|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 18, 2016 21:58:43 GMT -8
You guys better be shovel ready and announce an Aztecs stadium with locked in financing the minute the Chargers announce they're leaving. You've had years to have it figured out, I will be beyond pissed if SDSU drags their dicks on this. Qualcomm needs to be razed ASAP. I don't subscribe to the theory it will necessarily help SDSU football. Might help attendance once people realize how nice it is to go to a football game that isn't played in a dump. But how else does it help? How else are the Chargers holding the program back? SDSU should dominate the mountain west year over year. Playing in Qualcomm wasn't preventing that Are you serious? Really? Well, this has been hashed over many times, but I'll try to offer you the Cliff Notes version. 1. The Q is an outdated, overly large stadium with poor sight lines and deteriorating facilities. 2. The Aztecs must pay rent and get no concession or parking money from the Q. They would not pay rent at a on-campus stadium and would profit from every parked car and every hot dog sold. 3. In person or on TV, a decent sized Aztec crowd of about 30,000 in the Q looks like a pair of tiny child's dolls thrown into a steamer trunk. In a new Aztec stadium, such a crowd would look good. 4. Other schools against which SDSU competes, or against which it would like to compete, have better stadiums on campus. Exhibit A in that category is Colorado State's new 41,500 seat stadium to open next year. 5. SDSU's coaches would love to show prospectivie recruits a new stadium with Aztec logos posted everywhere as opposed to showing them the Q. I'm sure others can add still more reasons to this list of factors indicating why a new Aztec stadium is desirable. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 18, 2016 22:02:01 GMT -8
Yes, I said it may help with attendance. You could argue that will help with recruiting, but it would be negligible. There has never been an excuse for SDSU not dominating the Mountain West. And I've always felt the Chargers excuse was especially weak in every regard. I assume most you Aztecs who can't wait for the Chargers to leave are either transplants or have convinced yourselves of the Chargers boogeyman. I get it. I am a born and raised San Diegan, but a Colorado Buffalo. I know all about a portion of the fan base blaming the NFL. We do it all the time with the Donkeys. But it's just a convenient excuse when we're not winning. Blaming the NFL is a lame excuse. Blaming a stadium is a lame excuse. Decades of poor play The power 5 conferences Crappy opponents Bad marketing Is why attendance suffers But the central fact remains undisputed. San Diego State football needs its own on-campus stadium. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by bagtec on Dec 18, 2016 22:14:00 GMT -8
You guys realize every sunday JLC re hashes the same crap and writes another article. Spoiler Alert next sunday the headline will be "chargers have bought stock in two men will move you.
|
|
|
|
Post by tttrojan4life on Dec 18, 2016 22:16:57 GMT -8
Is fixing up the Q an option?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 18, 2016 22:23:46 GMT -8
Here's a quick comment on the Campus West proposal. It is impossible to overstate the benefits that SDSU would enjoy from the completion of this project. That should be the main focus; how the new campus would make what is already an outstanding school even greater. The stadium portion of the project is secondary, though vital to the football program. And, yes, it will take a lot of work and many years to complete, but we should recognize that this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity can happen. If we want to make San Diego a great city, this is the way to go.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 18, 2016 22:25:37 GMT -8
Is fixing up the Q an option? Fixing up the Q? About as possible as literally spinning straw into gold. The Q's days are numbered. And that number is not too great. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by tttrojan4life on Dec 18, 2016 22:41:50 GMT -8
Is it possible to convert the Q to a college type stadium? Would it be cheaper than demo/ and build a new stadium?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 19, 2016 5:49:18 GMT -8
You guys better be shovel ready and announce an Aztecs stadium with locked in financing the minute the Chargers announce they're leaving. You've had years to have it figured out, I will be beyond pissed if SDSU drags their dicks on this. Qualcomm needs to be razed ASAP. I don't subscribe to the theory it will necessarily help SDSU football. Might help attendance once people realize how nice it is to go to a football game that isn't played in a dump. But how else does it help? How else are the Chargers holding the program back? SDSU should dominate the mountain west year over year. Playing in Qualcomm wasn't preventing that Are you serious? Really? Well, this has been hashed over many times, but I'll try to offer you the Cliff Notes version. 1. The Q is an outdated, overly large stadium with poor sight lines and deteriorating facilities. 2. The Aztecs must pay rent and get no concession or parking money from the Q. They would not pay rent at a on-campus stadium and would profit from every parked car and every hot dog sold. 3. In person or on TV, a decent sized Aztec crowd of about 30,000 in the Q looks like a pair of tiny child's dolls thrown into a steamer trunk. In a new Aztec stadium, such a crowd would look good. 4. Other schools against which SDSU competes, or against which it would like to compete, have better stadiums on campus. Exhibit A in that category is Colorado State's new 41,500 seat stadium to open next year. 5. SDSU's coaches would love to show prospectivie recruits a new stadium with Aztec logos posted everywhere as opposed to showing them the Q. I'm sure others can add still more reasons to this list of factors indicating why a new Aztec stadium is desirable. AzWm 1. Fully aware Qualcomm is a dump. 2. We went over this last year when we broke down your lease agreement and the cost of OWNING and OPERATING your own stadium vs your current deal. You'll pay ten times your current rent just to operate your own stadium, let alone build it. Money in may not be as much - but many out isn't either. And worst case if you had to share a new NFL stadium - you'll throw some money into building it and negotiate a favorable lease agreement. Today's stadium advertising is all digital - negotiate the rights to sell advertising to your game days. Negotiate concessions. That's up to your leadership. 