|
Post by aztecbolt on Jan 10, 2017 20:22:43 GMT -8
You're right, you don't. You just need to spend 100 million to share a billion dollar stadium and have someone else pay all the operations and maintenance. Maybe if this plan finally get going and your President speaks publicly some of you guys will start to get it. I've said all along the devil is in the details and nobody (including SDSU prez) has said a peep. If this is indeed a good deal for SDSU I will support it but I will wait to hear details if/when they are presented. IMO SDSU should NOT put ANY money into an NFL stadium. If we actually have $100 mil in the bank and the Chargers build in MV we should just rent. We could then start a fund raising campaign to get a 40K stadium built on campus. There are a couple of places to put one on campus and we would be in court for a decade or longer but at least we would eventually have our own on campus stadium that would be designed for the AZTECS. One thing SDSU has is time. Unlike the Chargers/NFL; San Diego State University has been here since 1897 and is NEVER leaving San Diego This should have happened ten years ago. Typical San Diego non-thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2017 20:23:38 GMT -8
Oh, sorry, you are right about everything.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 10, 2017 20:31:04 GMT -8
SDSU has a five year clause in our stadium lease contract that specifically states we are guaranteed to have a minimum of 5 years lease if the Chargers depart. Trust me, if they leave SDSU will build a new stadium within 5 years after the Chargers leave in Mission Valley. Particularly if we already have $100 million seed money that Hirshman has offered. If we have $100 mil already and haven't even started a fund raising campaign for it or asked for a student referendum we shouldn't have a problem financing our own stadium. IIRC, that 5 year option was if the Chargers left more than 5 years before the Aztecs lease runs out. So if they left in 2011, the City would have to keep Qualcomm standing through 2016. If they left in 2015, then they'd have to keep it through the lease - 2018. If I am wrong, going to need a link. First four articles I checked didn't clarify. EDIT Found the lease agreement. I think this is what you're referring to. As we're only two years from the end of the lease - doesn't apply. legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/images/090727stadiumlease.pdfTerm.
The term of this Agreement shall be for each collegiate Football Season
during the period commencing with the Football Season scheduled for the
Stadium in 2009 and extending to and including the Football Season
ending in 2018 (10 seasons). Each party has the right to terminate this
agreement with a five (5) year advance-written notice.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jan 10, 2017 20:56:17 GMT -8
The chargers are staying.
Get use to it.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jan 10, 2017 21:09:49 GMT -8
The chargers are staying. Get use to it. For at most, two years, until they are rebuffed again. Get used to it.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jan 11, 2017 8:58:05 GMT -8
Date extended to January 17th due to the weekend and holiday.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 11, 2017 9:43:38 GMT -8
Date extended to January 17th due to the weekend and holiday. Waitwhat? Official, from the NFL? Wouldn't that strongly suggest there will be no *further* delay in the deadline for action?
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jan 11, 2017 9:53:16 GMT -8
Date extended to January 17th due to the weekend and holiday. To me this means they don't want "Big news" over shadowing the playoff games this weekend. Both teams staying in their markets isn't "Big" positive news. I still think the news will be Raiders to Vegas and Chargers try again in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jan 11, 2017 10:45:14 GMT -8
Date extended to January 17th due to the weekend and holiday. Waitwhat? Official, from the NFL? Wouldn't that strongly suggest there will be no *further* delay in the deadline for action? No idea.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 11, 2017 10:51:28 GMT -8
SDSU has a five year clause in our stadium lease contract that specifically states we are guaranteed to have a minimum of 5 years lease if the Chargers depart. Trust me, if they leave SDSU will build a new stadium within 5 years after the Chargers leave in Mission Valley. Particularly if we already have $100 million seed money that Hirshman has offered. If we have $100 mil already and haven't even started a fund raising campaign for it or asked for a student referendum we shouldn't have a problem financing our own stadium. IIRC, that 5 year option was if the Chargers left more than 5 years before the Aztecs lease runs out. So if they left in 2011, the City would have to keep Qualcomm standing through 2016. If they left in 2015, then they'd have to keep it through the lease - 2018. If I am wrong, going to need a link. First four articles I checked didn't clarify. EDIT Found the lease agreement. I think this is what you're referring to. As we're only two years from the end of the lease - doesn't apply. legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/images/090727stadiumlease.pdfTerm.
The term of this Agreement shall be for each collegiate Football Season
during the period commencing with the Football Season scheduled for the
Stadium in 2009 and extending to and including the Football Season
ending in 2018 (10 seasons). Each party has the right to terminate this
agreement with a five (5) year advance-written notice.
