|
Post by AzTex on Jan 26, 2015 22:35:03 GMT -8
The space you mention has for a long time seemed to me to be a possibility for an on-campus stadium. I'm not even sure that you would have to tear down all of those buildings you mention. Let's grab our 200 yard tape measure and walk that space. I'll bet the thing could be done there. Tell me when you want to check it out and I'll be there. AzWm Thumbs up! I'd actually like it if there was barely enough space for the field. I want those stands right on top of the opposing team and to go straight up like an elevator shaft! Hold that crowd noise in. I like that. I also wonder if it wouldn't be more cost efficent (i.e. cheaper) to build a new basketball arena, turn Aztec Bowl into a true bowl, add a deck to Aztec Bowl to get seating up to 40,000 or so rather than build a full football stadium from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 26, 2015 22:46:40 GMT -8
So again, if the SDSU Admins have identified 3 locations, why don't they just get started and turn the shovel? No $$$? I suspect that's it. Probably because the Q site is the preferred option. No reason to go all-in on a more complicated plan on the current campus when what the university almost certainly wants first & foremost is the chance to expand its overall footprint into Mission Valley.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jan 27, 2015 8:35:30 GMT -8
I have no problem with someone who has been successful. In fact, I applaud them and their success. However, I do not want to pay for a stadium for them. And make no mistake, this is a stadium for them. Doesn't matter how much kool aid you drink. This is a stadium for the chargers. If this was such a good idea, the NFL and its owners would do it themselves. There is a reason none of them want to own these themselves. Because they are losers. The minute you open the doors, they begin to depreciate and deteriorate. And so aside from constructing the building, and constructing all of the infrastructure for the building, we are on the hook for the building's maintenance for the next 50 years, while the Chargers reap all the benefits of the in stadium advertising, seat sales and luxury box sales. This is a boondoggle, pure and simple. So with all their success, they should pay for it their damn selves. Blaming Cushman and blaming the convention center folks for not getting this done is the chargers way of saying "we are taking our ball and leaving". the chargers have not brought forward one plan the community will approve so they are placing blame everywhere but on themselves. And all they have to offer is " well you won't get any more Super Bowl". Big deal. Nothing but threats from the football team. Good riddance. Well if you don't like all the ideas, how about coming up with one yourself that ALL sides will agree with. How many plans do the Chargers need to come up with? I'm not sure where the Chargers said "well you won't get any more Super Bowls"? Me thingst your so biased on this that you're blaming everything on the Chargers/Spanos rather than the past Mayors, City Councils etc...that have some responsibility in this mess too. Maybe the Chargers should do what the Packers have done which is to sell Stock in the organization...... similar to the Bricks that were sold at Petco etc... Anything to make it happen. Personally, I think the Mission Valley site is the perfect location for a new stadium. And I would gladly turn that land over to the Chargers to do with it what they will. The problem is, they don't want to spend the money to clean up the environmental issues. And they don't want to spend the money to fix the infrastructure needs around the stadium. They don't want to take any risk at all. That's my biggest issue here. They want the city and the citizens to take all the risk on a structure that will benefit them more than anyone else. This is not a 50-50 deal, wherever it is built, if it is built. Again, there is a reason the NFL and owners don't want to own these things themselves. Because they lose money. There is a reason they are billionaires ... they don't make bad decisions and take on financial risks when they can get someone else to do it for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 9:02:51 GMT -8
I also wonder if it wouldn't be more cost efficent (i.e. cheaper) to build a new basketball arena, turn Aztec Bowl into a true bowl, add a deck to Aztec Bowl to get seating up to 40,000 or so rather than build a full football stadium from scratch. I thought of this once or twice before too. but the cost of tearing down not only Viejas, but more than likely Fraternity row, the ARC, possibly the parking structure to the north, rebuilding all of it somewhere else along with renovating Aztec Bowl, coupled with the issues with the trolley, probably don't make sense financially or otherwise. Aztec Bowl site has sailed.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 27, 2015 9:26:56 GMT -8
