|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 19, 2015 16:59:41 GMT -8
Sorry about the failed attempt at humor. But, seriously, I have been the recipient of some negative comments following my declaration of non-loyalty to the Chargers. I see the Chargers as a strictly commercial enterprise that has attempted, successfully sometimes, to get the taxpayers to give them benefits that other businesses do not receive. If the Spanos family wants to build a stadium using their own money, or money from other private sources, all well and good. But I really do not want to have to have some of my tax money going to them. And as a resident of unincorporated Fallbrook, I really bridle at the suggestion that the whole county should get involved in building a new stadium that will be great for the Chargers but, should they be forced to use it, would be a detriment to the Aztecs. AzWm Setting the Chargers aside for a moment, do you agree that a new stadium would be used for much more than just the Chargers and would be a benefit to the City and asset to the region? Also, do you think that SDSU FB is totally insulated from this and will survive no matter what? If so, I would like to know why. The reason I ask is that so much of the dialogue against a stadium is driven by a disdain for the Chargers when they are only part of the whole issue. Yes, they are the catalyst for it right now due to the LA situation, but we would be having this conversation anyway in the near term just because of the decaying state of the Q.
I am not one of those people who thinks that having an NFL franchise (or a MLB or NHL franchise) makes a city or region first class. No doubt such a franchise is important to newspaper and TV sports reporters, and maybe also to big companies who like to dole out season tickets for public relation purposes. Yes, there are those who say that a major pro franchise yields big benefits for local economies. On the other hand, there are studies that debunk such claims. In any event, there are many cities, big and small, without pro franchise, many of which are doing just fine. San Diego has lost a number of franchises and is still in business. I don't think that San Diego has declined because the Clippers left town.
Once again I will state my position. My first priority is to further the goals of SDSU as a school in general and Aztec sports in particular. As for a downtown stadium built for the Chargers, having to play Aztec games in it would harm the program. Indeed, what the program needs is an on-campus stadium. Even staying the Q would better than moving downtown. This is not a school such as UCLA, one whose fan base is so big that decent sized crowds are willing to travel the 24 miles from Westwood to Pasadena. In addition, we should not forget that SDSU no longer plays its basketball games on Sports Arena Blvd!
Additionally, I oppose taxpayer money going to help the Spanos family achieve a goal that they either cannot afford to achieve on their own or prefer to achieve with the help of people who mostly cannot afford to attend Charger games. We should not have to help the Chargers achieve a goal detrimental to the Aztec football.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 19, 2015 17:19:21 GMT -8
Setting the Chargers aside for a moment, do you agree that a new stadium would be used for much more than just the Chargers and would be a benefit to the City and asset to the region? Also, do you think that SDSU FB is totally insulated from this and will survive no matter what? If so, I would like to know why. The reason I ask is that so much of the dialogue against a stadium is driven by a disdain for the Chargers when they are only part of the whole issue. Yes, they are the catalyst for it right now due to the LA situation, but we would be having this conversation anyway in the near term just because of the decaying state of the Q.
I am not one of those people who thinks that having an NFL franchise (or a MLB or NHL franchise) makes a city or region first class. No doubt such a franchise is important to newspaper and TV sports reporters, and maybe also to big companies who like to dole out season tickets for public relation purposes. Yes, there are those who say that a major pro franchise yields big benefits for local economies. On the other hand, there are studies that debunk such claims. In any event, there are many cities, big and small, without pro franchise, many of which are doing just fine. San Diego has lost a number of franchises and is still in business. I don't think that San Diego has declined because the Clippers left town.
Once again I will state my position. My first priority is to further the goals of SDSU as a school in general and Aztec sports in particular. As for a downtown stadium built for the Chargers, having to play Aztec games in it would harm the program. Indeed, what the program needs is an on-campus stadium. Even staying the Q would better than moving downtown. This is not a school such as UCLA, one whose fan base is so big that decent sized crowds are willing to travel the 24 miles from Westwood to Pasadena. In addition, we should not forget that SDSU no longer plays its basketball games on Sports Arena Blvd!
Additionally, I oppose taxpayer money going to help the Spanos family achieve a goal that they either cannot afford to achieve on their own or prefer to achieve with the help of people who mostly cannot afford to attend Charger games. We should not have to help the Chargers achieve a goal detrimental to the Aztec football.
