|
Post by pbnative on May 18, 2017 18:21:47 GMT -8
It doesn't change what I said. If SDSU isn't on board, it's a 22,000 seat stadium. After Briggs is done with them... On Twitter it sounds like he is getting his poison pens ready to fill out a few lawsuit complaints.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 18, 2017 19:04:31 GMT -8
It doesn't change what I said. If SDSU isn't on board, it's a 22,000 seat stadium. Yes, but SDSU has until 1 December 2017 to join the party or not. Chew on that for a while........
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2017 19:57:33 GMT -8
It doesn't change what I said. If SDSU isn't on board, it's a 22,000 seat stadium. Yes, but SDSU has until 1 December 2017 to join the party or not. Chew on that for a while........ I'm not denying that. Nothing to chew on.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 18, 2017 20:06:03 GMT -8
Yes, but SDSU has until 1 December 2017 to join the party or not. Chew on that for a while........ I'm not denying that. Nothing to chew on. Then you wouldn't suggest that SDSU would be playing in a 22k seat stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 18, 2017 20:13:46 GMT -8
I'm not denying that. Nothing to chew on. Then you wouldn't suggest that SDSU would be playing in a 22k seat stadium. We are going back and forth. If the Aztecs join in (should it pass), they won't be playing in a 22,000 seat stadium. If they don't join in, they will be. But if they do join in, and those 2 buildings are still next to the stadium that would prevent the Aztecs from expanding the stadium in that direction, then they will have shat the bed. Frankly, I still don't think it will pass, which means the size of that stadium is irrelevant--it won't get built by FSI. There also appear to be doubts now by some people that the FSI proposal even goes on the ballot this November.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 19, 2017 3:59:34 GMT -8
Then you wouldn't suggest that SDSU would be playing in a 22k seat stadium. We are going back and forth. If the Aztecs join in (should it pass), they won't be playing in a 22,000 seat stadium. If they don't join in, they will be. But if they do join in, and those 2 buildings are still next to the stadium that would prevent the Aztecs from expanding the stadium in that direction, then they will have shat the bed. Frankly, I still don't think it will pass, which means the size of that stadium is irrelevant--it won't get built by FSI. There also appear to be doubts now by some people that the FSI proposal even goes on the ballot this November. Point is, if it passes, SDSU will join in or will build a stadium elsewhere. As such, SDSU will not be playing in a 23,000 seat stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 19, 2017 6:18:58 GMT -8
We are going back and forth. If the Aztecs join in (should it pass), they won't be playing in a 22,000 seat stadium. If they don't join in, they will be. But if they do join in, and those 2 buildings are still next to the stadium that would prevent the Aztecs from expanding the stadium in that direction, then they will have shat the bed. Frankly, I still don't think it will pass, which means the size of that stadium is irrelevant--it won't get built by FSI. There also appear to be doubts now by some people that the FSI proposal even goes on the ballot this November. Point is, if it passes, SDSU will join in or will build a stadium elsewhere. As such, SDSU will not be playing in a 23,000 seat stadium. If it passes, and SDSU decides to build a stadium elsewhere, where does SDSU play in the meantime? The Q will disappear quickly if FSI's plan passes.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 19, 2017 6:46:43 GMT -8
Point is, if it passes, SDSU will join in or will build a stadium elsewhere. As such, SDSU will not be playing in a 23,000 seat stadium. If it passes, and SDSU decides to build a stadium elsewhere, where does SDSU play in the meantime? The Q will disappear quickly if FSI's plan passes. It has already been stated they would just rent from FS. s#!++y, but a temporary problem.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 19, 2017 6:49:22 GMT -8
If it passes, and SDSU decides to build a stadium elsewhere, where does SDSU play in the meantime? The Q will disappear quickly if FSI's plan passes. It has already been stated they would just rent from FS. s#!++y, but a temporary problem. S#!++y indeed.
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on May 19, 2017 8:11:27 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 agree. Whoever made the decision to part ways with FSI, it was a gutsy move. A 22K-seat stadium is no stadium at all, and simply undermining the FSI guys in order to start the whole process over again is not a strategy. So it follows that somebody on the Mesa knows something about at least one solid alternative. The one man in this town who more often than not gets big projects to fruition is Manchester.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 19, 2017 8:38:04 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 agree. Whoever made the decision to part ways with FSI, it was a gutsy move. A 22K-seat stadium is no stadium at all, and simply undermining the FSI guys in order to start the whole process over again is not a strategy. So it follows that somebody on the Mesa knows something about at least one solid alternative. The one man in this town who more often than not gets big projects to fruition is Manchester. Not sure I see anything "gutsy" here. SDSU, according to news reports, had stopped discussions back in February, or earlier. A memo, stating the obvious, doesn't seem to give any particular intrepidity to this "decision".
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 19, 2017 12:33:49 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.
And all this time you bought into that silly pap that SDSU could not comment on this matter. Don't you feel a bit foolish and suckered?
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 19, 2017 13:34:46 GMT -8
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.
And all this time you bought into that silly pap that SDSU could not comment on this matter. Don't you feel a bit foolish and suckered? Nobody said they couldn't comment. SDSU has been commenting on their needs the entire time.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 19, 2017 14:54:32 GMT -8
And all this time you bought into that silly pap that SDSU could not comment on this matter. Don't you feel a bit foolish and suckered? Nobody said they couldn't comment. SDSU has been commenting on their needs the entire time. Oh I think you are mistaken. I was browbeat every time I mentioned that SDSU needed to speak up and state their intentions.
|
|