Well if you don't like all the ideas, how about coming up with one yourself that ALL sides will agree with. How many plans do the Chargers need to come up with? I'm not sure where the Chargers said "well you won't get any more Super Bowls"? Me thingst your so biased on this that you're blaming everything on the Chargers/Spanos rather than the past Mayors, City Councils etc...that have some responsibility in this mess too. Maybe the Chargers should do what the Packers have done which is to sell Stock in the organization...... similar to the Bricks that were sold at Petco etc... Anything to make it happen. Personally, I think the Mission Valley site is the perfect location for a new stadium. And I would gladly turn that land over to the Chargers to do with it what they will. The problem is, they don't want to spend the money to clean up the environmental issues. And they don't want to spend the money to fix the infrastructure needs around the stadium. They don't want to take any risk at all. That's my biggest issue here. They want the city and the citizens to take all the risk on a structure that will benefit them more than anyone else. This is not a 50-50 deal, wherever it is built, if it is built. Again, there is a reason the NFL and owners don't want to own these things themselves. Because they lose money. There is a reason they are billionaires ... they don't make bad decisions and take on financial risks when they can get someone else to do it for them. Not quite right 95. I have wondered about the environmental issues from the Kinder Morgan plume, but as has been discussed on the Mesa before and backed up is that the plume has been remediated and is no longer an issue. That is one thing that is maddening about this whole process is that over the past 15 years things have changed and us average Joes don't really care to keep up with it all. The whole while the Chargers and City keep dancing around options to fit the issues of the moment. Right now the issue of the moment is the convention center. I have a feeling what we are seeing there are "wants" and "needs". The convention center needs more space, which an adjacent stadium with the appropriate access would facilitate. The convention center wants contiguous space and is fighting to obtain that. I quite frankly find it silly that there are not solutions to fill the needs of both entities, it will just take some people to stop the pissing contest and talk. Coming back to the Q site, I am not sure what you mean about fixing the infrastructure around the stadium. There is better freeway access to the Q site then most stadiums in the nation and trolley access as well. Is there something I am missing?
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jan 27, 2015 10:06:31 GMT -8
Personally, I think the Mission Valley site is the perfect location for a new stadium. And I would gladly turn that land over to the Chargers to do with it what they will. The problem is, they don't want to spend the money to clean up the environmental issues. And they don't want to spend the money to fix the infrastructure needs around the stadium. They don't want to take any risk at all. That's my biggest issue here. They want the city and the citizens to take all the risk on a structure that will benefit them more than anyone else. This is not a 50-50 deal, wherever it is built, if it is built. Again, there is a reason the NFL and owners don't want to own these things themselves. Because they lose money. There is a reason they are billionaires ... they don't make bad decisions and take on financial risks when they can get someone else to do it for them. Not quite right 95. I have wondered about the environmental issues from the Kinder Morgan plume, but as has been discussed on the Mesa before and backed up is that the plume has been remediated and is no longer an issue. That is one thing that is maddening about this whole process is that over the past 15 years things have changed and us average Joes don't really care to keep up with it all. The whole while the Chargers and City keep dancing around options to fit the issues of the moment. Right now the issue of the moment is the convention center. I have a feeling what we are seeing there are "wants" and "needs". The convention center needs more space, which an adjacent stadium with the appropriate access would facilitate. The convention center wants contiguous space and is fighting to obtain that. I quite frankly find it silly that there are not solutions to fill the needs of both entities, it will just take some people to stop the pissing contest and talk. Coming back to the Q site, I am not sure what you mean about fixing the infrastructure around the stadium. There is better freeway access to the Q site then most stadiums in the nation and trolley access as well. Is there something I am missing? I would like to see some information the confirms your assertion that the plume has been remediated. Because I haven't seen that. Any new stadium development, particularly in mission valley, is going to include commercial and residential development on that site. They aren't just going to build a stadium. And with that commercial development, they will need to improve the roads, water lines, power lines, etc. What about open space? Any development on that site will surely include a river park that has been discussed longer than a stadium. You don't just build a stadium and not improve the infrastructure that services it. I don't know what the price tag is. No one does. But whatever it is, the Chargers surely aren't going to pay for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 10:21:40 GMT -8
Fight the good fight rebar, all the way to LA.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 27, 2015 10:27:59 GMT -8
And here is my response as posted on that site. I'm sure it will win me many new friends. At the risk of instantly making thousands of enemies, let me identify myself as one San Diego County resident who would shed no tears if the Chargers were to move away. Also, I do not contemplate with eagerness the prospects of a new "Chargers" stadium. Such a stadium would not be in the best interests of San Diego State's football program. On the contrary, a new stadium in which the Aztecs would be a barely tolerated, unloved step-sister, would do significant damage to the program. Especially so if it were built downtown, far from campus. The success of Aztec basketball is partly due to the fact that SDSU students can walk to the arena.
