|
Post by hoobs on Jan 18, 2016 9:59:42 GMT -8
[The problem with that poll is that it was done right now when people are pissed at Spanos. The reality is that a new Stadium in San Diego would not just be for the Chargers. It would be for our 2 bowl games, which bring in thousands of tourists, for the Aztecs, for concerts and other major stadium events, etc. The stadium has to be sold as MUCH more than just a new stadium for the Chargers. It has to be marketed as a source of income for our city and a major event venue for the entire county. They also need to show how much Qualcomm stadium is costing the city right now. Quit tying the Stadium only to the Chargers and show believable and positive financial impact and it will pass! The current poll is very biased right now. Of course, an Aztec Stadium in lieu of a Chargers Stadium, would also have all the same benefits for bowl games, concerts, and other major stadium events. Those additional opportunities for revenue don't exist ONLY for an NFL stadium. In fact, the size of a stadium for SDSU would be much more appropriate to many of the external events that might rent it. So, in fact, a supposed Chargers Stadium WOULD be... let's say 95+% for the Chargers when you realize the other benefits would exist for EITHER a Chargers or Aztecs stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Jan 18, 2016 10:11:11 GMT -8
The Union-Trib just posted a new Chanel 10 / UT poll that shows no NFL team will get a new stadium in San Diego. It looks really bad for the Raiders if they want to come here. Stadium Poll LinkThe Raiders couldn't get a new stadium done here but 44% approval for a Charger stadium right now speaks a lot, especially after how Spanos/Fabiani has treated the city. Spanos would be a complete idiot to walk away from that. You also have to take into consideration that this is a self selecting poll. What I mean by this is that the people that actually voted are most likely the sports fans of the community, namely the Charger fans of the community. This leads me to believe that a TRUE statistical sample could even be LOWER than that. (Though there really is no definitive way to know unless a proper sample is taken) Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough haha.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 10:17:51 GMT -8
[The problem with that poll is that it was done right now when people are pissed at Spanos. The reality is that a new Stadium in San Diego would not just be for the Chargers. It would be for our 2 bowl games, which bring in thousands of tourists, for the Aztecs, for concerts and other major stadium events, etc. The stadium has to be sold as MUCH more than just a new stadium for the Chargers. It has to be marketed as a source of income for our city and a major event venue for the entire county. They also need to show how much Qualcomm stadium is costing the city right now. Quit tying the Stadium only to the Chargers and show believable and positive financial impact and it will pass! The current poll is very biased right now. Of course, an Aztec Stadium in lieu of a Chargers Stadium, would also have all the same benefits for bowl games, concerts, and other major stadium events. Those additional opportunities for revenue don't exist ONLY for an NFL stadium. In fact, the size of a stadium for SDSU would be much more appropriate to many of the external events that might rent it. So, in fact, a supposed Chargers Stadium WOULD be... let's say 95+% for the Chargers when you realize the other benefits would exist for EITHER a Chargers or Aztecs stadium. So will the new SDSU stadium hold 55K fans for the Holiday Bowl? (it averages about 55k per game - Poinsettia only about 30-35K). Hate to disagree, I think at least the Holiday Bowl is gone once the stadium is gone, you all can decide for yourself if that is bad or good for the region.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jan 18, 2016 10:21:03 GMT -8
Of course, an Aztec Stadium in lieu of a Chargers Stadium, would also have all the same benefits for bowl games, concerts, and other major stadium events. Those additional opportunities for revenue don't exist ONLY for an NFL stadium. In fact, the size of a stadium for SDSU would be much more appropriate to many of the external events that might rent it. So, in fact, a supposed Chargers Stadium WOULD be... let's say 95+% for the Chargers when you realize the other benefits would exist for EITHER a Chargers or Aztecs stadium. So will the new SDSU stadium hold 55K fans for the Holiday Bowl? (it averages about 55k per game - Poinsettia only about 30-35K). Hate to disagree, I think at least the Holiday Bowl is gone once the stadium is gone, you all can decide for yourself if that is bad or good for the region. Members of the Holiday bowl committee have been involved with talks with SDSU, and I'm sure SDSU will keep them involved. SDSU wants them to be part of the partnership.
