|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 12, 2017 9:44:57 GMT -8
He sure seems to be dithering on this issue. No shock there... he is not a leader he is a follower. Embarrassingly, he's an Aztec. One wonders what he majored in at SDSU. Partying perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 12, 2017 10:23:53 GMT -8
I hate to break it to you guys, but the FS proposal is polling very well. Even SDSU internally recognizes this. As long as it polls well SDSU has ZERO leverage in the situation unless the mayor steps in. As we have seen, the mayor has no balls and will do no such thing. It looks more and more to me like SDSU is S.O.L. When you have no money and no leadership this is the result. Honestly, we shouldn't be surprised. Political polling has ZERO relevance until the wording that will be on the ballot is finalized, and last I checked I haven't seen that presented. Plus, it holds zero significance until you're withing 90 days of the election. Polling on individuals (i.e. Clinton/Trump) is very different than polling on measures. FSI has GREAT PR, so not surprising that top of mind perception is good. Being able to say it comes with a new sports team, new stadium, 4000+ residential units, more shopping, etc., all with no taxes SHOULD poll well. If it didn't they wouldn't be pushing for it to be on the ballot. I'd hope they'd be testing different ways to word their initiative, but its a little far out to be doing that but you never know. However, I don't think they'd be testing it using the opposition's argument as well. Would be curious to hear what wording they're using in their polls? Even the whattodowithq poll is extremely biased against FSI. You don't do a forced choice poll when the election is 6 months away. You have to include an undecided option, which this didn't, or those who haven't yet made a decision will tend to skew towards the negative. Not sure from where you learned that "pre-ballot" survey's were meaningless. The most recent example is the Chargers. They polled poorly long before they ever put wording on the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 12, 2017 10:39:35 GMT -8
Political polling has ZERO relevance until the wording that will be on the ballot is finalized, and last I checked I haven't seen that presented. Plus, it holds zero significance until you're withing 90 days of the election. Polling on individuals (i.e. Clinton/Trump) is very different than polling on measures. FSI has GREAT PR, so not surprising that top of mind perception is good. Being able to say it comes with a new sports team, new stadium, 4000+ residential units, more shopping, etc., all with no taxes SHOULD poll well. If it didn't they wouldn't be pushing for it to be on the ballot. I'd hope they'd be testing different ways to word their initiative, but its a little far out to be doing that but you never know. However, I don't think they'd be testing it using the opposition's argument as well. Would be curious to hear what wording they're using in their polls? Even the whattodowithq poll is extremely biased against FSI. You don't do a forced choice poll when the election is 6 months away. You have to include an undecided option, which this didn't, or those who haven't yet made a decision will tend to skew towards the negative. Not sure from where you learned that "pre-ballot" survey's were meaningless. The most recent example is the Chargers. They polled poorly long before they ever put wording on the ballot. From writing and conducting political polls over 4 years in my prior life (& working in the industry for 30+). Some things will ALWAYS poll negatively, no matter when you conduct the poll, but until you present the actual initiative the results are just used to guide next steps rather than to get an actual read on it. They're good to determine which wording is most effective for the actual ballot, and to determine if it can ever be viable. The FSI measure is by default going to poll well. Again, ANYTHING that promises solid deliverables for free this early in the process will poll well across a broad audience. As you get within 90 days of the election, and as the familiarity with the initiative is greater with both wording for/against more prominent it's a completely different ballgame. The only thing ANY FSI poll could tell them is a) what aspects of the proposal are most/least appealing and/or need more clarification, to assist with writing the ballot, or b) if they couldn't get 30% to support it even with pie in the sky wording they may need to go back to the drawing board. The latter wasn't going to happen. The other reason you poll this year is to use is in your advertising & promotions, such as "75% of people support the FSI plan", etc. As for getting a read on the actual election, yes, it's meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 12, 2017 10:48:44 GMT -8