AzWm
You didn't answer any of my questions. I didn't ask you if SDSU should play downtown or even how a stadium should be funded. Simply put, does San Diego need a stadium and do you think SDSU football survives if they are required to build their own facility? I get that for some reason you dont like the Spanos family. Really, that has little to do with the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 19, 2015 18:54:01 GMT -8
I am not one of those people who thinks that having an NFL franchise (or a MLB or NHL franchise) makes a city or region first class. No doubt such a franchise is important to newspaper and TV sports reporters, and maybe also to big companies who like to dole out season tickets for public relation purposes. Yes, there are those who say that a major pro franchise yields big benefits for local economies. On the other hand, there are studies that debunk such claims. In any event, there are many cities, big and small, without pro franchise, many of which are doing just fine. San Diego has lost a number of franchises and is still in business. I don't think that San Diego has declined because the Clippers left town.
Once again I will state my position. My first priority is to further the goals of SDSU as a school in general and Aztec sports in particular. As for a downtown stadium built for the Chargers, having to play Aztec games in it would harm the program. Indeed, what the program needs is an on-campus stadium. Even staying the Q would better than moving downtown. This is not a school such as UCLA, one whose fan base is so big that decent sized crowds are willing to travel the 24 miles from Westwood to Pasadena. In addition, we should not forget that SDSU no longer plays its basketball games on Sports Arena Blvd!
Additionally, I oppose taxpayer money going to help the Spanos family achieve a goal that they either cannot afford to achieve on their own or prefer to achieve with the help of people who mostly cannot afford to attend Charger games. We should not have to help the Chargers achieve a goal detrimental to the Aztec football.
AzWm
You didn't answer any of my questions. I didn't ask you if SDSU should play downtown or even how a stadium should be funded. Simply put, does San Diego need a stadium and do you think SDSU football survives if they are required to build their own facility? I get that for some reason you dont like the Spanos family. Really, that has little to do with the conversation. San Diego State football needs a stadium. That's my bottom line. Preferably a new one seating about 40,000 on campus, but short of that a stadium in Mission Valley. I am still having a hard time trying to understand why people can't see that having to share a stadium, one that is way too big and in which the Aztecs would be treated somewhat shabbily, is not in the best interests of the program. There is a reason why the UT always refers to a possible new "Chargers stadium." Basically, the Aztecs, if considered at all, are mentioned only as an unimportant after-thought. I'd like to discuss the question of stadium rental. Who in their right mind would think even for a moment that SDSU would not have to pay far more than what they now pay for the privilege of playing in a new "Chargers stadium"? Look at it this way. Let's says that you have a family of five, Mom, Dad, and three kids. Which of these two situations would you prefer? A: Pay very high rent to live on the third floor of a house belonging to somebody else, with rules dictating when you can leave and enter. And you have to pay extra rent to park your car in the garage. Oh, yes, in addition, the house is quite a bit farther from your work and your kids' school than you would like. B: A house much closer to work and school and one which is yours (along with the mortgage holder, of course). Regardless of what this or that student may say in an informal and unscientific "survey," the number of students attending football games would without question go up if they could simply walk to an on-campus stadium as they now do for basketball. As for the Spanoses, my feelings toward them are the same as toward anyone with great wealth who seeks to pressure government to hand over massive monetary benefits that average citizens never receive. In short, I am opposed to crony capitalism. Let's face it; pro sports are a luxury that any city can do without. On the other hand, universities provide wealth to a city that goes far beyond weekly paychecks, though there is that, too. If it came down to a question of building a new stadium for a wealthy family or expanding our biggest university (i.e, a proposed west campus), I would take the latter. And I would take that even if it meant no football, pro OR Division I college. Fortunately, it need not be so stark a choice. Allowing SDSU to expand to the Qualcomm site is such an obvious choice that "no-brainer" isn't even adequate. That goal can be achieved, with proper vision and leadership. And, also fortunately for Aztec sports, a stadium there (eventually a new and down-sized one), is also doable. Now, as for the Chargers, I see no reason why the city cannot encourage them to build their own venue. . . . just so long as the Spanos family is willing to spend their own money. Of course, there is a logical course of action open to them in case their wealth isn't quite great enough. No doubt buyers for the team can be found. And, please don't think the Alex Spanos and his family would do anything but reap a very, very handsome profit as a result of such a sale. Hey, for them it's a hobby. At some point most of use have to decide whether a cherished hoby is really worth the time, money and effort required to keep it going. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 19, 2015 19:08:25 GMT -8