As it stands, yes, the term ends in 2018. However, if the Chargers leave SDSU would seek to be the Primary Tenant of the stadium at the discretion the City of San Diego. " Subject to the sole discretion of City, SDSU may seek primary tenant status from City if the San Diego Chargers leave Qualcomm Stadium. Regardless of primary tenant status, City shall maintain the right to contract for other events (ex. Navy v. Army game)." Current and former SDSU AD's & President's have ALL reiterated that SDSU football is not going anywhere regardless of what happens to the Chargers. As long ago as Jeff Schemmel... Schemmel said. “Clearly we'd build a stadium somewhere. We'd like to find a place on campus or close to campus if we had to.” And as recently as President Eliot Hirhman..."The threat," he says, "might be a period of uncertainty about where we play. But football is not going to go away." "We have a series of contingency plans," he says, "What the options would be depends on how this game of musical chairs ends. We are considering multiple options, let's just say that. They're promising and haven't been taken off the table." Clearly SDSU has been planning for multiple scenarios for over a decade and will implement those plans if/when the Chargers depart Mission Valley. Clearly, SDSU will seek to be the primary tenant at Qualcomm if the Chargers depart and based of Hirhman's comments would be granted that lease. After SDSU becomes the primary tentant @ the Q they will proceed to build a 30-40K SDSU stadium adjacent to Qualcomm in Mission Valley. Hirshman has already stated that they have $100 million to get started and they haven't even begun an SDSU stadium fundraising effort or proceeded with a student referendum. If SDSU becomes "partners" with the Chargers/NFL the Aztecs will want a smaller stadium that is designed for their needs, with smaller permanent seating, with a contingency for larger events. Will the Chargers/NFL acquiesce to SDSU's request? We will see.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 11, 2017 11:03:59 GMT -8
Date extended to January 17th due to the weekend and holiday.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 11, 2017 11:19:36 GMT -8
As it stands, yes, the term ends in 2018. However, if the Chargers leave SDSU would seek to be the Primary Tenant of the stadium at the discretion the City of San Diego. " Subject to the sole discretion of City, SDSU may seek primary tenant status from City if the San Diego Chargers leave Qualcomm Stadium. Regardless of primary tenant status, City shall maintain the right to contract for other events (ex. Navy v. Army game)." Current and former SDSU AD's & President's have ALL reiterated that SDSU football is not going anywhere regardless of what happens to the Chargers. As long ago as Jeff Schemmel... Schemmel said. “Clearly we'd build a stadium somewhere. We'd like to find a place on campus or close to campus if we had to.” And as recently as President Eliot Hirhman..."The threat," he says, "might be a period of uncertainty about where we play. But football is not going to go away." "We have a series of contingency plans," he says, "What the options would be depends on how this game of musical chairs ends. We are considering multiple options, let's just say that. They're promising and haven't been taken off the table." Clearly SDSU has been planning for multiple scenarios for over a decade and will implement those plans if/when the Chargers depart Mission Valley. Clearly, SDSU will seek to be the primary tenant at Qualcomm if the Chargers depart and based of Hirhman's comments would be granted that lease. After SDSU becomes the primary tentant @ the Q they will proceed to build a 30-40K SDSU stadium adjacent to Qualcomm in Mission Valley. Hirshman has already stated that they have $100 million to get started and they haven't even begun an SDSU stadium fundraising effort or proceeded with a student referendum. If SDSU becomes "partners" with the Chargers/NFL the Aztecs will want a smaller stadium that is designed for their needs, with smaller permanent seating, with a contingency for larger events. Will the Chargers/NFL acquiesce to SDSU's request? We will see. Bottom line is your lease is up in 2018 and there is no five year option the City has to abide by. Again, Qualcomm needs to be razed as soon as possible. However you want to spin that with SDSU football isn't going anywhere is fine with me and totally to be expected. For the most part, I agree. Just wouldn't feel as confident as some on this board. We know it won't pencil out for San Diego to keep Qualcomm standing and at the end of the day we don't know if it will pencil out for SDSU to keep the football program around. A lot has to fall in place in a short period of time. Your leadership should assuage fans fears. But still uncertainty abound. Outside of that - the tea leaves are saying Chargers will give this another run for 2018 with the support from all parties. If San Diego State is involved with bridging the gap - you'd think it's going to be back to Mission Valley. We'll see soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jan 11, 2017 11:30:07 GMT -8