SDSU used to have an on-campus stadium, Aztec Bowl. Built in the 1930s, Aztec Bowl had an official seating capacity of about 12,000. However, when Don Coryell lit a fire under the program in the '60s crowds closer to 14,000 attended games, some fans sitting on the bare earth at the unfinished south end of the stadium. Indeed, the stadium had been designed with the possibility of expanding the seating to at least 40,000! The unwise decision to build the basketball arena on the site of the football stadium doomed that idea for all time.
Here's the deal; SDSU desperately needs an on-campus stadium. Even crowds of 35,000, which would be decent for this program, are swallowed up in the Q. The place is terrible for football, a legacy of the foolish "multipurpose stadium" concept. Look around the country and you will find that no such venue has been built for decades. Schools with on-campus stadiums benefit in a number of ways. I think it quite possible that in the coming years, years in which the non-Power college football programs will be increasingly starved of cash, the ability to continue fielding teams may depend on the existence of an on-campus stadium.
Let me tell you what I hope happens. First, that the Chargers leave Qualcomm. I don't care whether that entails moving to LA, or building a stadium in Campo. Second, San Diego State University takes possession of the Q's site for the purpose of expanding the school and, incidentally, the building of a smaller stadium more appropriate to the needs of SDSU football. A stadium in the 40,000 to 45.000 seat capacity would be ideal. That's a visionary proposal, but such visionary thinking might well make SDSU one of the great American universities, not merely the pick of the litter among the CSU puppies.
As for the Spanos family, they have more money than Croesus. If they want a new stadium, that's fine by me. I would have no objection whatsoever, provided that (A) the Aztecs do not have to play in it, and (B) I don't have to help pay for it. Let me clarify that last point. I live in Fallbrook. Every time I read the suggestion that the whole county should pay for the Spanoses' new play pen, I turn red. Not on my dime, thank you very much. Among other reasons for that attitude is the fact that we in the far reaches of north county have to make a 100 mile round trip to attend events in Mission Valley. I'm willing to do that for Aztec sports (I am a grad, Class of 1964, by the way), but not for the Chargers. Putting aside my allegiance to my alma mater, I am not rich enough to pay what the Chargers ask. No reason to make me subsidize fans who live closer to downtown and who, I would imagine, have more money that I do.
So, Go Chargers! Somewhere, anywhere, but do so with you own money and please do not suggest that the Aztecs must play in any new stadium. The only new stadium that would be right for the Aztecs is one that they themselves own.
William L. Rupp (aka AztecWilliam)
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 27, 2015 13:06:49 GMT -8
Fight the good fight rebar, all the way to LA. F&*k LA. I am a native San Diegan and want to see the best for my town. Sorry if you dont share my vision for San Diego being the best city in the nation with the finest amenities.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 27, 2015 13:12:37 GMT -8
And here is my response as posted on that site. I'm sure it will win me many new friends. At the risk of instantly making thousands of enemies, let me identify myself as one San Diego County resident who would shed no tears if the Chargers were to move away. Also, I do not contemplate with eagerness the prospects of a new "Chargers" stadium. Such a stadium would not be in the best interests of San Diego State's football program. On the contrary, a new stadium in which the Aztecs would be a barely tolerated, unloved step-sister, would do significant damage to the program. Especially so if it were built downtown, far from campus. The success of Aztec basketball is partly due to the fact that SDSU students can walk to the arena.
SDSU used to have an on-campus stadium, Aztec Bowl. Built in the 1930s, Aztec Bowl had an official seating capacity of about 12,000. However, when Don Coryell lit a fire under the program in the '60s crowds closer to 14,000 attended games, some fans sitting on the bare earth at the unfinished south end of the stadium. Indeed, the stadium had been designed with the possibility of expanding the seating to at least 40,000! The unwise decision to build the basketball arena on the site of the football stadium doomed that idea for all time.