I hate to break it to you guys, but the FS proposal is polling very well. Even SDSU internally recognizes this. As long as it polls well SDSU has ZERO leverage in the situation unless the mayor steps in. As we have seen, the mayor has no balls and will do no such thing. It looks more and more to me like SDSU is S.O.L. When you have no money and no leadership this is the result. Honestly, we shouldn't be surprised. Political polling has ZERO relevance until the wording that will be on the ballot is finalized, and last I checked I haven't seen that presented. Plus, it holds zero significance until you're withing 90 days of the election. Polling on individuals (i.e. Clinton/Trump) is very different than polling on measures. FSI has GREAT PR, so not surprising that top of mind perception is good. Being able to say it comes with a new sports team, new stadium, 4000+ residential units, more shopping, etc., all with no taxes SHOULD poll well. If it didn't they wouldn't be pushing for it to be on the ballot. I'd hope they'd be testing different ways to word their initiative, but its a little far out to be doing that but you never know. However, I don't think they'd be testing it using the opposition's argument as well. Would be curious to hear what wording they're using in their polls? Even the whattodowithq poll is extremely biased against FSI. You don't do a forced choice poll when the election is 6 months away. You have to include an undecided option, which this didn't, or those who haven't yet made a decision will tend to skew towards the negative. They aren't pushing for it to be in the ballot. They realized it was going to go to a vote and in order to Control the narrative they said they wanted it to go to a vote.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 12, 2017 11:07:43 GMT -8
Political polling has ZERO relevance until the wording that will be on the ballot is finalized, and last I checked I haven't seen that presented. Plus, it holds zero significance until you're withing 90 days of the election. Polling on individuals (i.e. Clinton/Trump) is very different than polling on measures. FSI has GREAT PR, so not surprising that top of mind perception is good. Being able to say it comes with a new sports team, new stadium, 4000+ residential units, more shopping, etc., all with no taxes SHOULD poll well. If it didn't they wouldn't be pushing for it to be on the ballot. I'd hope they'd be testing different ways to word their initiative, but its a little far out to be doing that but you never know. However, I don't think they'd be testing it using the opposition's argument as well. Would be curious to hear what wording they're using in their polls? Even the whattodowithq poll is extremely biased against FSI. You don't do a forced choice poll when the election is 6 months away. You have to include an undecided option, which this didn't, or those who haven't yet made a decision will tend to skew towards the negative. They aren't pushing for it to be in the ballot. They realized it was going to go to a vote and in order to Control the narrative they said they wanted it to go to a vote. That's true. NOW they are pushing for it to be on the ballot. Originally, they claimed they didn't have the time to wait to get it on the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on May 12, 2017 13:10:33 GMT -8
They aren't pushing for it to be in the ballot. They realized it was going to go to a vote and in order to Control the narrative they said they wanted it to go to a vote. That's true. NOW they are pushing for it to be on the ballot. Originally, they claimed they didn't have the time to wait to get it on the ballot. Until the MLS (wink, wink) said they could have until November... The first "fake" deadline was 90 days The 2nd "fake" deadline is November After the initiative fails MLS will provide FSI with another "extension" of the "fake" deadline to give the city "one last chance" to work with FSI and SDSU to get a deal done. There is a decent chance that all of the "fake" deadlines will pass and a year from now we will be waiting for the results of the open bidding process to see who gets control of the land...
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on May 12, 2017 13:34:33 GMT -8
Perhaps. It depends on if SDSU gets on board or not. Agreed. If SDSU is on board, it will probably pass resoundingly. Time will tell if that would be a good thing for SDSU or not. If those associated with SDSU, that can support the initiative, come out in full support of it and SDSU leadership "talk" about how the "newly crafted Initiative" meets all of SDSU's needs then it will pass and with ease... However, I am still pretty certain that "others" from many different areas will file lawsuits no matter who is on board...
