uncommon: www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-confirms-nevada-to-get-battery-factory-1409871734Elon Musk is another wealthy business owner. Is Carson City getting a bad deal?
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 17, 2014 9:33:03 GMT -8
The Honks are out in full force and they didn't bring logic with them. Doesn't matter as there's no way 66.6% of the City or County are going to approve a subsidy or give land to the Chargers.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Dec 17, 2014 9:33:16 GMT -8
I can't tell you what the cost to the city would be since there have been various proposals tossed around. The Chargers have proposed to ante up $400M. The proposed downtown site with convention center expansion makes the cost higher than a stadium only plan. The Chargers first proposal only asked for the Q site to build a stadium (which would be city owned) which would be owned by the city on the Eastern portion of the site while using the rest of the land for development to pay for the cost of the stadium. The only way I could see the public as a partner to a new Chargers stadium is if we were 50 - 50 partners. The public contributes 500m and Spanos contributes 500m. Any offset like naming rights or seat licences or luxury box sales would be applied equally to each partner. Revenues and expenses would be split 50/50. What the Chargers are proposing is not a true partnership as their 'piece' would include ALL of the offsets plus any contribution/loan by the NFL (which would be paid back from stadium revenue). The actual amount contributed by Spanos would be quite small if any at all.
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Dec 17, 2014 9:37:17 GMT -8
How many people does the library employ? I guessing less than the Chargers, not to mention all the independent businesses (i.e. restaurants & merchandise stores) that gain revenue from the city having a team. The library is a public service not a for profit business. It's services are free to all. Therefore, the people "choose" not to use it. On the other hand, many of our citizenry cannot afford to pay billionaires the required fees to use this thing built with their tax dollars. I choose to believe that you are being disingenuous when you state that you don't recognize the distinction. Except that most proposals have the taxes being paid mainly by tourists, so there goes your argument that our citizens can't afford the taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 9:44:34 GMT -8
False analogy. Building a library is very different than taxing citizens to help a wealthy business owner in his attempts to generate greater profits. The Chargers are not a major employer in the region. Spanos already has a sweetheart deal on land use so let him build his own stadium. Nonsense. They are both city owned public accommodations/ civic amenities. The only difference is in their use. If the city doesn't need a stadium, I propose we tear down Qualcomm tomorrow and let the chips fall where they may. It's old and the cost of upkeep is becoming increasing burdensome to the bottom line. So, let's just evict the Chargers, level the place and build a new shopping center. It's the only fiscally prudent thing to do and no billionaires will be rewarded.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 17, 2014 9:47:47 GMT -8
Here's a point that all the anti-Charger crowd is ignoring...
If it's so much better for a city to NOT have an NFL team, why has EVERY city that has lost an NFL team done anything and everything they could to get teams back in their cities?
Every single city that lost their NFL team realized their mistake and ended up giving up a lot more in the long run than they would have had to just to keep their team in the first place.
Anyone who does not think that an NFL team is important to a city is deluding himself. There is a huge intangible value above and beyond the tangible benefits.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 9:47:47 GMT -8
False analogy. Building a library is very different than taxing citizens to help a wealthy business owner in his attempts to generate greater profits. The Chargers are not a major employer in the region. Spanos already has a sweetheart deal on land use so let him build his own stadium. Nonsense. They are both city owned public accommodations/ civic amenities. The only difference is in their use. If the city doesn't need a stadium, I propose we tear down Qualcomm tomorrow and let the chips fall where they may. It's old and the cost of upkeep is becoming increasing burdensome to the bottom line. So, let's just evict the Chargers, level the place and build a new shopping center. It's the only fiscally prudent thing to do and no billionaires will be rewarded. The billionaire that owns the shopping center gets rewarded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 9:52:23 GMT -8
The library is a public service not a for profit business. It's services are free to all. Therefore, the people "choose" not to use it. On the other hand, many of our citizenry cannot afford to pay billionaires the required fees to use this thing built with their tax dollars. I choose to believe that you are being disingenuous when you state that you don't recognize the distinction. Except that most proposals have the taxes being paid mainly by tourists, so there goes your argument that our citizens can't afford the taxes. I don't deny that some tourism dollars are generated by the football sports.The numbers bandied about are inflated. I've got peeps in city finance.an increase in occupancy tax revenue is easily promised and harder to deliver. Look at what happened to the ball park. There were supposed to have been additional hotels built as part of that deal. That didn't happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 9:57:04 GMT -8
Here's a point that all the anti-Charger crowd is ignoring... If it's so much better for a city to NOT have an NFL team, why has EVERY city that has lost an NFL team done anything and everything they could to get teams back in their cities? Every single city that lost their NFL team realized their mistake and ended up giving up a lot more in the long run than they would have had to just to keep their team in the first place. Anyone who does not think that an NFL team is important to a city is deluding himself. There is a huge intangible value above and beyond the tangible benefits. Why does anybody stay in a bad relationship? I don't know my identity without them. I enjoy that status that I hold as a member of the partnership. I love the Chargers, I will do anything to keep them happy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 9:57:24 GMT -8
Nonsense. They are both city owned public accommodations/ civic amenities. The only difference is in their use. If the city doesn't need a stadium, I propose we tear down Qualcomm tomorrow and let the chips fall where they may. It's old and the cost of upkeep is becoming increasing burdensome to the bottom line. So, let's just evict the Chargers, level the place and build a new shopping center. It's the only fiscally prudent thing to do and no billionaires will be rewarded. The billionaire that owns the shopping center gets rewarded. We'll sell him the land at a fair market value and reap the sales taxes. It's a far better deal than the stadium. Neither tenant likes the stadium and it costs too much money to keep up. My suggestion still stands. It's obvious that the majority of San Diegans don't want to pay for a replacement and don't think the city should own or operate such a venue so lets just cut our losses and tear it down. This will give AW his wish. The Chargers will be forced to move out and SDSU can play their games at Mesa College while they raise 300-400Million to build an on-campus facility. It should only take a decade or so to get it done. Go Aztecs!