3. You greatly over estimate any affect a crowd on TV or in person. You're San Diego State in a conference of schools that aren't. 4. Colorado State financed their stadium based on fantasy land numbers. That stadium is going to be a financial disaster for an AD greatly subsidized by the school. It's going to be the focus of the WTF were they doing narrative when they need the State's help to pay their bonds. Regardless, Hughes was more a dump than Qualcomm, it was off campus and a pain in the ass to get to. And they had many a crowds with 10-15k people. 5. True. Of course SDSU needs a new stadium. If you can find the funding to build your own or you had to share a world class NFL stadium, Qualcomm is an antiquated facility and needs to be razed. The current situation in Mission Valley is untenable even for the short terms. Which is why I said SDSU better be ready to go once the Chargers announce. They've had years to get their ducks in a row. I was accused of having misplaced anger in my expectation SDSU actually having a plan to get going and putting shovels in the dirt. Bizarre take, but whatever. So allow me to turn the table, there is misplaced blame put onto the Chargers. The advantage SDSU has in school, location and local recruiting footprint will always trump your conference competition. The Chargers haven't been the boogeyman keeping SDSU football down or from the power 5. |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Dec 19, 2016 7:00:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Dec 19, 2016 14:33:42 GMT -8
How sad. A metropolis of 3.3 million can't find a way to accommodate SDSU and keep the National Football League too. A city is as good as its people, and this city is pathetic. Oh, and so long, Holiday and Poinsettia Bowls. I'm sure the same hotel gods who hated Measure C will wish you well on your way out. The people did what people do... You can't treat people like trash for 20 years and then expect them to keep loving you. It is all on Spanos and the Chargers, not the people of SD. The Spanos family made just about every mistake you can make in this sad mess, and I hold them responsible in full measure. But to give free passes to the citizens for their lack of vision, the business community for its myopic provincialism, and city government for its flaccid "leadership," is naive. After the better part of a lifetime, pro football in San Diego is dead. There are many sets of fingerprints on the murder weapon. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Dec 19, 2016 14:44:31 GMT -8
The people did what people do... You can't treat people like trash for 20 years and then expect them to keep loving you. It is all on Spanos and the Chargers, not the people of SD. The Spanos family made just about every mistake you can make in this sad mess, and I hold them responsible in full measure. But to give free passes to the citizens for their lack of vision, the business community for its myopic provincialism, and city government for its flaccid "leadership," is naive. After the better part of a lifetime, pro football in San Diego is dead. There are many sets of fingerprints on the murder weapon. Fair |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 19, 2016 14:55:34 GMT -8
$280 million. In Seattle. To refurbish what was already a football stadium. Versus whatever it would cost to turn the Q INTO a football-only facility. Better to tear down after building a new facility, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Dec 19, 2016 15:10:09 GMT -8
Is it possible to convert the Q to a college type stadium? Would it be cheaper than demo/ and build a new stadium? Yes it is possible but not plausible. I have seen plans for a remodel. However, we could build a brand new 30-40k stadium for about the same cost so it makes no sense to renovate the Q. Go SDSU WEST! Go Aztecs! |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Dec 19, 2016 19:02:00 GMT -8
$280 million. In Seattle. To refurbish what was already a football stadium. Versus whatever it would cost to turn the Q INTO a football-only facility. Better to tear down after building a new facility, IMO. The bills are still coming in $280 million is low ball!  |
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Dec 20, 2016 15:50:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on Dec 20, 2016 16:25:11 GMT -8
From the same article: "This also helps explain why former Padres owner John Moores has been lobbying to acquire the property for San Diego State University. The hurdles are lower." |
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 20, 2016 16:58:29 GMT -8
Curious. Is there an alternate site just in case SDSU doesn't get the land? Anywhere? I mean, we are talking about San Diego here.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Dec 20, 2016 17:04:50 GMT -8
Wrong. The property has to be offered to a "public entity" first. No such luck regarding your armageddon scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Dec 20, 2016 17:10:50 GMT -8
Wrong. The property has to be offered to a "public entity" first. No such luck regarding your armageddon scenario. Can you link this as definitive fact? Trying to remember this from last year. I think at the very least it has to be market value for the land, but also thought it was determined it didn't "have to" be offered to SDSU first. Not arguing , just looking for the link |
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Dec 20, 2016 17:18:27 GMT -8
Wrong. The property has to be offered to a "public entity" first. No such luck regarding your armageddon scenario. It was stated at the Town Hall by elected representatives. Also, in regards to the funding issues of building the stadium, the President stated personally to me and others that he has the funds, just needs the land. More specifically, a 30,000 seat stadium could be built for $125m. |
|