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 12, 2017 13:36:33 GMT -8
Not sure from where you learned that "pre-ballot" survey's were meaningless. The most recent example is the Chargers. They polled poorly long before they ever put wording on the ballot. From writing and conducting political polls over 4 years in my prior life (& working in the industry for 30+). Some things will ALWAYS poll negatively, no matter when you conduct the poll, but until you present the actual initiative the results are just used to guide next steps rather than to get an actual read on it. They're good to determine which wording is most effective for the actual ballot, and to determine if it can ever be viable. The FSI measure is by default going to poll well. Again, ANYTHING that promises solid deliverables for free this early in the process will poll well across a broad audience. As you get within 90 days of the election, and as the familiarity with the initiative is greater with both wording for/against more prominent it's a completely different ballgame. The only thing ANY FSI poll could tell them is a) what aspects of the proposal are most/least appealing and/or need more clarification, to assist with writing the ballot, or b) if they couldn't get 30% to support it even with pie in the sky wording they may need to go back to the drawing board. The latter wasn't going to happen. The other reason you poll this year is to use is in your advertising & promotions, such as "75% of people support the FSI plan", etc. As for getting a read on the actual election, yes, it's meaningless. Interesting, and somewhat illuminating, but I suspect the bulk of the reasoning behind the "polling" substance timing, has more to do with the fact that most voters probably don't even pay attention to the issue until weeks before the vote, when it IS in the ballot material. Our problem is that the Chargers fiasco has kept it in the news and FS has done a great job of keeping it in the news. Those against it have been slow, to invisible, and FS has a mountain of momentum, PLUS (apparently) the city on their side. The real calamity for us is, that if one were to poll voters on SDSU's interest, you'd likely find that most people think SDSU is in favor of it. And THAT is our destiny.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 12, 2017 13:51:05 GMT -8
Agreed. If SDSU is on board, it will probably pass resoundingly. Time will tell if that would be a good thing for SDSU or not. If those associated with SDSU, that can support the initiative, come out in full support of it and SDSU leadership "talk" about how the "newly crafted Initiative" meets all of SDSU's needs then it will pass and with ease... However, I am still pretty certain that "others" from many different areas will file lawsuits no matter who is on board... Thats something that i dont think enough of us realize. Its not just SDSU who opposes this Soccer City. Rival developers, environmentalists, other prominent city leaders, and just people who dont want a massive retail/condo complex flooding MV any further.
|
|
|
Post by jmarshall on May 12, 2017 14:10:24 GMT -8
FS is killin' it from the PR perspective. Of course it helps to have Acee running headlines on the sports page about them.
FS brought Donovan and now Mac Millian in not sell MLS. They are on board (as investors you might notice)to sell the developmental youth soccer opportunities to all of the voting soccer Moms and Dads. They are peddling the tremendous opportunities for young Johnny or Jill if the FS initiative comes to fruition through their youth development program. Donovan has already started "selling" to the club soccer community here. The leaders of the Club community will help sell the parents and encourage them to vote for the initiative. Of course, a few of the club community might also benefit from the increased emphasis that FS will bring to their programs. But I digress. Bottom line is FS is working this angle like the Pros they are. You have to admire that. There are a lot of soccer moms and dads out there, and even if they have never voted before, they probably will on this...for little Johnny and Jill.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 12, 2017 14:26:13 GMT -8
FS is killin' it from the PR perspective. Of course it helps to have Acee running headlines on the sports page about them. FS brought Donovan and now Mac Millian in not sell MLS. They are on board (as investors you might notice)to sell the developmental youth soccer opportunities to all of the voting soccer Moms and Dads. They are peddling the tremendous opportunities for young Johnny or Jill if the FS initiative comes to fruition through their youth development program. Donovan has already started "selling" to the club soccer community here. The leaders of the Club community will help sell the parents and encourage them to vote for the initiative. Of course, a few of the club community might also benefit from the increased emphasis that FS will bring to their programs. But I digress. Bottom line is FS is working this angle like the Pros they are. You have to admire that. There are a lot of soccer moms and dads out there, and even if they have never voted before, they probably will on this...for little Johnny and Jill. Yeah. They are both "investors". Perhaps a little piece of the action for some name recognition?