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 17, 2014 10:02:51 GMT -8
Here's a point that all the anti-Charger crowd is ignoring... If it's so much better for a city to NOT have an NFL team, why has EVERY city that has lost an NFL team done anything and everything they could to get teams back in their cities? . Every single city that lost their NFL team realized their mistake and ended up giving up a lot more in the long run than they would have had to just to keep their team in the first place. Anyone who does not think that an NFL team is important to a city is deluding himself. There is a huge intangible value above and beyond the tangible benefits. There is value to having an NFL team in the City. But many argue that the subsidies given to NFL franchises make it a money loser for the City. Los Angeles hasn't done a damn thing since the Raiders and Rams left and will have a team back next year. California seems to require private investment like in LA or getting votes in a tiny electorate like Santa Clara or the City of Industry. If the Chargers leave I can't see San Diego ever being able to incentivize a team to relocate here.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 17, 2014 10:11:06 GMT -8
how does the Chargers leaving solve the Aztec football problems ?? Recruiting , Quality QB getting recruited and developed . Image of the SDSU G5 football team , Winning the MW Championship game , Winning G5 Bowl game , Invite to B12 , fans in the stands ? Image of San Diego Football fans , facilities , Recruiting, paying stipends , 4 year scholarships ? Please provide specific answers other then it eliminates the Chargers as the favorite team in San Diego but please do not expect that many Charger fans to say they are going to attend games at SDSU , rather then go to their local HS or travel up to LA for some games .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 10:14:57 GMT -8
Chargers go downtown or to LA, Aztecs and MLS franchise share new 35Kish stadium on Q site.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 17, 2014 10:17:40 GMT -8
Would not be surprised if the NFL told the Chargers to sit tight another year. The NFL is having problems, in that should the Rams move back to LA, Kroenke would build a stadium he doesn't want to share with any other NFL team. The League would rather have 2 teams playing in 1 stadium. Until this problem is straightened out, I wouldn't expect any team to move to LA.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 17, 2014 10:19:51 GMT -8
how does the Chargers leaving solve the Aztec football problems ?? Recruiting , Quality QB getting recruited and developed . Image of the SDSU G5 football team , Winning the MW Championship game , Winning G5 Bowl game , Invite to B12 , fans in the stands ? Image of San Diego Football fans , facilities , Recruiting, paying stipends , 4 year scholarships ? Please provide specific answers other then it eliminates the Chargers as the favorite team in San Diego but please do not expect that many Charger fans to say they are going to attend games at SDSU , rather then go to their local HS or travel up to LA for some games . It allows SDSU to take over the Q site and eliminates their top competition in the immediate area. As a Charger fan you don't see that a competiion exists but an economist would laugh at you. It also forces SDSU to either retrofit the Q or build their own stadium eventually. Stan, is this REALLY that hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Dec 17, 2014 10:24:34 GMT -8
With a downtown stadium that would certainly put us in contention for hosting NCAA Regional Finals, a nice benefit to future Aztec basketball teams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 10:28:59 GMT -8
The Honks are out in full force and they didn't bring logic with them. Doesn't matter as there's no way 66.6% of the City or County are going to approve a subsidy or give land to the Chargers. Petco Park was approved almost immediately after the Padres went to the WS so if the Chargers actually get to the Super Bowl again, you can bet they'll do everything possible to have the vote you refer to held ASAP thereafter. That sure as hell better come soon, however. Phillip Rivers isn't getting any younger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 10:34:36 GMT -8
Would not be surprised if the NFL told the Chargers to sit tight another year. The NFL is having problems, in that should the Rams move back to LA, Kroenke would build a stadium he doesn't want to share with any other NFL team. The League would rather have 2 teams playing in 1 stadium. Until this problem is straightened out, I wouldn't expect any team to move to LA. Well, there's that and the fact that there isn't any place for them to play in Los Angeles because, you know, they haven't built a new stadium in LA since 1920.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 10:39:49 GMT -8
Los Angeles hasn't done a damn thing since the Raiders and Rams left and will have a team back next year. According to Sam Farmer of the Times, the fact the Chargers announced this early that they're remaining in SD at least through 2015 means they've heard from reliable sources that neither the Rams nor Raiders will be moving there yet. According to Farmer, that's because the Chargers will much of the leverage they now have against the City of SD once it's announced that another team is definitely moving to L.A. The Spanoses obviously want to stay in SD. However, that's only if they can get a stadium built and I can't believe that's going to happen unless they get to the Super Bowl and in the meantime, the Rams and Raiders are getting closer and closer to moving to L.A. So time is running out for the Spanoses.
|
|