|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 30, 2016 7:32:41 GMT -8
Question for 2003. I was interested to hear Hirshman met with Faulconer and Spanos last week. What in your opinion was that about? Helping bridge a gap in Mission Valley for a new stadium? Or telling Faulconer and Spanos to kick rocks and he's all in on SDSU West? Or was he just there to observe? Funny it happened a day after I was slammed on this board for complaining SDSU hasn't been a participant in all of this.
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Dec 30, 2016 8:14:13 GMT -8
Question for 2003. I was interested to hear Hirshman met with Faulconer and Spanos last week. What in your opinion was that about? Helping bridge a gap in Mission Valley for a new stadium? Or telling Faulconer and Spanos to kick rocks and he's all in on SDSU West? Or was he just there to observe? Funny it happened a day after I was slammed on this board for complaining SDSU hasn't been a participant in all of this. I heard that Hirshman is the one who requested the meeting, and that Supervisor Roberts was in the room as well. My hunch, then, is that Hirshman is brokering some kind of plan to bring the parties together for one last try. If he were merely reiterating his hopes for SDSU West he could have done that with Faulconer alone, and probably by telephone. A possible takeaway from this: If Hirshman wants to get a four-way deal going for another joint-use stadium, which would not be optimal for the university, then he may be aware of looming obstacles to SDSU West.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Dec 30, 2016 9:19:14 GMT -8
Question for 2003. I was interested to hear Hirshman met with Faulconer and Spanos last week. What in your opinion was that about? Helping bridge a gap in Mission Valley for a new stadium? Or telling Faulconer and Spanos to kick rocks and he's all in on SDSU West? Or was he just there to observe? Funny it happened a day after I was slammed on this board for complaining SDSU hasn't been a participant in all of this. If I were to guess (and btw, I have no inside knowledge) this meeting had a lot to do with officials offering to lease the land for a $1. Once that was put on the table, Hirshman and other SDSU West proponents probably saw that as a path to obtain the land for a lot less than they would otherwise. Hirshman likely wanted to tell the Chargers and the mayor that they would pitch in to an NFL stadium if it also meant they got to develop part of the land at the same low rent rate. IF this is what happened, i think it was a good move by Hirshman. If the Chargers stay, they get to have a say in the construction of the stadium, they get to develop SDSU west, and they get the land for cheap. SDSU comes out looking like the bridge between the Chargers and the city, which is great PR. On the same note, if the Chargers decide to leave anyway, at the very least city officials now have to deal with SDSU saying "Hey, we tried. Now let us lease the land for $1 per year like you would've let them, we'll still build SDSU west and you'll get a smaller stadium and very likely get a MLS team as well." Just a guess, though.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Dec 30, 2016 9:48:47 GMT -8
Question for 2003. I was interested to hear Hirshman met with Faulconer and Spanos last week. What in your opinion was that about? Helping bridge a gap in Mission Valley for a new stadium? Or telling Faulconer and Spanos to kick rocks and he's all in on SDSU West? Or was he just there to observe? Funny it happened a day after I was slammed on this board for complaining SDSU hasn't been a participant in all of this. It was interesting that they met and I was surprised. I don't believe SDSU wants anything to do with the Chargers in MV unless it is their only option (which I don't believe it is). Perhaps Hirshman was at the meeting to gather information from the Chargers/City and announce what SDSU's intentions were for the future of MV. It was also a good PR move on Hirshman's part to curry favor with the public as I believe it was SDSU who called the meeting of the three parties (not that they don't already have significant political and public support). Contrary to popular belief I do believe SDSU is a MAJOR player in the future of MV and has significant influence and resources both at the local and state level. Based off of Maas's reaction it doesn't appear anything significant came from the meeting. The gist of Fred's response was "as long as you are talking that is a good thing." I expect the Chargers to announce their intention to move to LA on Jan. 15th. It would take a miracle for an NFL stadium to get built (or a boatload of money from the NFL) in San Diego with the current lack of public and political support for the Chargers/NFL not to mention all the other factors I listed in the post above. I suppose it is possible for the Chargers to remain in MV but I don't believe it is probable. Go SDSU WEST! Go AZTECS!
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 30, 2016 9:57:39 GMT -8
Are there stats on how much money is brought into SD from the P Bowl or more importantly the Holiday Bowl . Would suggest SD City Council will want a facility that can hold at least 45 ,0000 or more to keep the bowl games here and not lose them also to LA ? Well, a new stadium here would be much more attractive and could host more important bowl games. The bowls we have here are junk.Definitely not fair! The P-bowl is admittedly a minor one; however, the Holiday Bowl is well-established and routinely features good P-5 teams. It attracts pretty good crowds, too. In any event, we should hope that our local bowls can continue indefinitely. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 30, 2016 10:05:07 GMT -8
And if they go, there had better be a plan to break ground on a replacement stadium right quick. The city will have little tolerance for a Q with no NFL in it, and the Padres say Petco cannot accommodate a football configuration, even temporarily. Could we end up homeless? The city announced some time ago that the Aztecs would have five years grace period (after a possible Chargers departure) in which to deal with the stadium issue. Of course, it hooves SDSU to announce a plan for the construction of the Campus West, including a new stadium, as soon as practicable. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Dec 30, 2016 10:15:01 GMT -8
Dan Sileo said on the radio this morning that the Chargers meet with Inglewood's mayor last week.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Dec 30, 2016 14:26:57 GMT -8
I hope SDSU isn't considering giving money to a Chargers Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Dec 30, 2016 14:47:31 GMT -8
I hope SDSU isn't considering giving money to a Chargers Stadium. This cannot be the case. How the F X X X would Elliot Hirshman and JD Wicker spin this? Additionally, the Chargers have always said "no" to Mission Valley. What would have changed?