As it stands, yes, the term ends in 2018. However, if the Chargers leave SDSU would seek to be the Primary Tenant of the stadium at the discretion the City of San Diego. " Subject to the sole discretion of City, SDSU may seek primary tenant status from City if the San Diego Chargers leave Qualcomm Stadium. Regardless of primary tenant status, City shall maintain the right to contract for other events (ex. Navy v. Army game)." Current and former SDSU AD's & President's have ALL reiterated that SDSU football is not going anywhere regardless of what happens to the Chargers. As long ago as Jeff Schemmel... Schemmel said. “Clearly we'd build a stadium somewhere. We'd like to find a place on campus or close to campus if we had to.” And as recently as President Eliot Hirhman..."The threat," he says, "might be a period of uncertainty about where we play. But football is not going to go away." "We have a series of contingency plans," he says, "What the options would be depends on how this game of musical chairs ends. We are considering multiple options, let's just say that. They're promising and haven't been taken off the table." Clearly SDSU has been planning for multiple scenarios for over a decade and will implement those plans if/when the Chargers depart Mission Valley. Clearly, SDSU will seek to be the primary tenant at Qualcomm if the Chargers depart and based of Hirhman's comments would be granted that lease. After SDSU becomes the primary tentant @ the Q they will proceed to build a 30-40K SDSU stadium adjacent to Qualcomm in Mission Valley. Hirshman has already stated that they have $100 million to get started and they haven't even begun an SDSU stadium fundraising effort or proceeded with a student referendum. If SDSU becomes "partners" with the Chargers/NFL the Aztecs will want a smaller stadium that is designed for their needs, with smaller permanent seating, with a contingency for larger events. Will the Chargers/NFL acquiesce to SDSU's request? We will see. Bottom line is your lease is up in 2018 and there is no five year option the City has to abide by. Again, Qualcomm needs to be razed as soon as possible. However you want to spin that with SDSU football isn't going anywhere is fine with me and totally to be expected. For the most part, I agree. Just wouldn't feel as confident as some on this board. We know it won't pencil out for San Diego to keep Qualcomm standing and at the end of the day we don't know if it will pencil out for SDSU to keep the football program around. A lot has to fall in place in a short period of time. Your leadership should assuage fans fears. But still uncertainty abound. Outside of that - the tea leaves are saying Chargers will give this another run for 2018 with the support from all parties. If San Diego State is involved with bridging the gap - you'd think it's going to be back to Mission Valley. We'll see soon enough. There is zero risk of SDSU losing or downgrading its football team. SDSU is one of the most highly applied to Universities in the nation, and they do not want to risk that. (Yes it has been statistically proven that football is one of the major reasons students across America apply to schools) The Flagship University of the CSU system is not going to relegate itself to a lower Athletics conference. It has been said by President Weber and President Hirshman, as well as Jim Sterk that there are other locations to build. However, the best option is obviously Mission Valley. If the Chargers leave, SDSU gets Mission Valley. If the Chargers go to Downtown, SDSU gets Mission Valley. If the Chargers stay in Mission Valley, and SDSU could become a "partner" there, apparently this is an option. Any belief that the program is at risks shows an inability to weigh the current landscape of university politics as well as athletics, and make educated statements. Back to work.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 11, 2017 11:55:02 GMT -8
As it stands, yes, the term ends in 2018. However, if the Chargers leave SDSU would seek to be the Primary Tenant of the stadium at the discretion the City of San Diego. " Subject to the sole discretion of City, SDSU may seek primary tenant status from City if the San Diego Chargers leave Qualcomm Stadium. Regardless of primary tenant status, City shall maintain the right to contract for other events (ex. Navy v. Army game)." Current and former SDSU AD's & President's have ALL reiterated that SDSU football is not going anywhere regardless of what happens to the Chargers. As long ago as Jeff Schemmel... Schemmel said. “Clearly we'd build a stadium somewhere. We'd like to find a place on campus or close to campus if we had to.” And as recently as President Eliot Hirhman..."The threat," he says, "might be a period of uncertainty about where we play. But football is not going to go away." "We have a series of contingency plans," he says, "What the options would be depends on how this game of musical chairs ends. We are considering multiple options, let's just say that. They're promising and haven't been taken off the table." Clearly SDSU has been planning for multiple scenarios for over a decade and will implement those plans if/when the Chargers depart Mission Valley. Clearly, SDSU will seek to be the primary tenant at Qualcomm if the Chargers depart and based of Hirhman's comments would be granted that lease. After SDSU becomes the primary tentant @ the Q they will proceed to build a 30-40K SDSU stadium adjacent to Qualcomm in Mission Valley. Hirshman has already stated that they have $100 million to get started and they haven't even begun an SDSU stadium fundraising effort or proceeded with a student referendum. If SDSU becomes "partners" with the Chargers/NFL the Aztecs will want a smaller stadium that is designed for their needs, with smaller permanent seating, with a contingency for larger events. Will the Chargers/NFL acquiesce to SDSU's request? We will