|
Post by jmarshall on May 18, 2017 11:19:10 GMT -8
Hmmmm. Seem to recall many on this board saying that SDSU could not comment on issues involving voting, yes? Seems like the school has been quite voluble recently. If they hadn't been so profound in their mute coalition over the past year or two, they might not now be desperately flailing to clamber out of the grave they've dug for our FBS football program. You know that the University can not publically support or propose an issue that is subject to a referendum. I don't understand why you bend the truth to try to make a point?
The issues JD spoke of were the needs of the university and the lack of interest FS showed during the 1+ years of discussions/negotiations in trying to respond to those needs. I guess that period of private discussions with the FS group that had been taking place is what you would refer to as,"...their mute coalition...". I guess I should applaud your creativity and ability to ignore anything that doesn't support your never ending narrative.
Finally, he did not oppose the FS initiative. He called for the city to initiate the RFP process to get competitive bids for the development of the Q site.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 18, 2017 11:25:15 GMT -8
Hmmmm. Seem to recall many on this board saying that SDSU could not comment on issues involving voting, yes? Seems like the school has been quite voluble recently. If they hadn't been so profound in their mute coalition over the past year or two, they might not now be desperately flailing to clamber out of the grave they've dug for our FBS football program. You know that the University can not publically support or propose an issue that is subject to a referendum. I don't understand why you bend the truth to try to make a point?
The issues JD spoke of were the needs of the university and the lack of interest FS showed during the 1+ years of discussions/negotiations in trying to respond to those needs. I guess that period of private discussions with the FS group that had been taking place is what you would refer to as,"...their mute coalition...". I guess I should applaud your creativity and ability to ignore anything that doesn't support your never ending narrative.
Finally, he did not oppose the FS initiative. He called for the city to initiate the RFP process to get competitive bids for the development of the Q site.
However you want to couch it, the result is that the school has been invisible and mute for all intents, the past 12 to 24 months. That is a bad thing when you're trying to corral, then rally public support, yes? And in spite of your "cautionary tale", they have recently been MORE visible and vocal. The former showed passivity, weakness and even acceptance to the public. I.e. pusillanimous leadership. Is that better?
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 18, 2017 11:27:45 GMT -8
Hmmmm. Seem to recall many on this board saying that SDSU could not comment on issues involving voting, yes? Seems like the school has been quite voluble recently. If they hadn't been so profound in their mute coalition over the past year or two, they might not now be desperately flailing to clamber out of the grave they've dug for our FBS football program. True, but better late than never?!?!
|
|
|
Post by jmarshall on May 18, 2017 11:28:01 GMT -8
I wanted to "...couch it..." accurately.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 18, 2017 11:31:30 GMT -8
I wanted to "...couch it..." accurately. Well, at least you tried. Good effort.
|
|
|
Post by jmarshall on May 18, 2017 11:32:31 GMT -8
Thank you.