Here's the deal; SDSU desperately needs an on-campus stadium. Even crowds of 35,000, which would be decent for this program, are swallowed up in the Q. The place is terrible for football, a legacy of the foolish "multipurpose stadium" concept. Look around the country and you will find that no such venue has been built for decades. Schools with on-campus stadiums benefit in a number of ways. I think it quite possible that in the coming years, years in which the non-Power college football programs will be increasingly starved of cash, the ability to continue fielding teams may depend on the existence of an on-campus stadium.
Let me tell you what I hope happens. First, that the Chargers leave Qualcomm. I don't care whether that entails moving to LA, or building a stadium in Campo. Second, San Diego State University takes possession of the Q's site for the purpose of expanding the school and, incidentally, the building of a smaller stadium more appropriate to the needs of SDSU football. A stadium in the 40,000 to 45.000 seat capacity would be ideal. That's a visionary proposal, but such visionary thinking might well make SDSU one of the great American universities, not merely the pick of the litter among the CSU puppies.
As for the Spanos family, they have more money than Croesus. If they want a new stadium, that's fine by me. I would have no objection whatsoever, provided that (A) the Aztecs do not have to play in it, and (B) I don't have to help pay for it. Let me clarify that last point. I live in Fallbrook. Every time I read the suggestion that the whole county should pay for the Spanoses' new play pen, I turn red. Not on my dime, thank you very much. Among other reasons for that attitude is the fact that we in the far reaches of north county have to make a 100 mile round trip to attend events in Mission Valley. I'm willing to do that for Aztec sports (I am a grad, Class of 1964, by the way), but not for the Chargers. Putting aside my allegiance to my alma mater, I am not rich enough to pay what the Chargers ask. No reason to make me subsidize fans who live closer to downtown and who, I would imagine, have more money that I do.
So, Go Chargers! Somewhere, anywhere, but do so with you own money and please do not suggest that the Aztecs must play in any new stadium. The only new stadium that would be right for the Aztecs is one that they themselves own.
William L. Rupp (aka AztecWilliam) I dont think your comments will earn you enemies, but as we have discussed ad nausium, and I am sure Standiego will back me up on this, the Chargers do not have any affect on the success or failure of SDSU football. That is dependent only on the product SDSU puts on the field. Absolutely nothing else. I presented the story from ESPN previously that discussed the attendance of USC and UCLA when the Rams and Raiders left in 94. Both universities point to their change in marketing and product on the field advancing their programs, not the absence of the NFL. We constantly bang the drum around here of how great San Diego is and that is should be a destination for recruits to want to play at SDSU, the ONLY major football program in the region. How taking our city out of the small collective of 32 cities that have an NFL team advances that narritive is beyond me. Having the cross pollination of pro and college sports in San Diego is only a benefit to our city, not a detriment.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jan 27, 2015 13:45:36 GMT -8
Same old story with new post . Bottom line Chargers leaving does not produce a winning football team for the AZTECS on the field. That is THE ISSUE . Stadium is Not the issue or the Chargers - they are easy responses but not the answer to the issue HIGH QUALITY AZTEC FOOTBALL.
Does that solve not being able to recruit and Develop Quality QB's - No . Producing a team that wins MW Championship game and best G5 Bowl No . Invite to P5 No . We are going to lose focus if we defer from the key issue . AZTEC FOOTBALL TEAM ON THE FIELD. The Coaches and development of the players on the field . Yes Chargers could move but the Raiders could move here to San Diego .