You don't need 55k seats though for a bowl game. You can create higher demand & higher ticket prices with 40k.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 18, 2016 10:24:03 GMT -8
The problem with that poll is that it was done right now when people are pissed at Spanos. The reality is that a new Stadium in San Diego would not just be for the Chargers. It would be for our 2 bowl games, which bring in thousands of tourists, for the Aztecs, for concerts and other major stadium events, etc. The stadium has to be sold as MUCH more than just a new stadium for the Chargers. It has to be marketed as a source of income for our city and a major event venue for the entire county. They also need to show how much Qualcomm stadium is costing the city right now. Quit tying the Stadium only to the Chargers and show believable and positive financial impact and it will pass! The current poll is very biased right now. Exactly! Anyone who actually believes these would be close to the real vote results just doesn’t have a clue how this all works. It’s like trying to sell Toyota’s and Honda’s the day after Pearl Harbor (well maybe that’s an extreme example) or perhaps Lebron James returning to Cleveland. Any initiative would not only be a joint venture between the city and team (whatever team), with presentation focused on how the project would benefit the citizens of the region and would also be after a lengthy goodwill initiative by the team towards the fans. That being said, obviously there will still be a certain segment whether it be non-sports fans, political bias and those who just can’t see past the recent events that would still vote against ANY initiative. However, a simple majority vote would be a no-brain success with a push as would a 2/3 vote a guaranteed failure, so it’s up to the mayor to figure out what path he wants to take given the chance to lock in a team for the next 30 years. Wow! You really are grasping at straws. First of all the ball, as the Mayor has already stated, is in Dean's court. It is Dean's decision; it has nothing to do with the Mayor at this point. Will Dean move to LA where he has a guaranteed opportunity to become a 50% owner of the best stadium in the world in the #2 market in the nation while simultaneously doubling the value of his franchise or stay in San Diego (meanwhile allowing the Raiders to move to LA instead),the #28 market, and hope San Diego will approve a new NFL stadium for the Chargers while the team value remains nearly the same. Any pro-NFL stadium vote in SD has very little hope of passing IMO. And as you even state after 30 years who is to say they won't leave anyway if we don't give them another billion dollar renovation or multi- billion dollar stadium lol! No thanks! I am completely done with the NFL. SDSU will never leave or threaten to leave. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 10:24:28 GMT -8
The Raiders couldn't get a new stadium done here but 44% approval for a Charger stadium right now speaks a lot, especially after how Spanos/Fabiani has treated the city. Spanos would be a complete idiot to walk away from that. You also have to take into consideration that this is a self selecting poll. What I mean by this is that the people that actually voted are most likely the sports fans of the community, namely the Charger fans of the community. This leads me to believe that a TRUE statistical sample could even be LOWER than that. (Though there really is no definitive way to know unless a proper sample is taken) Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough haha. The Poll was of 500 people so you might as well just throw it out. No more reliable than a TMZ poll.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 18, 2016 10:27:52 GMT -8
Of course, an Aztec Stadium in lieu of a Chargers Stadium, would also have all the same benefits for bowl games, concerts, and other major stadium events. Those additional opportunities for revenue don't exist ONLY for an NFL stadium. In fact, the size of a stadium for SDSU would be much more appropriate to many of the external events that might rent it. So, in fact, a supposed Chargers Stadium WOULD be... let's say 95+% for the Chargers when you realize the other benefits would exist for EITHER a Chargers or Aztecs stadium. So will the new SDSU stadium hold 55K fans for the Holiday Bowl? (it averages about 55k per game - Poinsettia only about 30-35K). Hate to disagree, I think at least the Holiday Bowl is gone once the stadium is gone, you all can decide for yourself if that is bad or good for the region. So would the annual financial impact of the Holiday Bowl be worth SD taxpayers being on the hook for a $300-500 million subsidy to the Chargers for building them a stadium? I don't think that's a very good ROI.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Jan 18, 2016 10:28:58 GMT -8
You also have to take into consideration that this is a self selecting poll. What I mean by this is that the people that actually voted are most likely the sports fans of the community, namely the Charger fans of the community. This leads me to believe that a TRUE statistical sample could even be LOWER than that. (Though there really is no definitive way to know unless a proper sample is taken) Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough haha. The Poll was of 500 people so you might as well just throw it out. No more reliable than a TMZ poll. The sample size really isn't the problem, the problem is that the sample is likely biased. And if it is biased, it is likely biased IN FAVOR of the Chargers. (Again we can't know for sure unless a proper sample is taken)
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 18, 2016 10:33:44 GMT -8