You didn't answer any of my questions. I didn't ask you if SDSU should play downtown or even how a stadium should be funded. Simply put, does San Diego need a stadium and do you think SDSU football survives if they are required to build their own facility? I get that for some reason you dont like the Spanos family. Really, that has little to do with the conversation. San Diego State football needs a stadium. That's my bottom line. Preferably a new one seating about 40,000 on campus, but short of that a stadium in Mission Valley. I am still having a hard time trying to understand why people can't see that having to share a stadium, one that is way too big and in which the Aztecs would be treated somewhat shabbily, is not in the best interests of the program. There is a reason why the UT always refers to a possible new "Chargers stadium." Basically, the Aztecs, if considered at all, are mentioned only as an unimportant after-thought. I'd like to discuss the question of stadium rental. Who in their right mind would think even for a moment that SDSU would not have to pay far more than what they now pay for the privilege of playing in a new "Chargers stadium"? Look at it this way. Let's says that you have a family of five, Mom, Dad, and three kids. Which of these two situations would you prefer? A: Pay very high rent to live on the third floor of a house belonging to somebody else, with rules dictating when you can leave and enter. And you have to pay extra rent to park your car in the garage. Oh, yes, in addition, the house is quite a bit farther from your work and your kids' school than you would like. B: A house much closer to work and school and one which is yours (along with the mortgage holder, of course). Regardless of what this or that student may say in an informal and unscientific "survey," the number of students attending football games would without question go up if they could simply walk to an on-campus stadium as they now do for basketball. As for the Spanoses, my feelings toward them are the same as toward anyone with great wealth who seeks to pressure government to hand over massive monetary benefits that average citizens never receive. In short, I am opposed to crony capitalism. Let's face it; pro sports are a luxury that any city can do without. On the other hand, universities provide wealth to a city that goes far beyond weekly paychecks, though there is that, too. If it came down to a question of building a new stadium for a wealthy family or expanding our biggest university (i.e, a proposed west campus), I would take the latter. And I would take that even if it meant no football, pro OR Division I college. Fortunately, it need not be so stark a choice. Allowing SDSU to expand to the Qualcomm site is such an obvious choice that "no-brainer" isn't even adequate. That goal can be achieved, with proper vision and leadership. And, also fortunately for Aztec sports, a stadium there (eventually a new and down-sized one), is also doable. Now, as for the Chargers, I see no reason why the city cannot encourage them to build their own venue. . . . just so long as the Spanos family is willing to spend their own money. Of course, there is a logical course of action open to them in case their wealth isn't quite great enough. No doubt buyers for the team can be found. And, please don't think the Alex Spanos and his family would do anything but reap a very, very handsome profit as a result of such a sale. Hey, for them it's a hobby. At some point most of use have to decide whether a cherished hoby is really worth the time, money and effort required to keep it going. AzWm You have still diligently avoided answering my questions. If I were to guess in a summary your response is that you don't care what happens with San Diego and you are certain SDSU FB will survive no matter what comes. Is that a fair assessment?
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Feb 19, 2015 19:19:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 19, 2015 19:33:34 GMT -8
[/b] I agree. But you wouldn't guess that with the comments of most Charger fans on this board. I have said that a West Campus expansion is more important than a football stadium. Certainly I would be bummed if SDSU lost football. However, I truly don't believe that will happen. [/quote] I am one of the Chargers fans on this board that believes a new stadium for San Diego is in assessing. For San Diego to have the cultural and entertainment opportunities a major city has we need and unnecessary waste of money.a new stadium. For San Diego State specifically, you may have a hard time convincing a group of academics that football is necessity and deserves the money needed to survive. It could easily be justified by them that the use of money better served in other areas of the University and CSU system.[/quote] - [/quote] So then can I assume you wouldn't have a problem if it was decided that a South Campus, possibly in East Chula Vista would better serve the citizens that the CSU system exists to serve? [/quote] SDSU already serves the entire Imperial, Central & South Bay of San Diego County. Sweetwater Union High School District already has a program in place with SDSU called Compact for Success (which also includes the Eastlake schools of Eastlake & Olympian High [what you call East Chula Vista] . So long as students graduating from SUHSD complete specific core requirements and minimum required GPA they are granted automatic admission to the university (what an amazing opportunity to attend the best CSU in the state!) compactforsuccess.sdsu.edu/compact/eap.sdsu.edu/dus/earlyassessment/serviceareas.aspxPerhaps a CSU in North County then... Sorry, already covered by CSU San Marcos which opened to students in 1990. www.csusm.edu/admissions/impaction/localservicearea.htmlCSUSM actually has 57 more acres than SDSU and serves about 20,000 less students. Just let those numbers sink in.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 19, 2015 19:59:12 GMT -8
That's what I'm talking about Senator Marty Block! That article deserves its own thread! Go Aztecs!