Time for all sports fans in San Diego to unite in putting together an all sports facility - state of the art that RECRUUITS , PLAYERS and FANS want to go to for a Variety of events . Or we all lose .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 14:10:37 GMT -8
Fight the good fight rebar, all the way to LA. F&*k LA. I am a native San Diegan and want to see the best for my town. Sorry if you dont share my vision for San Diego being the best city in the nation with the finest amenities. Well, let me just say that though I am NOT a native San Diegan, I have lived here for nearly half of my life, and I too want what is best for the city I've chosen to live in. That being said, I do want the Chargers to remain in San Diego, I just don't see how they will. I am not a Charger backer, but they do bring community pride and unity when things are going well, so I root for them to succeed. Now, I AM an AZTEC, and I DO want what's best for my university- and that's being separated from the Chargers. I too share your view towards LA (although it also has its places and charm), its only that I see the Los Angeles Chargers while you are hoping (its cringe worthy, but understandable) for the continued San Diego Chargers. I hope you it pans out for you, at this point, I don't know how it will. Losing the Chargers would be tough on San Diego, but an opportunity for SDSU. And I'm ok with bettering my university.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 27, 2015 14:34:09 GMT -8
Wherever you'd like it. If it's me choosing... The empty grass field adjacent to Viejas. Rip down those old adjacent frat houses. Tear down the music building and build a new one on the parking lot near the bridge on College. Voila: You have the new stadium right next to Viejas and a brand new music building. The space you mention has for a long time seemed to me to be a possibility for an on-campus stadium. I'm not even sure that you would have to tear down all of those buildings you mention. Let's grab our 200 yard tape measure and walk that space. I'll bet the thing could be done there. Tell me when you want to check it out and I'll be there. AzWm Measured it using Google Earth. It has enough room lengthwise but is much too narrow. Something like 240 yards by 150 yards. This assumes that all buildings on either end of the grass field are removed, all the way to Hardy.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 27, 2015 14:34:38 GMT -8
Same old story with new post . Bottom line Chargers leaving does not produce a winning football team for the AZTECS on the field. That is THE ISSUE . Stadium is Not the issue or the Chargers - they are easy responses but not the answer to the issue HIGH QUALITY AZTEC FOOTBALL. Does that solve not being able to recruit and Develop Quality QB's - No . Producing a team that wins MW Championship game and best G5 Bowl No . Invite to P5 No . We are going to lose focus if we defer from the key issue . AZTEC FOOTBALL TEAM ON THE FIELD. The Coaches and development of the players on the field . Yes Chargers could move but the Raiders could move here to San Diego . Time for all sports fans in San Diego to unite in putting together an all sports facility - state of the art that RECRUUITS , PLAYERS and FANS want to go to for a Variety of events . Or we all lose . You are correct on many points but seem to ignore the really central problem. SDSU needs an on-campus stadium in the worst way possible. The Q, while not good for the program in some ways, is if nothing else not TOO far from the campus. As you say, it's up to the Aztecs themselves to win more games. Sadly, winning is not the only thing. Notice that Alabama Birmingham just folded their program after having their best year (bowl eligible at 6-6) in some time. And, if you want to go back a long, long way, the University of San Francisco folded their DI program after an UNDEFEATED 1951 season. The reason? Money, or more accurately the lack of money. SDSU will always be at a disadvantage playing in somebody else's yard. And, as we all know, the cost of maintaining DI football is going to skyrocket as the Power Five conferences solidify their hegemony over the sport. SDSU needs to make it a hard and fast policy rule that it will not, repeat not, play in any new "Chargers" stadium. Why it would be a mistake to tag along with the Chargers to play in a new stadium where the costs to the school and its fans would be much higher has been articulated many times and need not be recapitulated here. Furthermore, it should be the stated goal of the school to build its own, appropriately sized, on-campus stadium. The easiest way for that to happen is for the university to take over the Mission Valley site. Tearing down Qualcomm Stadium and building a smaller, more appropriate one for Aztec football would actually be at most an ancillary motive for such a project. The main value of taking over the Q site would be to greatly expand the university. Anybody who cannot see that such a deal would be the quintessential once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has little vision. And, to repeat, I do NOT want to pay a dime to help the Spanoses to continue to receive corporate welfare when the city has much more legitimate uses for the people's money. Oh, yes, one more thing. San Diego will not suffer if it no longer has an NFL franchise. True, the sports writers and broadcasters will suffer. Somehow I think the city, not to mention the county as a whole, would survive the blow. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 27, 2015 14:41:46 GMT -8
And here is my response as posted on that site. I'm sure it will win me many new friends. At the risk of instantly making thousands of enemies, let me identify myself as one San Diego County resident who would shed no tears if the Chargers were to move away. Also, I do not contemplate with eagerness the prospects of a new "Chargers" stadium. Such a stadium would not be in the best interests of San Diego State's football program. On the contrary, a new stadium in which the Aztecs would be a barely tolerated, unloved step-sister, would do significant damage to the program. Especially so if it were built downtown, far from campus. The success of Aztec basketball is partly due to the fact that SDSU students can walk to the arena.