You might try it sometime.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 18, 2017 11:33:21 GMT -8
Hmmmm. Seem to recall many on this board saying that SDSU could not comment on issues involving voting, yes? Seems like the school has been quite voluble recently. If they hadn't been so profound in their mute coalition over the past year or two, they might not now be desperately flailing to clamber out of the grave they've dug for our FBS football program. True, but better late than never?!?! We'll see. I think that Sally Roush will be a plus. But I just think the overall leadership is too weak to pull anything off, other than on someone else's coattails. And that someone is still invisible.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 18, 2017 11:35:17 GMT -8
Nick Stone came on afterwards and totally blew everything JD said out of the water...every time I hear the "we can build a stadium for $150 million" I wince. There's no quicker way to lose credibility than to try and sell this to the public. It makes us seem naive and out of touch with reality. Honestly, the more I think about this the more reasonable it sounds. $150M will not be a glamorous stadium, but built in a parking lot with unfettered access it may actually be possible. For now I will give JD a pass on this one. As others have said I am not sure if SDSU thinks they can build a stadium for $150M or that is what they have available and will raise more funds via other avenues or partnerships. Regardless it would be a stadium SDSU owns and controls and designs. I suppose a good stadium could be designed in phases for capacity and adding amenities in phases. Perhaps we start with a great structure that has basic amenities and some premium seating for a capacity of 30-35K. Break it up into several phases as we can fund them... Phase 1,2,3 etc. I am no expert on stadiums but this would seem logical.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 18, 2017 11:51:01 GMT -8
Honestly, the more I think about this the more reasonable it sounds. $150M will not be a glamorous stadium, but built in a parking lot with unfettered access it may actually be possible. For now I will give JD a pass on this one. As others have said I am not sure if SDSU thinks they can build a stadium for $150M or that is what they have available and will raise more funds via other avenues or partnerships. Regardless it would be a stadium SDSU owns and controls and designs. I suppose a good stadium could be designed in phases for capacity and adding amenities in phases. Perhaps we start with a great structure that has basic amenities and some premium seating for a capacity of 30-35K. Break it up into several phases as we can fund them... Phase 1,2,3 etc. I am no expert on stadiums but this would seem logical. Many here keep discussing this as if SDSU had an actual plan which had just been revealed and we are trying to work out the details. We are ALL, including the administration, just trying to herd unicorns at this point. The ONLY plan on the table and heading for a vote is FS. SDSU says they don't want to be involved. If they have the people on their side to sink the Good Ship FS, then they had better get their "partners" shouting.
|
|
|
Post by panammaniac on May 18, 2017 14:40:19 GMT -8
Stanford built their new stadium in 2006 supposedly for a little less than $100 million, and they did it in less than a year. And...that included demoing the old stadium so they could build the new one in the same spot. They literally started demo moments after the last football game and had it ready to go for their home opener the following season. Now that was in 2006, so if you inflation adjust the money it's closer to $200 million now, and it's a 50K+ seat stadium. I have no doubt that SDSU could build a perfectly suitable stadium for somewhere between $150 and $200 million...BUT that's just for the stadium, not the real estate for it to sit on. What is the fair market value of 15 or so acres of the Qualcomm parking lot? Last I heard, the FMV of the entire site was around $300 million and that figure was from a 2015 estimate. It is 166 acres so that comes to roughly $1.8 million per acre or about $27 million for a chunk big enough to build a stadium on - parking not included, and the price is likely a bit higher now that the property is officially up for grabs. So you're probably talking somewhere between $250 and $300 million total, assuming you find the right chunk of land to build on.
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on May 18, 2017 14:55:23 GMT -8
So FS gets it for $10,000 an acre. We can afford that!
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on May 18, 2017 14:57:06 GMT -8
So FS gets it for $10,000 an acre. We can afford that! ... Um NO... $125 an acre!!! $10,000 is for the whole plot of land!
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 18, 2017 15:18:36 GMT -8