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 19, 2015 20:30:19 GMT -8
I'm surprised the smart folks that frequent this forum can't recognize political theater when they see it. The Chargers apparently bought 170 acres in Carson with the Raiders. It may be political theatre but they just spent a chunk of change in LA.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Feb 19, 2015 21:25:30 GMT -8
For some bizarre reason Las Vegas is itching to get an NHL Franchise. To gather support the proponents point out that in a day and a half they were half way to their 10,000 season ticket holder commitment, (deposits), to move forward. When Winnipeg was being considered for another NHL franchise a few years ago 10,000 season holder commitments, (deposits), was achieved in 13 minutes.
I gave up my Charger season tickets in 2003 because I got tired of flying four hours to watch a team continue to suck and experience "home" games against Green Bay, Chicago, New York, just about any franchise that drew more fans than Chargers fans. And I'm of the opinion that part hasn't really changed.
History has shown time and again that San Diego just isn't a sports town. If it was, the stadium issue would have been a non-issue. And if the Chargers do leave I'm also of the opinion the Aztecs will have a hell of a time finding a place to play football.
It all sounds so good on paper.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Feb 19, 2015 21:53:37 GMT -8
Can there be any possible area that's worse than Carson? Will they build this edifice next to one of the oil refineries?
|
|
|
Post by fisherville on Feb 19, 2015 21:54:05 GMT -8
not happening
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 19, 2015 22:23:12 GMT -8
For some bizarre reason Las Vegas is itching to get an NHL Franchise. To gather support the proponents point out that in a day and a half they were half way to their 10,000 season ticket holder commitment, (deposits), to move forward. When Winnipeg was being considered for another NHL franchise a few years ago 10,000 season holder commitments, (deposits), was achieved in 13 minutes. I gave up my Charger season tickets in 2003 because I got tired of flying four hours to watch a team continue to suck and experience "home" games against Green Bay, Chicago, New York, just about any franchise that drew more fans than Chargers fans. And I'm of the opinion that part hasn't really changed. History has shown time and again that San Diego just isn't a sports town. If it was, the stadium issue would have been a non-issue. And if the Chargers do leave I'm also of the opinion the Aztecs will have a hell of a time finding a place to play football. It all sounds so good on paper. Las Vegas has to put something in that new arena they are building on The Strip.
|
|
|
Post by AztecCamera on Feb 19, 2015 23:59:38 GMT -8
My understanding is that the Aztecs would need to play in a 30,000 seat stadium for them to still keep Div. 1 status, so the Junior College stadium option is not there.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 20, 2015 8:44:35 GMT -8
I'm surprised the smart folks that frequent this forum can't recognize political theater when they see it. The Chargers apparently bought 170 acres in Carson with the Raiders. It may be political theatre but they just spent a chunk of change in LA. Keep in mind that the Spanos family is based in construction. There is so much wrong with this concept/plan they put out, but I have no doubt that when it doesn't come to fruition that land will be used for condos, apartments, you name it. It is an investment in "leverage", though it is a piss poor one in my opinion. I think that the Rams already have checkmate on a stadium at Hollywood Park. The only question now is who becomes the second team in LA if any. A reasonable expectation is that the NFL gives the Rams the all clear to move providing: 1. A disproportionate percentage of their relocation fee goes to the Chargers to fund a stadium in SD. The Chargers are the only team in the league that can claim any market loss due to the Rams leaving. 2. The Rams allow their facility to be shared with the Raiders. Mark Davis is worth "only" $500million, so he really has no means to do a facility on his own. The Raiders would be a LA step child. Seems about right. The NFL has to get their ish together real quick, or they will be faced with having 3 teams playing in empty stadiums this coming year. Anyone remember the Oilers when they left Houston? wow. Back to our Aztecs. Thinking about this, it seems like the only viable alternative to keep football going is to move into the Q site. Any other option, such as 55th, would require environmental clearance that would take at least 5-7 years. BTW, I am not talking out of my ass here. I have done much simpler projects than this and seen the EIR take this long. Then again, Qualcomm stadium is in such a state of disrepair, that maintenance, demo and construction of a new stadium seems cost prohibitive. Regardless, it seems to be our only hope if the Chargers leave.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 20, 2015 8:51:59 GMT -8