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 12, 2017 14:39:23 GMT -8
From writing and conducting political polls over 4 years in my prior life (& working in the industry for 30+). Some things will ALWAYS poll negatively, no matter when you conduct the poll, but until you present the actual initiative the results are just used to guide next steps rather than to get an actual read on it. They're good to determine which wording is most effective for the actual ballot, and to determine if it can ever be viable. The FSI measure is by default going to poll well. Again, ANYTHING that promises solid deliverables for free this early in the process will poll well across a broad audience. As you get within 90 days of the election, and as the familiarity with the initiative is greater with both wording for/against more prominent it's a completely different ballgame. The only thing ANY FSI poll could tell them is a) what aspects of the proposal are most/least appealing and/or need more clarification, to assist with writing the ballot, or b) if they couldn't get 30% to support it even with pie in the sky wording they may need to go back to the drawing board. The latter wasn't going to happen. The other reason you poll this year is to use is in your advertising & promotions, such as "75% of people support the FSI plan", etc. As for getting a read on the actual election, yes, it's meaningless. Interesting, and somewhat illuminating, but I suspect the bulk of the reasoning behind the "polling" substance timing, has more to do with the fact that most voters probably don't even pay attention to the issue until weeks before the vote, when it IS in the ballot material. Our problem is that the Chargers fiasco has kept it in the news and FS has done a great job of keeping it in the news. Those against it have been slow, to invisible, and FS has a mountain of momentum, PLUS (apparently) the city on their side. The real calamity for us is, that if one were to poll voters on SDSU's interest, you'd likely find that most people think SDSU is in favor of it. And THAT is our destiny.Agree with everything in those statements except the last sentence. It's FAR from our destiny. SDSU not being able to legally say they support/oppose it definitely is a barrier, but when they word the initiative for ballot they also will not be able to say anything that's not 100% accurate. They can't say the stadium is for MLS & SDSU if that is not a fact, etc. They can't imply it's supported by SDSU in any fashion. Plus, there are always opposition campaigns & there are a couple big boys funding one against FSI per the thread title. I'm sure they'll come out with a push about 30-60 days prior to the election, which is fine & all you need to educate people. Whether or not FSI can ingrain other beliefs in their minds to the point they don't bother to get informed is still TBD? I'd be more concerned about a low voter turnout than people thinking SDSU falsely supports the initiative as is. We don't even know if this will ever make it to a ballot in November. Time will tell, but it's VERY early in the game. There will be 100's of stories on the topic from both sides in the press & social media between now & November, IF that even happens. The whole scenario has a long ways to go before it plays out, and will shift often between now & even July. Any poll conducted now as it relates to anticipated voting results is meaningless. If this gets to the ballot in November & you see a reputable poll in mid October that says the same (i.e. conducted by a new agency & not FSI/Opposition), and SDSU hasn't been more favorable about the key aspects, THEN worry. : )
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 12, 2017 14:49:51 GMT -8
Interesting, and somewhat illuminating, but I suspect the bulk of the reasoning behind the "polling" substance timing, has more to do with the fact that most voters probably don't even pay attention to the issue until weeks before the vote, when it IS in the ballot material. Our problem is that the Chargers fiasco has kept it in the news and FS has done a great job of keeping it in the news. Those against it have been slow, to invisible, and FS has a mountain of momentum, PLUS (apparently) the city on their side. The real calamity for us is, that if one were to poll voters on SDSU's interest, you'd likely find that most people think SDSU is in favor of it. And THAT is our destiny.Agree with everything in those statements except the last sentence. It's FAR from our destiny. SDSU not being able to legally say they support/oppose it definitely is a barrier, but when they word the initiative for ballot they also will not be able to say anything that's not 100% accurate. They can't say the stadium is for MLS & SDSU if that is not a fact, etc. They can't imply it's supported by SDSU in any fashion. Plus, there are always opposition campaigns & there are a couple big boys funding one against FSI per the thread title. I'm sure they'll come out with a push about 30-60 days prior to the election, which is fine & all you need to educate people. Whether or not FSI can ingrain other beliefs in their minds to the point they don't bother to get informed is still TBD? I'd be more concerned about a low voter turnout than people thinking SDSU falsely supports the initiative as is. We don't even know if this will ever make it to a ballot in November. Time will tell, but it's VERY early in the game. There will be 100's of stories on the topic from both sides in the press & social media between now & November, IF that even happens. The whole scenario has a long ways to go before it plays out, and will shift often between now & even July. Any poll conducted now as it relates to anticipated voting results is meaningless. If this gets to the ballot in November & you see a reputable poll in mid October that says the same (i.e. conducted by a new agency & not FSI/Opposition), and SDSU hasn't been more favorable about the key aspects, THEN worry. : ) Out of curiosity, why would it NOT get to the ballot in November?
