|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 28, 2015 19:08:23 GMT -8
Thought these were interesting comments from Kevin Acee in a web chat a few days ago... live.utsandiego.com/Event/QA_with_U-T_sports_columnist_Kevin_Acee_4/mobile&Page=0&Theme=21916If the Chargers leave, would any of the advertising revenue, ticket sales or other income trickle down to the Padres as the last major sports team in town, or are the 2 franchises mutually exclusive now that they no longer share a stadium? @ RD: Even though much of the sponsorship/ticket sales is mutually exclusive, I think they would have to trickle down to some extent to not only the Padres but the Aztecs and even the Gulls and possibly other programs.What does SDSU football need to do to take the next step? We seem to have reached a stagnation point (earning lower level bowl appearances). @ JonathanR: Probably have a top-flight QB to make the leap from 7-9 wins to 11 wins. They're swimming upstream in so many ways. They need to really become the elite of the MWC so they can someday join a power conference. I will add that they need a smaller stadium.If the Chargers leave, do you see the MLS coming to San Diego? @ Jorge: I see the MLS coming to San Diego regardless.
What does your gut say -- do chargers stay in SD or go? @ Bryan: I don't know what my gut means, but it is still looking like the Chargers are leaving. ... If I didn't have so much respect for the task force and others in the city/county and what they're doing (attempting to do) I'd pretty much be guaranteeing the Chargers are gone. But I want to keep the faith, and I believe in the passion and commitment of CSAG. I just have talked to a lot of people, and it doesn't look good.SDSU is involved with the new stadium planning, right? Is there a way to build an NFL stadium that can also be modified for Aztec football games? @ JonathanR: Yes, and it has been discussed. The Aztecs need to have a place that seats about 35-40,000.The advisory group will come up with a funding plan, based on a stadium of a certain cost. What will Spanos find acceptable? It seems like any stadium built in SD will cost less and have less than those planned for LA. @ Mitch: You have hit at the heart of the issue.Could you elaborate on your feeling MLS will make it to San Diego. What kind of timeline? Also, it's just MLS, not "the MLS", you know like MLB. @ BUD: Well, that sounds like someone who also uses "pitch" and "cap" ... I don't know the timeline, but the commissioner of MLS has said he expects to be in San Diego some day. Won't be too long.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 29, 2015 9:12:01 GMT -8
Thought these were interesting comments from Kevin Acee in a web chat a few days ago... live.utsandiego.com/Event/QA_with_U-T_sports_columnist_Kevin_Acee_4/mobile&Page=0&Theme=21916If the Chargers leave, would any of the advertising revenue, ticket sales or other income trickle down to the Padres as the last major sports team in town, or are the 2 franchises mutually exclusive now that they no longer share a stadium? @ RD: Even though much of the sponsorship/ticket sales is mutually exclusive, I think they would have to trickle down to some extent to not only the Padres but the Aztecs and even the Gulls and possibly other programs.What does SDSU football need to do to take the next step? We seem to have reached a stagnation point (earning lower level bowl appearances). @ JonathanR: Probably have a top-flight QB to make the leap from 7-9 wins to 11 wins. They're swimming upstream in so many ways. They need to really become the elite of the MWC so they can someday join a power conference. I will add that they need a smaller stadium.If the Chargers leave, do you see the MLS coming to San Diego? @ Jorge: I see the MLS coming to San Diego regardless.
What does your gut say -- do chargers stay in SD or go? @ Bryan: I don't know what my gut means, but it is still looking like the Chargers are leaving. ... If I didn't have so much respect for the task force and others in the city/county and what they're doing (attempting to do) I'd pretty much be guaranteeing the Chargers are gone. But I want to keep the faith, and I believe in the passion and commitment of CSAG. I just have talked to a lot of people, and it doesn't look good.SDSU is involved with the new stadium planning, right? Is there a way to build an NFL stadium that can also be modified for Aztec football games? @ JonathanR: Yes, and it has been discussed. The Aztecs need to have a place that seats about 35-40,000.The advisory group will come up with a funding plan, based on a stadium of a certain cost. What will Spanos find acceptable? It seems like any stadium built in SD will cost less and have less than those planned for LA. @ Mitch: You have hit at the heart of the issue.Could you elaborate on your feeling MLS will make it to San Diego. What kind of timeline? Also, it's just MLS, not "the MLS", you know like MLB. @ BUD: Well, that sounds like someone who also uses "pitch" and "cap" ... I don't know the timeline, but the commissioner of MLS has said he expects to be in San Diego some day. Won't be too long.All the clues so far seem to point to the Chargers leaving the city and San Diego State expanding to Mission Valley.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 29, 2015 12:16:22 GMT -8
Forgot one...