The Chargers apparently bought 170 acres in Carson with the Raiders. It may be political theatre but they just spent a chunk of change in LA. Keep in mind that the Spanos family is based in construction. There is so much wrong with this concept/plan they put out, but I have no doubt that when it doesn't come to fruition that land will be used for condos, apartments, you name it. It is an investment in "leverage", though it is a piss poor one in my opinion. I think that the Rams already have checkmate on a stadium at Hollywood Park. The only question now is who becomes the second team in LA if any. A reasonable expectation is that the NFL gives the Rams the all clear to move providing: 1. A disproportionate percentage of their relocation fee goes to the Chargers to fund a stadium in SD. The Chargers are the only team in the league that can claim any market loss due to the Rams leaving. 2. The Rams allow their facility to be shared with the Raiders. Mark Davis is worth "only" $500million, so he really has no means to do a facility on his own. The Raiders would be a LA step child. Seems about right. The NFL has to get their ish together real quick, or they will be faced with having 3 teams playing in empty stadiums this coming year. Anyone remember the Oilers when they left Houston? wow. Back to our Aztecs. Thinking about this, it seems like the only viable alternative to keep football going is to move into the Q site. Any other option, such as 55th, would require environmental clearance that would take at least 5-7 years. BTW, I am not talking out of my ass here. I have done much simpler projects than this and seen the EIR take this long. Then again, Qualcomm stadium is in such a state of disrepair, that maintenance, demo and construction of a new stadium seems cost prohibitive. Regardless, it seems to be our only hope if the Chargers leave. I agree that an on campus facility would be tied up with legal issues for years. I think that if SDSU has had any viable plans for what appears to be happening they will come forth soon. I think a 40-45K stadium with plans for expansion as needed on the Q site is the best option. Money is the problem. We need a couple sugar daddies.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Feb 20, 2015 9:05:43 GMT -8
Keep in mind that the Spanos family is based in construction. There is so much wrong with this concept/plan they put out, but I have no doubt that when it doesn't come to fruition that land will be used for condos, apartments, you name it. It is an investment in "leverage", though it is a piss poor one in my opinion. I think that the Rams already have checkmate on a stadium at Hollywood Park. The only question now is who becomes the second team in LA if any. A reasonable expectation is that the NFL gives the Rams the all clear to move providing: 1. A disproportionate percentage of their relocation fee goes to the Chargers to fund a stadium in SD. The Chargers are the only team in the league that can claim any market loss due to the Rams leaving. 2. The Rams allow their facility to be shared with the Raiders. Mark Davis is worth "only" $500million, so he really has no means to do a facility on his own. The Raiders would be a LA step child. Seems about right. The NFL has to get their ish together real quick, or they will be faced with having 3 teams playing in empty stadiums this coming year. Anyone remember the Oilers when they left Houston? wow. Back to our Aztecs. Thinking about this, it seems like the only viable alternative to keep football going is to move into the Q site. Any other option, such as 55th, would require environmental clearance that would take at least 5-7 years. BTW, I am not talking out of my ass here. I have done much simpler projects than this and seen the EIR take this long. Then again, Qualcomm stadium is in such a state of disrepair, that maintenance, demo and construction of a new stadium seems cost prohibitive. Regardless, it seems to be our only hope if the Chargers leave. I agree that an on campus facility would be tied up with legal issues for years. I think that if SDSU has had any viable plans for what appears to be happening they will come forth soon. I think a 40-45K stadium with plans for expansion as needed on the Q site is the best option. Money is the problem. We need a couple sugar daddies. Maybe a renovation of the current stadium is the way to go, at least for the near future. Take it in stages over the 5 years SDSU gets after the Chargers leave, reduce the maintenance costs while the City maintains the stadium, then take full ownership. I think the estimate in 2011 was $250 million, but SDSU doesn't need all the bells & whistles. If SDSU takes over the advertising in the stadium, concession, parking.. etc and gets to keep some of the money from the Bowl games and other Parking Lot events, plus add several events inside the stadium, then $50 million a year isn't a huge hurdle.