Stanford built their new stadium in 2006 supposedly for a little less than $100 million, and they did it in less than a year. And...that included demoing the old stadium so they could build the new one in the same spot. They literally started demo moments after the last football game and had it ready to go for their home opener the following season. Now that was in 2006, so if you inflation adjust the money it's closer to $200 million now, and it's a 50K+ seat stadium. I have no doubt that SDSU could build a perfectly suitable stadium for somewhere between $150 and $200 million...BUT that's just for the stadium, not the real estate for it to sit on. What is the fair market value of 15 or so acres of the Qualcomm parking lot? Last I heard, the FMV of the entire site was around $300 million and that figure was from a 2015 estimate. It is 166 acres so that comes to roughly $1.8 million per acre or about $27 million for a chunk big enough to build a stadium on - parking not included, and the price is likely a bit higher now that the property is officially up for grabs. So you're probably talking somewhere between $250 and $300 million total, assuming you find the right chunk of land to build on. Stanford's stadium sits in an earthen bowl which is completely different type of structure that would have to be built in MV. They merely removed the old structure which was primarily aluminum, compressed the bowl, and used concrete to stabilize the earth. They then went back in with an aluminum flooring and seating platform built atop the earthen structure. The main concourse is concrete on compacted fill. Anything built in MV will need to use steel or concrete to do what dirt is providing at Stanford.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 18, 2017 15:45:36 GMT -8
Stanford built their new stadium in 2006 supposedly for a little less than $100 million, and they did it in less than a year. And...that included demoing the old stadium so they could build the new one in the same spot. They literally started demo moments after the last football game and had it ready to go for their home opener the following season. Now that was in 2006, so if you inflation adjust the money it's closer to $200 million now, and it's a 50K+ seat stadium. I have no doubt that SDSU could build a perfectly suitable stadium for somewhere between $150 and $200 million...BUT that's just for the stadium, not the real estate for it to sit on. What is the fair market value of 15 or so acres of the Qualcomm parking lot? Last I heard, the FMV of the entire site was around $300 million and that figure was from a 2015 estimate. It is 166 acres so that comes to roughly $1.8 million per acre or about $27 million for a chunk big enough to build a stadium on - parking not included, and the price is likely a bit higher now that the property is officially up for grabs. So you're probably talking somewhere between $250 and $300 million total, assuming you find the right chunk of land to build on. You could build an erector set (Houston) for probably 150-200M in San Diego. (sans land acquisition, etc.) But to draw a comparison. Colorado State is finishing up what started out as a 220M stadium and they owned the land. Colorado just completed our Facilities Project last year. We started out with a 166M cost - final cost was 194M. That was just for our facilities. Then take building/construction costs in San Diego vs. building in Colorado or Texas. You have to assume SDSU has a partner like Manchester or JMI locked and loaded. There is just no way SDSU would try and kill FS in hopes it fails so they can then go through the process of MAYBE getting the land then building an erector set stadium down the road. This whole thing is such a standard San Diego Cluster ****. Really hope SDSU/Manchester have something worked out.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2017 15:54:50 GMT -8
Stanford built their new stadium in 2006 supposedly for a little less than $100 million, and they did it in less than a year. And...that included demoing the old stadium so they could build the new one in the same spot. They literally started demo moments after the last football game and had it ready to go for their home opener the following season. Now that was in 2006, so if you inflation adjust the money it's closer to $200 million now, and it's a 50K+ seat stadium. I have no doubt that SDSU could build a perfectly suitable stadium for somewhere between $150 and $200 million...BUT that's just for the stadium, not the real estate for it to sit on. What is the fair market value of 15 or so acres of the Qualcomm parking lot? Last I heard, the FMV of the entire site was around $300 million and that figure was from a 2015 estimate. It is 166 acres so that comes to roughly $1.8 million per acre or about $27 million for a chunk big enough to build a stadium on - parking not included, and the price is likely a bit higher now that the property is officially up for grabs. So you're probably talking somewhere between $250 and $300 million total, assuming you find the right chunk of land to build on. You could build an erector set (Houston) for probably 150-200M in San Diego. (sans land acquisition, etc.) But to draw a comparison. Colorado State is finishing up what started out as a 220M stadium and they owned the land. Colorado just completed our Facilities Project last year. We started out with a 166M cost - final cost was 194M. That was just for our facilities. Then take building/construction costs in San Diego vs. building in Colorado or Texas. You have to assume SDSU has a partner like Manchester or JMI locked and loaded. There is just no way SDSU would try and kill FS in hopes it fails so they can then go through the process of MAYBE getting the land then building an erector set stadium down the road. This whole thing is such a standard San Diego Cluster ****. Really hope SDSU/Manchester have something worked out. I am hoping that the $150 million figure is something that SDSU will put towards the building of a stadium. $150 million won't get us very much if that's all there is. Or maybe--the school has that set aside (I don't know how) and there are other big-money donors just waiting in the wings for this to go SDSU's way. Either way, I would sure like to see a plan that shows just what SDSU will do if they get the property they are after in MV.