Does a smaller stadium help attract recruits (look better on TV)?
@jonathanr: It's about the atmosphere. In Qualcomm, a crowd of 25,000 seems like 10,000. I've been to 30,000-seat stadiums with 25,000 people in them, and it feels like 60,000.
|
|
|
Post by montysden on Mar 29, 2015 15:00:44 GMT -8
His comments on MLS are clueless, he didn't even know the correct name of the league. San Diego hasn't been mentioned as an expansion target for MLS in a long time, simply because there is no owner(or group) willing to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 29, 2015 15:51:03 GMT -8
His comments on MLS are clueless, he didn't even know the correct name of the league. San Diego hasn't been mentioned as an expansion target for MLS in a long time, simply because there is no owner(or group) willing to make it happen. Give me a break; it was a web chat; the question even referred to it as "the MLS." If a year ago is a long time to you then you are correct. San Diego has been a target of "the MLS" for a while and was specifically mentioned by the commissioner of MLS just over a year ago... "In addition to Miami, Garber also spoke of a number of potential expansion possibilities, including Atlanta, Minneapolis, Sacramento, San Diego and San Antonio. San Diego – “There have been some discussions,” according to the Commissioner. m.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2014/02/20/mls-commissioner-don-garber-gives-update-leagues-expansion-plansMLS will expand to San Diego. It's just a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Mar 30, 2015 11:01:03 GMT -8
My prediction is that The Task Force comes up with a Plan that is workable and can be financed but it won't include all the "bells and whistles" The Spanos Family wants and they will come up with a reason that they have to leave. If this doesn't happen I hope a new Pro/College Stadium can be made to have a true College feel on game day.
If the Chargers do leave I hope that we can get the Campus extension and a 45k stadium on the Qualcomm site, It would be a huge boost to SDSU and not just Athletics.
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 30, 2015 11:08:16 GMT -8
I don't understand why everyone seems to think we should have a stadium that seats 35-40k. Don't teams in the B12 and Pac12 have stadiums that seat no less than 50-60k? If we want to be in a power conference one day, shouldn't we not limit ourselves by having a small stadium? And this isn't an argument to keep the Q... my point is that if we build a stadium, shouldn't we make it at least 50k seating? A 50-60k stadium can be built without having the feel of the Q... other colleges have stadiums that seat that many or more but it is much more compact so each seat is closer to the field than the seats at the Q
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Mar 30, 2015 11:14:00 GMT -8
His comments on MLS are clueless, he didn't even know the correct name of the league. San Diego hasn't been mentioned as an expansion target for MLS in a long time, simply because there is no owner(or group) willing to make it happen. And whatever talk there has been for a MSL stadium seems to favor using the old Balboa Stadium where it could seat the 20-25K sized crows the MSL prefers. San Diego isn't a favored location because they have a good Mexican team to the south and the Galaxy to the north.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 30, 2015 11:16:48 GMT -8
I don't understand why everyone seems to think we should have a stadium that seats 35-40k. Don't teams in the B12 and Pac12 have stadiums that seat no less than 50-60k? If we want to be in a power conference one day, shouldn't we not limit ourselves by having a small stadium? And this isn't an argument to keep the Q... my point is that if we build a stadium, shouldn't we make it at least 50k seating? A 50-60k stadium can be built without having the feel of the Q... other colleges have stadiums that seat that many or more but it is much more compact so each seat is closer to the field than the seats at the Q It only makes sense to build a 40K to 45K Stadium for the Aztecs with a footprint and plans for future expansion if needed.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Mar 30, 2015 11:20:01 GMT -8
I don't understand why everyone seems to think we should have a stadium that seats 35-40k. Don't teams in the B12 and Pac12 have stadiums that seat no less than 50-60k? If we want to be in a power conference one day, shouldn't we not limit ourselves by having a small stadium? And this isn't an argument to keep the Q... my point is that if we build a stadium, shouldn't we make it at least 50k seating? A 50-60k stadium can be built without having the feel of the Q... other colleges have stadiums that seat that many or more but it is much more compact so each seat is closer to the field than the seats at the Q I think the general consensus is on ~40k with designed-in capability to be expanded to ~50k if/when needed. IMO, 40k is totally sufficient for now, and provided the product on the field starts to match our collective hopes/dreams... an expansion to 50k would be the biggest we'd want. If Aztec football games become so popular that we started having to turn away a couple thousand would-be fans at every game... that wouldn't be a horrible scenario.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 11:20:27 GMT -8
I don't understand why everyone seems to think we should have a stadium that seats 35-40k. Don't teams in the B12 and Pac12 have stadiums that seat no less than 50-60k? If we want to be in a power conference one day, shouldn't we not limit ourselves by having a small stadium? And this isn't an argument to keep the Q... my point is that if we build a stadium, shouldn't we make it at least 50k seating? A 50-60k stadium can be built without having the feel of the Q... other colleges have stadiums that seat that many or more but it is much more compact so each seat is closer to the field than the seats at the Q Stanford seats 50k. OSU, Utah, and WAZZU seat 35 to 45k. 55k would put us right in the middle. I think 40 to 45k to start is perfect with the ability to expand.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Mar 30, 2015 11:24:39 GMT -8
Seriously
Quoting acee? This guys has no inside scoop. None. He listens to a few pleoe say their gone but no sources nothing but but feeling.