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Feb 20, 2015 9:42:07 GMT -8
I agree that an on campus facility would be tied up with legal issues for years. I think that if SDSU has had any viable plans for what appears to be happening they will come forth soon. I think a 40-45K stadium with plans for expansion as needed on the Q site is the best option. Money is the problem. We need a couple sugar daddies. Maybe a renovation of the current stadium is the way to go, at least for the near future. Take it in stages over the 5 years SDSU gets after the Chargers leave, reduce the maintenance costs while the City maintains the stadium, then take full ownership. I think the estimate in 2011 was $250 million, but SDSU doesn't need all the bells & whistles. If SDSU takes over the advertising in the stadium, concession, parking.. etc and gets to keep some of the money from the Bowl games and other Parking Lot events, plus add several events inside the stadium, then $50 million a year isn't a huge hurdle. I actually have been mulling that over -- a phased in complete tear-down and rebuild. Don't ever have to even leave the field we've been playing on for the last 40 years. Everybody sits on one side of The Q during, e.g., 2017 and tear-down/rebuild can take place on the other side. Next season, vice-versa. Do the end zone sides in subsequent years. This is basically what has occurred up at Oregon State over the last 5 years. Meanwhile, SDSU brass can sign any waivers necessary for take-over/purchasing of the property and start building the West Campus around our brand new COLLEGE football stadium! As much as I like the idea, it's Option B for me. A true on-campus Montezuma Mesa stadium is still my preferred option.
|
|
|
Post by perch on Feb 20, 2015 9:51:24 GMT -8
I don't see any way there could be an on campus stadium. There simply is not any room. Large areas of homes and businesses would have to be removed and the difficulties of that happening are huge. Also where would be the parking?? The stadium would have to hold at least 40,000 if we have any plans for big time football. Have you seen the traffic congestion for a BB game and there are only 12,000 people. Multiply that by 3 for 40,000.
The only logical solution that I can see is what Block has proposed, to have SDSU take over the Q. Do some remodeling and they could build some campus extensions etc there.
Some of us small minded neighbors saw this before the BB arena was built. Lots of people accused us of being against an arena but that was not the case for most of us. We just thought that the Aztec bowl would not be the best site. A number of us wanted it located on the lower parking lot right next to the freeway. A ramp could have been put put in to have direct access to the freeway. And this would have left Aztec bowl alone. And it held 17,000 and could be redone to enlarge it to 35,000 to 40,000. But alas the wiser heads decided against it.
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Feb 20, 2015 10:00:28 GMT -8
You could put a 25k seat stadium on campus and not fill it so long as SDSU is playing the likes of Wyoming and SJSU.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 20, 2015 10:00:26 GMT -8
I agree that an on campus facility would be tied up with legal issues for years. I think that if SDSU has had any viable plans for what appears to be happening they will come forth soon. I think a 40-45K stadium with plans for expansion as needed on the Q site is the best option. Money is the problem. We need a couple sugar daddies. Maybe a renovation of the current stadium is the way to go, at least for the near future. Take it in stages over the 5 years SDSU gets after the Chargers leave, reduce the maintenance costs while the City maintains the stadium, then take full ownership. I think the estimate in 2011 was $250 million, but SDSU doesn't need all the bells & whistles. If SDSU takes over the advertising in the stadium, concession, parking.. etc and gets to keep some of the money from the Bowl games and other Parking Lot events, plus add several events inside the stadium, then $50 million a year isn't a huge hurdle. The deferred maintenance is $80million. Operations is $10million/year. Renovating the Q at $250million (your numbers). I have a hard time seeing the finished product (renovated) coming in less than $320million, given the time needed to draft plans and deal with immediate maintenance. If it costs $120 million to demo the Q (my guess), then built a new stadium for $250million that makes more sense. You are left with a new facility that is fit for purpose, rather than a frankinstadium. Keep in mind that all of this does not include purchase of the property. I am doubtful the City will just give the property to SDSU. So, it still begs the question, where will all of the money for this come from? Aztecwin noted we need a couple of sugar daddies. That is true, but if they exist, where have they been all these years?
|
|