SDSU used to have an on-campus stadium, Aztec Bowl. Built in the 1930s, Aztec Bowl had an official seating capacity of about 12,000. However, when Don Coryell lit a fire under the program in the '60s crowds closer to 14,000 attended games, some fans sitting on the bare earth at the unfinished south end of the stadium. Indeed, the stadium had been designed with the possibility of expanding the seating to at least 40,000! The unwise decision to build the basketball arena on the site of the football stadium doomed that idea for all time.
Here's the deal; SDSU desperately needs an on-campus stadium. Even crowds of 35,000, which would be decent for this program, are swallowed up in the Q. The place is terrible for football, a legacy of the foolish "multipurpose stadium" concept. Look around the country and you will find that no such venue has been built for decades. Schools with on-campus stadiums benefit in a number of ways. I think it quite possible that in the coming years, years in which the non-Power college football programs will be increasingly starved of cash, the ability to continue fielding teams may depend on the existence of an on-campus stadium.
Let me tell you what I hope happens. First, that the Chargers leave Qualcomm. I don't care whether that entails moving to LA, or building a stadium in Campo. Second, San Diego State University takes possession of the Q's site for the purpose of expanding the school and, incidentally, the building of a smaller stadium more appropriate to the needs of SDSU football. A stadium in the 40,000 to 45.000 seat capacity would be ideal. That's a visionary proposal, but such visionary thinking might well make SDSU one of the great American universities, not merely the pick of the litter among the CSU puppies.
As for the Spanos family, they have more money than Croesus. If they want a new stadium, that's fine by me. I would have no objection whatsoever, provided that (A) the Aztecs do not have to play in it, and (B) I don't have to help pay for it. Let me clarify that last point. I live in Fallbrook. Every time I read the suggestion that the whole county should pay for the Spanoses' new play pen, I turn red. Not on my dime, thank you very much. Among other reasons for that attitude is the fact that we in the far reaches of north county have to make a 100 mile round trip to attend events in Mission Valley. I'm willing to do that for Aztec sports (I am a grad, Class of 1964, by the way), but not for the Chargers. Putting aside my allegiance to my alma mater, I am not rich enough to pay what the Chargers ask. No reason to make me subsidize fans who live closer to downtown and who, I would imagine, have more money that I do.
So, Go Chargers! Somewhere, anywhere, but do so with you own money and please do not suggest that the Aztecs must play in any new stadium. The only new stadium that would be right for the Aztecs is one that they themselves own.
William L. Rupp (aka AztecWilliam) +100000000 Great post AW!!!
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jan 27, 2015 14:57:18 GMT -8
SDSU football will need average San Diego fans to fill any facility . As shown by every sports fan in San Diego , they are not going to support any team unless it is a real winner .Produce a winner first. Again with money needed for stipends and other new costs that are going into affect . Where is money coming for a stadiumonly facility. How will the Chargers leaving put a CHAMPIONSHIP team on the field . Most Charger fans would go up to LA for an NFL game or go to their HS team unless the team is championship caliber . Even ask students if they would go to games , same answer not going unless they are a first place team . Team needs recruits , they want something special IMO , maybe state of the art facility .