see. Bottom line is your lease is up in 2018 and there is no five year option the City has to abide by. Again, Qualcomm needs to be razed as soon as possible. However you want to spin that with SDSU football isn't going anywhere is fine with me and totally to be expected. For the most part, I agree. Just wouldn't feel as confident as some on this board. We know it won't pencil out for San Diego to keep Qualcomm standing and at the end of the day we don't know if it will pencil out for SDSU to keep the football program around. A lot has to fall in place in a short period of time. Your leadership should assuage fans fears. But still uncertainty abound. Outside of that - the tea leaves are saying Chargers will give this another run for 2018 with the support from all parties. If San Diego State is involved with bridging the gap - you'd think it's going to be back to Mission Valley. We'll see soon enough. I agree the Q needs to be razed as soon as possible. However, our political officials will not want to be the ones who not only lost San Diego's NFL team but it's only top 25 division I college football program from its largest and oldest university in the region as well. Clearly city officials from San Diego have been in communication with SDSU officials about stadium contingency plans for a long time. If the football program ceases to exist @ SDSU it won't be because the city would not grant them their short-term lease request to be the Primary Tenant @ Qualcomm. It will be because SDSU made the voluntary decision to cut the program which Hirshman clearly will not do. Yes, if SDSU is on board they will want it in Mission Valley and they will want the stadium to also be designed to meet their needs (not just the Chargers). That includes their own locker rooms, advertising, cut of concessions/parking, logos/colors in stadium, Aztec Shop Store, access to premium seating, ticket office and a smaller permanent stadium seating design than 65,000 seats, with a contingency for larger events. Both sides will need to compromise to find a solution; something that the NFL/Chargers don't like to do.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 11, 2017 12:15:03 GMT -8
There is zero risk of SDSU losing or downgrading its football team. SDSU is one of the most highly applied to Universities in the nation, and they do not want to risk that. (Yes it has been statistically proven that football is one of the major reasons students across America apply to schools) The Flagship University of the CSU system is not going to relegate itself to a lower Athletics conference. It has been said by President Weber and President Hirshman, as well as Jim Sterk that there are other locations to build. However, the best option is obviously Mission Valley. If the Chargers leave, SDSU gets Mission Valley. If the Chargers go to Downtown, SDSU gets Mission Valley. If the Chargers stay in Mission Valley, and SDSU could become a "partner" there, apparently this is an option. Any belief that the program is at risks shows an inability to weigh the current landscape of university politics as well as athletics, and make educated statements. Back to work. You don't have to convince me a football program can be the front porch of a University. I agree there is value - regardless if they are quantifiable metrics. (same argument for people who don't believe the Chargers bring value to San Diego). You will get an argument from me "there is zero risk". Group of 5 programs have a hard enough time as it is - when faced with how much it's going to cost the University to build a stadium and carry a football program - again - you could find your leaders decide it doesn't pencil out. Where you believe there is zero risk - I believe there is zero guarantee. San Diego State and the Cal State application process have much more to do with your applications than SDSU vs. MWC programs in football. Dropping down from the FBS arms race - moving to the WCC and fighting it out with Gonzaga for basketball supremacy may make more sense. Is it likely to happen? I'd never go that far and don't wish it at all. But the Chargers are the boogeyman narrative and they can GTFO -- be careful what you wish for. Cliche? Sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 11, 2017 12:32:32 GMT -8
Date extended to January 17th due to the weekend and holiday.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jan 11, 2017 12:35:40 GMT -8
There is zero risk of SDSU losing or downgrading its football team. SDSU is one of the most highly applied to Universities in the nation, and they do not want to risk that. (Yes it has been statistically proven that football is one of the major reasons students across America apply to schools) The Flagship University of the CSU system is not going to relegate itself to a lower Athletics conference. It has been said by President Weber and President Hirshman, as well as Jim Sterk that there are other locations to build. However, the best option is obviously Mission Valley. If the Chargers leave, SDSU gets Mission Valley. If the Chargers go to Downtown, SDSU gets Mission Valley. If the Chargers stay in Mission Valley, and SDSU could become a "partner" there, apparently this is an option. Any belief that the program is at risks shows an inability to weigh the current landscape of university politics as well as athletics, and make educated statements. Back to work. You don't have to convince me a football program can be the front porch of a University. I agree there is value - regardless if they are quantifiable