It's no different than my gut saying that they are staying. Same credibility.
I swear that this is a set up for dean to look like a hero when he is says I will take the deal even though I could have gone to la.
What annoys me is that no one wishes to accept a few realities. Sharing a stadium when you didn't build it means your a tenant.
Tenants pay rent. If the Chargers buddie up with kroenke the only revenue they will generate will be from game day sales and tickets.
And I. Gaurantee that kroenke will want a peice of that as well. Being kroenke tenant will add no value to the team nor generate increased revenue.
The only teo two teams in the NFL that share a stadium are jets and Giants and that only works cause they share everything.
No stadium will ever get built on carson. It took over a decade to clean up qualcomm cause of a gas plume. How long it will it take to clean up an dump site. Eirs don't work in this case. Aeg will sue the living s h I t out of the Chargers the second they try to build in carson. It's a non starter
Dean wanting to move to la is like me saying on what to own beach front property in del mar.
It's sad that so many on this board think the Chargers leaving is an fincancial wind fall for sdsu. It's not.
Why do you think that state isn't part of the financing plan now? No cash.
And don't think that the city and county are going to be real excited to loan money to sdsu. And state has to pay off the water district a cool 150 mil.
States best option is ride the Chargers coat tail into mission valley.
Some of you are so blinded by hate and delusions of grandiuer
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Mar 30, 2015 11:44:46 GMT -8
Seriously Quoting acee? This guys has no inside scoop. None. He listens to a few pleoe say their gone but no sources nothing but but feeling. It's no different than my gut saying that they are staying. Same credibility. I swear that this is a set up for dean to look like a hero when he is says I will take the deal even though I could have gone to la. What annoys me is that no one wishes to accept a few realities. Sharing a stadium when you didn't build it means your a tenant. Tenants pay rent. If the Chargers buddie up with kroenke the only revenue they will generate will be from game day sales and tickets. And I. Gaurantee that kroenke will want a peice of that as well. Being kroenke tenant will add no value to the team nor generate increased revenue. The only teo two teams in the NFL that share a stadium are jets and Giants and that only works cause they share everything. No stadium will ever get built on carson. It took over a decade to clean up qualcomm cause of a gas plume. How long it will it take to clean up an dump site. Eirs don't work in this case. Aeg will sue the living s h I t out of the Chargers the second they try to build in carson. It's a non starter Dean wanting to move to la is like me saying on what to own beach front property in del mar. It's sad that so many on this board think the Chargers leaving is an fincancial wind fall for sdsu. It's not. Why do you think that state isn't part of the financing plan now? No cash. And don't think that the city and county are going to be real excited to loan money to sdsu. And state has to pay off the water district a cool 150 mil. States best option is ride the Chargers coat tail into mission valley. Some of you are so blinded by hate and delusions of grandiuer SDSU has plenty of $$$. The Foundation just raised $1b. Yes, it's true. A little old state school with $1b in its coffers. Additionally, the school could raise $100m to $200m to throw at a stadium, whether it's their own or one built by/for the Chargers. Having said that, I completely agree. The L.A. thing is just a huge ruse in which the Chargers are an afterthought for the following reasons: 1. The Rams are THE team in L.A. They were there for 50 years and still have a large, deep fan base. 2. The Raiders wouldn't own the town the way the Rams would, but they, too, have a significant fan base. 3. The Chargers played in L.A. for 1 year in 1960. No one in L.A. knows or cares about the Chargers. They would be soooooo far behind in third place, they'd never catch up. 4. This nonsense about 25% of San Diego Charger fans coming from L.A., Orange and Riverside Counties has got to stop. Those really aren't Chargers fans. They're East Coast/Midwest transplant fans, day tripping to San Diego to see the Steelers, Packers, Bears, Giants, etc., whenever they're in town. No one's driving from San Bernardino to see the Chargers unless they're a psychotic East Coast fan who decides to grab a chance to see their team during a West Coast swing. Maybe 5% of the Chargers true fan base comes from LA/OC. 5. The Carson deal is a big mirage. Ain't ever going to happen. Raiders/Chargers in the same stadium? That's laughable. The Chargers don't even own the land like they originally said. They simply have an option to buy it down the road. Big difference. 