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 27, 2015 15:07:48 GMT -8
Well if you don't like all the ideas, how about coming up with one yourself that ALL sides will agree with. How many plans do the Chargers need to come up with? I'm not sure where the Chargers said "well you won't get any more Super Bowls"? Me thingst your so biased on this that you're blaming everything on the Chargers/Spanos rather than the past Mayors, City Councils etc...that have some responsibility in this mess too. Maybe the Chargers should do what the Packers have done which is to sell Stock in the organization...... similar to the Bricks that were sold at Petco etc... Anything to make it happen. Personally, I think the Mission Valley site is the perfect location for a new stadium. And I would gladly turn that land over to the Chargers to do with it what they will. The problem is, they don't want to spend the money to clean up the environmental issues. And they don't want to spend the money to fix the infrastructure needs around the stadium. They don't want to take any risk at all. That's my biggest issue here. They want the city and the citizens to take all the risk on a structure that will benefit them more than anyone else. This is not a 50-50 deal, wherever it is built, if it is built. Again, there is a reason the NFL and owners don't want to own these things themselves. Because they lose money. There is a reason they are billionaires ... they don't make bad decisions and take on financial risks when they can get someone else to do it for them. Where does it say what the Chargers WON'T do as you noted above? The more I think about the idea of the Chargers selling stock similar to what the Packers have done, makes sense to me. Over 360k people own more than 5 Mill shares. Chargers fans from all over the World could buy as many shares as they wanted. If memory serves me right, each share of Packers stock was something like $250. That's a helluva lot of $$$ to help pay for a new stadium from the public...who cares. www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 27, 2015 15:09:04 GMT -8
And here is my response as posted on that site. I'm sure it will win me many new friends. At the risk of instantly making thousands of enemies, let me identify myself as one San Diego County resident who would shed no tears if the Chargers were to move away. Also, I do not contemplate with eagerness the prospects of a new "Chargers" stadium. Such a stadium would not be in the best interests of San Diego State's football program. On the contrary, a new stadium in which the Aztecs would be a barely tolerated, unloved step-sister, would do significant damage to the program. Especially so if it were built downtown, far from campus. The success of Aztec basketball is partly due to the fact that SDSU students can walk to the arena.
SDSU used to have an on-campus stadium, Aztec Bowl. Built in the 1930s, Aztec Bowl had an official seating capacity of about 12,000. However, when Don Coryell lit a fire under the program in the '60s crowds closer to 14,000 attended games, some fans sitting on the bare earth at the unfinished south end of the stadium. Indeed, the stadium had been designed with the possibility of expanding the seating to at least 40,000! The unwise decision to build the basketball arena on the site of the football stadium doomed that idea for all time.
Here's the deal; SDSU desperately needs an on-campus stadium. Even crowds of 35,000, which would be decent for this program, are swallowed up in the Q. The place is terrible for football, a legacy of the foolish "multipurpose stadium" concept. Look around the country and you will find that no such venue has been built for decades. Schools with on-campus stadiums benefit in a number of ways. I think it quite possible that in the coming years, years in which the non-Power college football programs will be increasingly starved of cash, the ability to continue fielding teams may depend on the existence of an on-campus stadium.
Let me tell you what I hope happens. First, that the Chargers leave Qualcomm. I don't care whether that entails moving to LA, or building a stadium in Campo. Second, San Diego State University takes possession of the Q's site for the purpose of expanding the school and, incidentally, the building of a smaller stadium more appropriate to the needs of SDSU football. A stadium in the 40,000 to 45.000 seat capacity would be ideal. That's a visionary proposal, but such visionary thinking might well make SDSU one of the great American universities, not merely the pick of the litter among the CSU puppies.
As for the Spanos family, they have more money than Croesus. If they want a new stadium, that's fine by me. I would have no objection whatsoever, provided that (A) the Aztecs do not have to play in it, and (B) I don't have to help pay for it. Let me clarify that last point. I live in Fallbrook. Every time I read the suggestion that the whole county should pay for the Spanoses' new play pen, I turn red. Not on my dime, thank you very much. Among other reasons for that attitude is the fact that we in the far reaches of north county have to make a 100 mile round trip to attend events in Mission Valley. I'm willing to do that for Aztec sports (I am a grad, Class of 1964, by the way), but not for the Chargers. Putting aside my allegiance to my alma mater, I am not rich enough to pay what the Chargers ask. No reason to make me subsidize fans who live closer to downtown and who, I would imagine, have more money that I do.
So, Go Chargers! Somewhere, anywhere, but do so with you own money and please do not suggest that the Aztecs must play in any new stadium. The only new stadium that would be right for the Aztecs is one that they themselves own.
William L. Rupp (aka AztecWilliam) +100000000 Great post AW!!! A lot of big talk but talk means nothing. Where are they going to get the $$ to build a new stadium or revamp the Q? How much are you going to kick in?