You also have to take into consideration that this is a self selecting poll. What I mean by this is that the people that actually voted are most likely the sports fans of the community, namely the Charger fans of the community. This leads me to believe that a TRUE statistical sample could even be LOWER than that. (Though there really is no definitive way to know unless a proper sample is taken) Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough haha. The Poll was of 500 people so you might as well just throw it out. No more reliable than a TMZ poll. That sample size (if scientifically accurate / truly representative) would generate a margin of error of about +/- 4.5% for a population as large as the city of San Diego. Not *horrible* but not all that great, either. And that's assuming very good sampling technique.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 18, 2016 10:37:56 GMT -8
So will the new SDSU stadium hold 55K fans for the Holiday Bowl? (it averages about 55k per game - Poinsettia only about 30-35K). Hate to disagree, I think at least the Holiday Bowl is gone once the stadium is gone, you all can decide for yourself if that is bad or good for the region. So would the annual financial impact of the Holiday Bowl be worth SD taxpayers being on the hook for a $300-500 million subsidy to the Chargers for building them a stadium? I don't think that's a very good ROI. But what about all the exposure for SD from the 3 Super Bowls in 50 years & 17 playoff appearances in 55 years? :rotflmao
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 18, 2016 10:53:04 GMT -8
Exactly! Anyone who actually believes these would be close to the real vote results just doesn’t have a clue how this all works. It’s like trying to sell Toyota’s and Honda’s the day after Pearl Harbor (well maybe that’s an extreme example) or perhaps Lebron James returning to Cleveland. Any initiative would not only be a joint venture between the city and team (whatever team), with presentation focused on how the project would benefit the citizens of the region and would also be after a lengthy goodwill initiative by the team towards the fans. That being said, obviously there will still be a certain segment whether it be non-sports fans, political bias and those who just can’t see past the recent events that would still vote against ANY initiative. However, a simple majority vote would be a no-brain success with a push as would a 2/3 vote a guaranteed failure, so it’s up to the mayor to figure out what path he wants to take given the chance to lock in a team for the next 30 years. Wow! You really are grasping at straws. First of all the ball, as the Mayor has already stated, is in Dean's court. It is Dean's decision; it has nothing to do with the Mayor at this point. Will Dean move to LA where he has a guaranteed opportunity to become a 50% owner of the best stadium in the world in the #2 market in the nation while simultaneously doubling the value of his franchise or stay in San Diego (meanwhile allowing the Raiders to move to LA instead),the #28 market, and hope San Diego will approve a new NFL stadium for the Chargers while the team value remains nearly the same. Any pro-NFL stadium vote in SD has very little hope of passing IMO. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. A GUARANTEED opportunity to become a 50% owner of the best stadium in the world? Don't think that's happening unless Dean and the family Spanos come up with 50% of the cost of that best stadium in the world.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 18, 2016 11:00:31 GMT -8
Wow! You really are grasping at straws. First of all the ball, as the Mayor has already stated, is in Dean's court. It is Dean's decision; it has nothing to do with the Mayor at this point. Will Dean move to LA where he has a guaranteed opportunity to become a 50% owner of the best stadium in the world in the #2 market in the nation while simultaneously doubling the value of his franchise or stay in San Diego (meanwhile allowing the Raiders to move to LA instead),the #28 market, and hope San Diego will approve a new NFL stadium for the Chargers while the team value remains nearly the same. Any pro-NFL stadium vote in SD has very little hope of passing IMO. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. A GUARANTEED opportunity to become a 50% owner of the best stadium in the world? Don't think that's happening unless Dean and the family Spanos come up with 50% of the cost of that best stadium in the world. He actually has two options to become a tenant or a 50% owner of the stadium. Both of those options will still increase the net value of his franchise. Yes. Dean will have to cover the costs & that is something he is working on with investment bankers & financial advisors as we speak. Either way the Chargers will be going to LA.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 18, 2016 11:12:53 GMT -8
A GUARANTEED opportunity to become a 50% owner of the best stadium in the world? Don't think that's happening unless Dean and the family Spanos come up with 50% of the cost of that best stadium in the world. He actually has two options to become a tenant or a 50% owner of the stadium. Both of those options will still increase the net value of his franchise. Yes. Dean will have to cover the costs & that is something he is working on with investment bankers & financial advisors as we speak. Either way the Chargers will be going to LA. I don't disagree with you that the Chargers are LA bound--I just thought you were a little quick to proclaim it a "guaranteed" opportunity at 50% ownership. I do understand that he would be working to obtain financing for that, but didn't Spanos (or Fabiani) say he wanted a piece of the action in the development adjacent to the stadium?