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on May 18, 2017 16:01:35 GMT -8
You could build an erector set (Houston) for probably 150-200M in San Diego. (sans land acquisition, etc.) But to draw a comparison. Colorado State is finishing up what started out as a 220M stadium and they owned the land. Colorado just completed our Facilities Project last year. We started out with a 166M cost - final cost was 194M. That was just for our facilities. Then take building/construction costs in San Diego vs. building in Colorado or Texas. You have to assume SDSU has a partner like Manchester or JMI locked and loaded. There is just no way SDSU would try and kill FS in hopes it fails so they can then go through the process of MAYBE getting the land then building an erector set stadium down the road. This whole thing is such a standard San Diego Cluster ****. Really hope SDSU/Manchester have something worked out. I am hoping that the $150 million figure is something that SDSU will put towards the building of a stadium. $150 million won't get us very much if that's all there is. Or maybe--the school has that set aside (I don't know how) and there are other big-money donors just waiting in the wings for this to go SDSU's way. Either way, I would sure like to see a plan that shows just what SDSU will do if they get the property they are after in MV. Unfortunately I have a feeling we will have to wait until Roush is officially on campus before any plan is released. In the meantime, I hope they are gathering all the little details and will have it totally ready.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on May 18, 2017 16:03:06 GMT -8
SDSU is making the best decision possible by not siding with FS. By opening up our affiliation, we can lobby for the best deal with other investors, or try and do our own thing completely. By requesting the RFP, we lengthen the process and put more pressure on FS to either come back to the table with a much better offer, or fold. This is not a 5 month decision, this is a 50 year decision. Rushing into a deal we don't particularly like with FS would leave to decades of regret and "what ifs".
Right now, we are the hottest girl in town, looking for a date to the ball. Every investor knows they need to take our needs into consideration if they want to win. Really hope there is a lot of pressure from SDSU and other investors on city Council and the mayor to go with the RFP.
I believe in Wicker and SDSU. And, as I've said before, the worst thing that can happen is we end up in a brand new 30k seat stadium. Why not shoot for the stars, this is our biggest opportunity for SDSU West and our own stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2017 16:06:18 GMT -8
SDSU is making the best decision possible by not siding with FS. By opening up our affiliation, we can lobby for the best deal with other investors, or try and do our own thing completely. By requesting the RFP, we lengthen the process and put more pressure on FS to either come back to the table with a much better offer, or fold. This is not a 5 month decision, this is a 50 year decision. Rushing into a deal we don't particularly like with FS would leave to decades of regret and "what ifs". Right now, we are the hottest girl in town, looking for a date to the ball. Every investor knows they need to take our needs into consideration if they want to win. Really hope there is a lot of pressure from SDSU and other investors on city Council and the mayor to go with the RFP. I believe in Wicker and SDSU. And, as I've said before, the worst thing that can happen is we end up in a brand new 30k seat stadium. Why not shoot for the stars, this is our biggest opportunity for SDSU West and our own stadium. Actually, if the FSI thing passes, and if we aren't "on board", we would end up in a 22,000 seat stadium.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on May 18, 2017 17:20:16 GMT -8
SDSU is making the best decision possible by not siding with FS. By opening up our affiliation, we can lobby for the best deal with other investors, or try and do our own thing completely. By requesting the RFP, we lengthen the process and put more pressure on FS to either come back to the table with a much better offer, or fold. This is not a 5 month decision, this is a 50 year decision. Rushing into a deal we don't particularly like with FS would leave to decades of regret and "what ifs". Right now, we are the hottest girl in town, looking for a date to the ball. Every investor knows they need to take our needs into consideration if they want to win. Really hope there is a lot of pressure from SDSU and other investors on city Council and the mayor to go with the RFP. I believe in Wicker and SDSU. And, as I've said before, the worst thing that can happen is we end up in a brand new 30k seat stadium. Why not shoot for the stars, this is our biggest opportunity for SDSU West and our own stadium. Actually, if the FSI thing passes, and if we aren't "on board", we would end up in a 22,000 seat stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2017 18:06:49 GMT -8
It doesn't change what I said. If SDSU isn't on board, it's a 22,000 seat stadium.
|
|