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Dec 30, 2016 15:02:01 GMT -8
This cannot be the case. How the F X X X would Elliot Hirshman and JD Wicker spin this? Additionally, the Chargers have always said "no" to Mission Valley. What would have changed? SDSU wouldn't be contributing to a Chargers' stadium. If this went down, SDSU would be contributing to a project that would include a Chargers stadium on one portion (and possibly an arena), and SDSU West on the other. The Chargers have few good options left. If they can't make it work in LA, fallback is plainly Mission Valley.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 30, 2016 15:34:38 GMT -8
I hope SDSU isn't considering giving money to a Chargers Stadium. This cannot be the case. How the F X X X would Elliot Hirshman and JD Wicker spin this? Additionally, the Chargers have always said "no" to Mission Valley. What would have changed? First, thanks to the posters who answered me this morning. Good thoughts, we're likely to find out in the next couple weeks I'd think. As to why SDSU would kick in? Because they'd be playing there and it would be their home? Maybe it's the kicker to land the concession, parking and advertising you're always talking about. It's being part of the solution.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Dec 30, 2016 15:42:46 GMT -8
The County wants SDSU to kick in 100 million. SDSU could build an on campus stadium for something close to that.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 30, 2016 15:45:47 GMT -8
The County wants SDSU to kick in 100 million. SDSU could build an on campus stadium for something close to that. Colorado States new stadium is running well North of 200M. You could build more bare bones, but you're still building in San Diego, not ft Collins.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Dec 30, 2016 15:50:56 GMT -8
The County wants SDSU to kick in 100 million. SDSU could build an on campus stadium for something close to that. Colorado States new stadium is running well North of 200M. You could build more bare bones, but you're still building in San Diego, not ft Collins. Houstons Stadium was around 150 and built in Texas. It's better to put down 100 million down payment on your own stadium than to play in an NFL stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Dec 30, 2016 15:52:12 GMT -8
I hope SDSU isn't considering giving money to a Chargers Stadium. This cannot be the case. How the F X X X would Elliot Hirshman and JD Wicker spin this? Additionally, the Chargers have always said "no" to Mission Valley. What would have changed? I agree with legkick. Things changed when the city offered to lease the land for a $1 per year to the Chargers. Would SDSU prefer to have its own stadium? Of course. But at such a low rate, it's better to suck it up, agree to pitch into the stadium as long as they get to develop the land for SDSU West, and have a say in the stadium design. This way SDSU gets a better stadium, and (most importantly) gets to develop the land for SDSU west in order to raise our academic profile without having to worry about paying for the land. And, if the Chargers decide to leave anyway, we'll at least at have more leverage to get the land for cheap afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Dec 30, 2016 15:54:49 GMT -8
The County wants SDSU to kick in 100 million. SDSU could build an on campus stadium for something close to that. Colorado States new stadium is running well North of 200M. You could build more bare bones, but you're still building in San Diego, not ft Collins. Elliot Hirshman personally told many of us that he already has the money to build a 32k stadium for $125m, and that he just needs the land. Verbatim, those were his words.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 30, 2016 15:56:03 GMT -8
Colorado States new stadium is running well North of 200M. You could build more bare bones, but you're still building in San Diego, not ft Collins. Houstons Stadium was around 150 and built in Texas. It's better to put down 100 million down payment on your own stadium than to play in an NFL stadium. We've gone over this. With your own stadium, you're also responsible for operations and maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Dec 30, 2016 15:59:41 GMT -8
It's better to put down 100 million down payment on your own stadium than to play in an NFL stadium. We've gone over this. With your own stadium, you're also responsible for operations and maintenance. LOL! Judging by the de facto running of The Q by the NFL, I'll gladly let SDSU take over those tasks!!
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 30, 2016 15:59:54 GMT -8
Colorado States new stadium is running well North of 200M. You could build more bare bones, but you're still building in San Diego, not ft Collins. Elliot Hirshman personally told many of us that he already has the money to build a 32k stadium for $125m, and that he just needs the land. Verbatim, those were his words. You're going to need more than 32K. Especially if you're still hoping for a P5 invite some day. Regardless, I find it near impossible to believe you're going to build a stadium at half the cost of Colorado State, especially in California.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 30, 2016 16:01:30 GMT -8
We've gone over this. With your own stadium, you're also responsible for operations and maintenance. LOL! Judging by the de facto running of The Q by the NFL, I'll gladly let SDSU take over those tasks!! Sure but it's going to cost is the point
|
|