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 12, 2017 15:03:41 GMT -8
Agree with everything in those statements except the last sentence. It's FAR from our destiny. SDSU not being able to legally say they support/oppose it definitely is a barrier, but when they word the initiative for ballot they also will not be able to say anything that's not 100% accurate. They can't say the stadium is for MLS & SDSU if that is not a fact, etc. They can't imply it's supported by SDSU in any fashion. Plus, there are always opposition campaigns & there are a couple big boys funding one against FSI per the thread title. I'm sure they'll come out with a push about 30-60 days prior to the election, which is fine & all you need to educate people. Whether or not FSI can ingrain other beliefs in their minds to the point they don't bother to get informed is still TBD? I'd be more concerned about a low voter turnout than people thinking SDSU falsely supports the initiative as is. We don't even know if this will ever make it to a ballot in November. Time will tell, but it's VERY early in the game. There will be 100's of stories on the topic from both sides in the press & social media between now & November, IF that even happens. The whole scenario has a long ways to go before it plays out, and will shift often between now & even July. Any poll conducted now as it relates to anticipated voting results is meaningless. If this gets to the ballot in November & you see a reputable poll in mid October that says the same (i.e. conducted by a new agency & not FSI/Opposition), and SDSU hasn't been more favorable about the key aspects, THEN worry. : ) Out of curiosity, why would it NOT get to the ballot in November? Heard something about they're not sold on spending 10's of millions on a special election when SD's fighting financial troubles & may wait until the next main election to save money. Falkener's pushing for it & the conversion center expansion bill to be combined in November to help make it more viable, but unless I missed it the city council hasn't voted on it. At least that's what I was told a couple days ago. Heard something about a June timeline but missed the details.....
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 12, 2017 16:05:03 GMT -8
Out of curiosity, why would it NOT get to the ballot in November? Heard something about they're not sold on spending 10's of millions on a special election when SD's fighting financial troubles & may wait until the next main election to save money. Falkener's pushing for it & the conversion center expansion bill to be combined in November to help make it more viable, but unless I missed it the city council hasn't voted on it. At least that's what I was told a couple days ago. Heard something about a June timeline but missed the details..... Correct--the vote is in June. But it makes no sense for FSI to put this off, since they said they had to know as soon as possible to be up and running by 2020, assuming SD is granted an expansion franchise. But FSI is also the group that said at first they didn't have time for this to go on the ballot--they had to know as I said above, as soon as possible. This would appear to be a case of them moving the goalposts. Pun intended. One benefit if FSI does decide to wait until 2018 is that perhaps the city will actually ask for RFP's on the Q site from all interested parties. Also, I believe that MLS will still have 2 spots available at a later date to get the league up to 28 teams.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 12, 2017 16:09:52 GMT -8
Heard something about they're not sold on spending 10's of millions on a special election when SD's fighting financial troubles & may wait until the next main election to save money. Falkener's pushing for it & the conversion center expansion bill to be combined in November to help make it more viable, but unless I missed it the city council hasn't voted on it. At least that's what I was told a couple days ago. Heard something about a June timeline but missed the details..... Correct--the vote is in June. But it makes no sense for FSI to put this off, since they said they had to know as soon as possible to be up and running by 2020, assuming SD is granted an expansion franchise. But FSI is also the group that said at first they didn't have time for this to go on the ballot--they had to know as I said above, as soon as possible. This would appear to be a case of them moving the goalposts. Pun intended. One benefit if FSI does decide to wait until 2018 is that perhaps the city will actually ask for RFP's on the Q site from all interested parties. Also, I believe that MLS will still have 2 spots available at a later date to get the league up to 28 teams. To be clear, I don't think it'd be FSI who would put it off. I think it'd be the city's decision.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 12, 2017 16:14:27 GMT -8