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Jan 18, 2016 11:15:32 GMT -8
So when is Dean going to name one of his kids/grandkids head coach? GM? Offensive Coordinator? Leave already!
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 11:30:47 GMT -8
Exactly! Anyone who actually believes these would be close to the real vote results just doesn’t have a clue how this all works. It’s like trying to sell Toyota’s and Honda’s the day after Pearl Harbor (well maybe that’s an extreme example) or perhaps Lebron James returning to Cleveland. Any initiative would not only be a joint venture between the city and team (whatever team), with presentation focused on how the project would benefit the citizens of the region and would also be after a lengthy goodwill initiative by the team towards the fans. That being said, obviously there will still be a certain segment whether it be non-sports fans, political bias and those who just can’t see past the recent events that would still vote against ANY initiative. However, a simple majority vote would be a no-brain success with a push as would a 2/3 vote a guaranteed failure, so it’s up to the mayor to figure out what path he wants to take given the chance to lock in a team for the next 30 years. Wow! You really are grasping at straws. First of all the ball, as the Mayor has already stated, is in Dean's court. It is Dean's decision; it has nothing to do with the Mayor at this point. Will Dean move to LA where he has a guaranteed opportunity to become a 50% owner of the best stadium in the world in the #2 market in the nation while simultaneously doubling the value of his franchise or stay in San Diego (meanwhile allowing the Raiders to move to LA instead),the #28 market, and hope San Diego will approve a new NFL stadium for the Chargers while the team value remains nearly the same. Any pro-NFL stadium vote in SD has very little hope of passing IMO. And as you even state after 30 years who is to say they won't leave anyway if we don't give them another billion dollar renovation or multi- billion dollar stadium lol! No thanks! I am completely done with the NFL. SDSU will never leave or threaten to leave. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. First of all notice that I said “given the chance” in regards to the mayor, which means it’s a response to a decision by either the Chargers or the Raiders decision to pursue SD as a home. Second of all remember we are the 8th largest city in the country and the 2nd largest in the state. (regardless of media numbers which is becoming an outdated measure with the way we all consume media now). Something the NFL knows. Third, he would have to BUY his way into a 50% $1.8 -$2.6 billion stadium ownership which might be a challenge for him with already having to pay $550 million in relocation fees, otherwise he is just a tenant in a building of a landlord he despises. Fourth, actually the value in SD will continue to rise and be one of the best investments out there. Sure a team in the LA market will outsell a team here, but remember Alex bought this team for under $100 million and it is now worth over $1 billion. He would continue to realize a steady return on his investment no matter how long he owns it in SD. Fifth, regardless of if we all want to believe it, there is still an emotional component to this, Dean has spent most of his life here, his kids and their wives and children are either born or raised in SD and consider this home. Any move would make the entire family persona non grata in this town which is something they need to weigh into the equation. Sixth (and this is just my opinion), SDSU isn’t guaranteed anything in the future. We are at the beginning of an evolution in education with true uncertainly of how things are going to play out over the next 10+ years. With the expansion of online education, technology certainly COULD push many schools to cut campus size and programs such as athletics. Not saying this will happen at SDSU, just that education will be much different in the future vs the last 100 years and the fallout is still being debated. Given that, I still think it’s 70/30 they are gone (I would probably have been gone years ago to be honest). Also - Yes Dean has to make the first move before the Mayor can, but while it certainly looks like Dean could be gone, he has not pulled the trigger yet for a reason. Dean and his team have known the 2-3 potential outcome options for his team for over a year at this point (unless you happen to think he never thought this would be the result – not a chance). Unless they are completely inept businessmen, my guess is they had already considered their options and response for each potential outcome months ago. Considering Dean and his team knew this might be a likely outcome and allowed themselves to be perceived the big losers of the day last week, speaks volumes about his indecision at this point (or the outside chance this is a strategic move to try and get Kronke to buy him out of LA for some extra $$). If he knew this could be an outcome and expected from the beginning to be heading to LA, he certainly would have worked with Stan and the NFL to make the initial announcement seem like a Win-Win for the Rams and Chargers. Still a story to be played out IMO, and even if they leave, we will likely have a chapter 2 of the story as the Raiders will either have real interest in SD or at least use us as leverage in getting an Oakland stadium. So stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 11:32:15 GMT -8