6. And Kroenke doesn't need Spanos. Dude has 30x the $$$ that Spanos has. And if Spanos decides to rent from a bigger billionaire, he's always just going to be a small fish in a big pond. He'd be far better off staying in San Diego. And everyone knows it.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 30, 2015 12:41:37 GMT -8
Seriously Quoting acee? This guys has no inside scoop. None. He listens to a few pleoe say their gone but no sources nothing but but feeling. It's no different than my gut saying that they are staying. Same credibility. Acee was the first interview Spanos has agreed to in months. But go on....
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Mar 30, 2015 13:29:42 GMT -8
He also did an interview with canepa and Marty caswelll
Again none of these people know more than I do.
They don't even have a source
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Mar 30, 2015 13:32:36 GMT -8
The tools in the media are being fed what dean wants them to hear. If dean told them that they are leaving then it would be in the net in seconds.
Jones has been on record saying that kroenke is going.
An actual quote with some meat to it.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Mar 30, 2015 13:44:42 GMT -8
Forgot one... Does a smaller stadium help attract recruits (look better on TV)? @jonathanr: It's about the atmosphere. In Qualcomm, a crowd of 25,000 seems like 10,000. I've been to 30,000-seat stadiums with 25,000 people in them, and it feels like 60,000. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Mar 30, 2015 13:45:50 GMT -8
Jones has been on record saying that kroenke is going. An actual quote with some meat to it. You mean the same Jerry Jones who predicted forcefully and adamantly that a team would definitely, without a doubt be in Los Angeles in a brand spanking new stadium within five years? Back in 1995? You mean that Jones?
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Mar 30, 2015 13:46:43 GMT -8
I don't understand why everyone seems to think we should have a stadium that seats 35-40k. Don't teams in the B12 and Pac12 have stadiums that seat no less than 50-60k? If we want to be in a power conference one day, shouldn't we not limit ourselves by having a small stadium? And this isn't an argument to keep the Q... my point is that if we build a stadium, shouldn't we make it at least 50k seating? A 50-60k stadium can be built without having the feel of the Q... other colleges have stadiums that seat that many or more but it is much more compact so each seat is closer to the field than the seats at the Q It only makes sense to build a 40K to 45K Stadium for the Aztecs with a footprint and plans for future expansion if needed. Stop making sense, win. You're pissing off the posters who like the Chargers as much or more than the Aztecs.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 30, 2015 14:10:19 GMT -8
Acee just on the radio with D Smith: "Being around the owners meetings, you get the sense the Chargers are as good as gone. The Spanos family and M Fabiani have such an agenda to move the team to LA that all they did is present to the owners that a deal cannot get done in SD. CSAG's new mission is not to convince the Chargers that they have come up with a good deal, their top priory coming out of those meetings is to convince the other 31 teams that they have come up with a plan that will work for the city and the Chargers. They have to be convincing enough so 24 out of the 31 owners will not vote to allow the Chargers to move"
He also said that he is extremely impressed with the work CSAG has done and it is his opinion that the deal they come up with will be good enough to at least go to the ballot. He was very clear though that is extremely obvious that Dean and Fabiani CLEARLY have an LA agenda and are trying like crazy to sell their sad story to the other owners. He also said it is very clear that the Inglewood location is by far the plan that is desired by the other owners over Carson.
|
|