Correct--the vote is in June. But it makes no sense for FSI to put this off, since they said they had to know as soon as possible to be up and running by 2020, assuming SD is granted an expansion franchise. But FSI is also the group that said at first they didn't have time for this to go on the ballot--they had to know as I said above, as soon as possible. This would appear to be a case of them moving the goalposts. Pun intended. One benefit if FSI does decide to wait until 2018 is that perhaps the city will actually ask for RFP's on the Q site from all interested parties. Also, I believe that MLS will still have 2 spots available at a later date to get the league up to 28 teams. To be clear, I don't think it'd be FSI who would put it off. I think it'd be the city's decision. Which would be interesting, as they probably couldn't have a stadium up and running in 2020 if they have the election in November of 2018. And MLS will decide on the 25th and 26th team (allegedly) by the end of this year.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on May 12, 2017 18:19:02 GMT -8
To be clear, I don't think it'd be FSI who would put it off. I think it'd be the city's decision. Which would be interesting, as they probably couldn't have a stadium up and running in 2020 if they have the election in November of 2018. And MLS will decide on the 25th and 26th team (allegedly) by the end of this year. Yep. Definitely can't get it done by 2020 if election isn't for another year, or at least not without spending a LOT more than budgeted to expedite. I heard this the other day, but I tend to agree that if this DOES get on the ballet for this Nov the MLS would announce SD as 1 of the 2 new franchises before the election, given the stadium can be built. That'd be a major PR move prior to the vote. This whole FSI thing is another reason I don't believe clueless Kaplan's tweet about the Q closing in 2018 for sure. If FSI (or whoever) gets MV & a MLS stadium is going to be built they're going to have to keep the Q open until they're 100% sure on when the stadium can be built & finished. Atlanta found out the pitfalls of that this year - homeless for 2 games, since the football stadium is delayed and Georgia Tech's is booked for their football team.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 12, 2017 19:58:18 GMT -8
Which would be interesting, as they probably couldn't have a stadium up and running in 2020 if they have the election in November of 2018. And MLS will decide on the 25th and 26th team (allegedly) by the end of this year. Yep. Definitely can't get it done by 2020 if election isn't for another year, or at least not without spending a LOT more than budgeted to expedite. I heard this the other day, but I tend to agree that if this DOES get on the ballet for this Nov the MLS would announce SD as 1 of the 2 new franchises before the election, given the stadium can be built. That'd be a major PR move prior to the vote. This whole FSI thing is another reason I don't believe clueless Kaplan's tweet about the Q closing in 2018 for sure. If FSI (or whoever) gets MV & a MLS stadium is going to be built they're going to have to keep the Q open until they're 100% sure on when the stadium can be built & finished. Atlanta found out the pitfalls of that this year - homeless for 2 games, since the football stadium is delayed and Georgia Tech's is booked for their football team. Atlanta's MLS team has already secured dates at Bobby Dodd Stadium. You bring up a great point about Kaplan and his alleged inside info--but at least ATL MLS has an alternate place to play.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 13, 2017 11:45:06 GMT -8
MLS bores me to tears so my information may be inaccurate but as I understand it, that league has voted to expand by 4 (by financial necessity according to skeptics) and 12 cities have expressed interest in applying for a franchise. In theory, SD may therefore only have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a franchise. However, realistically, not all 12 cities will be able to put together a viable proposal. Also, if TV eyes are a consideration as one would think, most don't hold a candle to SD.
I Googled MLS and then before making another keystroke "MLS expansion" came up. I didn't want to spend time reading more than a couple articles but one said that although it has been decided to expand by 4, only 2 of them are destined by begin play in 2020. FSI may accordingly be disingenuous once again about what its actual deadline is. Presumably that would be because a vote in November 2017 would be more likely to be approved than a vote in June 2018 which would allow the Manchester group an additional 8 months to put together a formal plan.
|
|