So will the new SDSU stadium hold 55K fans for the Holiday Bowl? (it averages about 55k per game - Poinsettia only about 30-35K). Hate to disagree, I think at least the Holiday Bowl is gone once the stadium is gone, you all can decide for yourself if that is bad or good for the region. So would the annual financial impact of the Holiday Bowl be worth SD taxpayers being on the hook for a $300-500 million subsidy to the Chargers for building them a stadium? I don't think that's a very good ROI. I am not arguing ROI, just that a smaller venue couldn't nessesarily hold all of the same events.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jan 18, 2016 11:37:17 GMT -8
All I'll say is this...if you think the raiders can get a vote of the people to subsidize a stadium here you are rucking fretarded. The Union-Trib just posted a new Chanel 10 / UT poll that shows no NFL team will get a new stadium in San Diego. It looks really bad for the Raiders if they want to come here. Stadium Poll LinkSome polls say nothing. That one, OTOH, speaks volumes. As to the Raiders, Mark Davis just bought like 80 acres of land outside San Antonio. It's just a guess but he probably didn't do that to prep for SD.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 11:39:52 GMT -8
The Poll was of 500 people so you might as well just throw it out. No more reliable than a TMZ poll. The sample size really isn't the problem, the problem is that the sample is likely biased. And if it is biased, it is likely biased IN FAVOR of the Chargers. (Again we can't know for sure unless a proper sample is taken) I disagree here also. As a rule angry people tend to be more motivated to express an opinion, so it certainly could be that those responding were more likely to be angry at the Chargers. Either way it's a bogus poll and again for reasons I mentioned earlier, the numbers are about as close to bottomed out as they could be at this point. It's similar to the Presidential rating, when a negative event happens, the Presidents rating drops, when a positive event happens it goes up. And sample size is a HUGE factor when you are talking about .04% of the population (in fairness, that's not the voting population, but you get my drift).
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on Jan 18, 2016 11:54:27 GMT -8
The Union-Trib just posted a new Chanel 10 / UT poll that shows no NFL team will get a new stadium in San Diego. It looks really bad for the Raiders if they want to come here. Stadium Poll LinkSome polls say nothing. That one, OTOH, speaks volumes. As to the Raiders, Mark Davis just bought like 80 acres of land outside San Antonio. It's just a guess but he probably didn't do that to prep for SD. Unless he is blocked from SD by the owners, my guess is outside Oakland, SD would be his first choice as he has a HUGE!!!!! built in fanbase already and only about 20+ million to draw from regionally. SA is great destination for the NFL also and they will eventually get a team, but he would need much more work to build his local audience, plus he has 2 of the strongest owners in the NFL in Texas that would probably not be happy about Davis poaching some of their fans.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jan 18, 2016 12:04:28 GMT -8
Some polls say nothing. That one, OTOH, speaks volumes. As to the Raiders, Mark Davis just bought like 80 acres of land outside San Antonio. It's just a guess but he probably didn't do that to prep for SD. Unless he is blocked from SD by the owners, my guess is outside Oakland, SD would be his first choice as he has a HUGE!!!!! built in fanbase already and only about 20+ million to draw from regionally. SA is great destination for the NFL also and they will eventually get a team, but he would need much more work to build his local audience, plus he has 2 of the strongest owners in the NFL in Texas that would probably not be happy about Davis poaching some of their fans. The last part of your argument (except the strongest owners part) fit like a glove for keeping the Raiders out of SD, as there would be 2 franchises who would be very concerned about a team taking some of THEIR fans. Houston is 200 miles from San Antonio, and Dallas is 275 miles away from SA, while Inglewood is only about 125 miles away from San Diego.
|
|