metrics. (same argument for people who don't believe the Chargers bring value to San Diego). You will get an argument from me "there is zero risk". Group of 5 programs have a hard enough time as it is - when faced with how much it's going to cost the University to build a stadium and carry a football program - again - you could find your leaders decide it doesn't pencil out. Where you believe there is zero risk - I believe there is zero guarantee. San Diego State and the Cal State application process have much more to do with your applications than SDSU vs. MWC programs in football. Dropping down from the FBS arms race - moving to the WCC and fighting it out with Gonzaga for basketball supremacy may make more sense. Is it likely to happen? I'd never go that far and don't wish it at all. But the Chargers are the boogeyman narrative and they can GTFO -- be careful what you wish for. Cliche? Sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't apply. If we drop football we won't get in the WCC; those are all secular schools. We would probably be in the BIG WEST. Not so great.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 11, 2017 12:40:22 GMT -8
Did not realize they were all secular. Thought I had you at Portland - but they are a catholic school. The more you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2017 12:47:18 GMT -8
As it stands, yes, the term ends in 2018. However, if the Chargers leave SDSU would seek to be the Primary Tenant of the stadium at the discretion the City of San Diego. " Subject to the sole discretion of City, SDSU may seek primary tenant status from City if the San Diego Chargers leave Qualcomm Stadium. Regardless of primary tenant status, City shall maintain the right to contract for other events (ex. Navy v. Army game)." Current and former SDSU AD's & President's have ALL reiterated that SDSU football is not going anywhere regardless of what happens to the Chargers. As long ago as Jeff Schemmel... Schemmel said. “Clearly we'd build a stadium somewhere. We'd like to find a place on campus or close to campus if we had to.” And as recently as President Eliot Hirhman..."The threat," he says, "might be a period of uncertainty about where we play. But football is not going to go away." "We have a series of contingency plans," he says, "What the options would be depends on how this game of musical chairs ends. We are considering multiple options, let's just say that. They're promising and haven't been taken off the table." Clearly SDSU has been planning for multiple scenarios for over a decade and will implement those plans if/when the Chargers depart Mission Valley. Clearly, SDSU will seek to be the primary tenant at Qualcomm if the Chargers depart and based of Hirhman's comments would be granted that lease. After SDSU becomes the primary tentant @ the Q they will proceed to build a 30-40K SDSU stadium adjacent to Qualcomm in Mission Valley. Hirshman has already stated that they have $100 million to get started and they haven't even begun an SDSU stadium fundraising effort or proceeded with a student referendum. If SDSU becomes "partners" with the Chargers/NFL the Aztecs will want a smaller stadium that is designed for their needs, with smaller permanent seating, with a contingency for larger events. Will the Chargers/NFL acquiesce to SDSU's request? We will see. Bottom line is your lease is up in 2018 and there is no five year option the City has to abide by. Again, Qualcomm needs to be razed as soon as possible. However you want to spin that with SDSU football isn't going anywhere is fine with me and totally to be expected. For the most part, I agree. Just wouldn't feel as confident as some on this board. We know it won't pencil out for San Diego to keep Qualcomm standing and at the end of the day we don't know if it will pencil out for SDSU to keep the football program around. A lot has to fall in place in a short period of time. Your leadership should assuage fans fears. But still uncertainty abound. Outside of that - the tea leaves are saying Chargers will give this another run for 2018 with the support from all parties. If San Diego State is involved with bridging the gap - you'd think it's going to be back to Mission Valley. We'll see soon enough. Since I qualify as a fan here, while I know I do not speak for all fans, I'd like to say I don't have any 'fears' that SDSU's leadership need to assuage. I do think there are a few folks here (MOW and a couple of others) that think when it comes to leadership SDSU is rudderless and so maybe you are speaking directly to them.
That said, it seems the whole point of you being here is, and has been, to create this 'fear' in SDSU fans that you refer to. All one has to do is read your post just after this one to find an example of that. Yes, we all know life is filled with uncertainties so, of course, anything can happen. However, I have been a fan and booster of SDSU for a long time and while I can't say I know for sure what would happen should the Chargers leave, I feel very comfortable that the Chargers leaving SD will not be the deciding factor in what happens to SDSU football. Hence, I am not worried or fearful at all.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jan 11, 2017 13:15:39 GMT -8
That said, it seems the whole point of you being here is
In all honesty, it's become a tapatalk habit when I am waiting for something and only have my phone. And some of the declarations I read here drive me a bit nuts (yes, well aware it cuts both ways) and I can't help but argue.
|
|