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jan 27, 2015 15:23:01 GMT -8
The fact is that San Diego is nothing like any other large city. The mentality here is small town from the 60s. " Let's not become another Los Angeles"... bull$#!+! We already are and have been for years. Traffic sucks. More and more houses keep getting built. We're a big freakin city people. We've got minor league hockey coming. Big whoop. We've got minor league College Football.... sorry but the truth hurts. We don't have a major (NBA) hoops team. We don't even have a major league Sports Arena but boy oh boy, we've got a major league library. The only thing we've got is a NFL Team and a somewhat recently successful college basketball team. We lose the Chargers to another city and we become even more minor league. For the life of me, I don't get the people who want the Chargers to Bolt. It's like Spanos stole their Christmas presents or something. Maybe if they had won a Super Bowl or 2, people wouldn't be so jaded. This isn't America's Finest City. We may have the best sunsets and weather but that's about it. The AZTECS success or failure, has NOTHING to do with the Chargers. Has anybody heard Sterk or Hirschman discuss their plan for a new stadium on-campus or near? Where's the money coming from? Ideas are nothing but ideas without the bread. When's the next quarterly luncheon coming up so we can ask Sterk those questions. What's the plan and where's the coin?
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 27, 2015 15:47:06 GMT -8
Same old story with new post . Bottom line Chargers leaving does not produce a winning football team for the AZTECS on the field. That is THE ISSUE . Stadium is Not the issue or the Chargers - they are easy responses but not the answer to the issue HIGH QUALITY AZTEC FOOTBALL. Does that solve not being able to recruit and Develop Quality QB's - No . Producing a team that wins MW Championship game and best G5 Bowl No . Invite to P5 No . We are going to lose focus if we defer from the key issue . AZTEC FOOTBALL TEAM ON THE FIELD. The Coaches and development of the players on the field . Yes Chargers could move but the Raiders could move here to San Diego . Time for all sports fans in San Diego to unite in putting together an all sports facility - state of the art that RECRUUITS , PLAYERS and FANS want to go to for a Variety of events . Or we all lose . You are correct on many points but seem to ignore the really central problem. SDSU needs an on-campus stadium in the worst way possible. The Q, while not good for the program in some ways, is if nothing else not TOO far from the campus. As you say, it's up to the Aztecs themselves to win more games. Sadly, winning is not the only thing. Notice that Alabama Birmingham just folded their program after having their best year (bowl eligible at 6-6) in some time. And, if you want to go back a long, long way, the University of San Francisco folded their DI program after an UNDEFEATED 1951 season. The reason? Money, or more accurately the lack of money. SDSU will always be at a disadvantage playing in somebody else's yard. And, as we all know, the cost of maintaining DI football is going to skyrocket as the Power Five conferences solidify their hegemony over the sport. SDSU needs to make it a hard and fast policy rule that it will not, repeat not, play in any new "Chargers" stadium. Why it would be a mistake to tag along with the Chargers to play in a new stadium where the costs to the school and its fans would be much higher has been articulated many times and need not be recapitulated here. Furthermore, it should be the stated goal of the school to build its own, appropriately sized, on-campus stadium. The easiest way for that to happen is for the university to take over the Mission Valley site. Tearing down Qualcomm Stadium and building a smaller, more appropriate one for Aztec football would actually be at most an ancillary motive for such a project. The main value of taking over the Q site would be to greatly expand the university. Anybody who cannot see that such a deal would be the quintessential once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has little vision. And, to repeat, I do NOT want to pay a dime to help the Spanoses to continue to receive corporate welfare when the city has much more legitimate uses for the people's money. Oh, yes, one more thing. San Diego will not suffer if it no longer has an NFL franchise. True, the sports writers and broadcasters will suffer. Somehow I think the city, not to mention the county as a whole, would survive the blow. AzWm Throwing the UAB reference out there does not pan out. UAB had to fold its program because of state politics and specifically Alabama not wanting another player in their backyard. Why SDSU would make a hard and fast rule to not play in a San Diego stadium is beyond me. The assumption that SDSU will absolutely have a place to play if the Chargers leave town is just presumptuous. The fact that we could so NO football played in San Diego besides USD in the next 6 years does not seem to be on some peoples radar. There is the myopic view that SDSU football is a large mover and shaker in the community. If that were in fact the case we would see many more people at the Q for games. Would I like to have warm and fuzzys that a SDSU facility would get done? Yes. Do I have them. No. There are too many people self interested in their own agenda that cant see what is best for the community as a whole.
|
|