|
Post by bolt1963 on May 12, 2017 5:35:23 GMT -8
Instead of Kaplan being positive about the prospect of SDSU partnering with Manchester, his commentary is filled with doubt and sarcasm. I agree he goes rather negative after dropping some potentially good news. But IF SDSU and Manchester are kicking the tires, he's simply pointing out the obvious. You are up against a serious running clock. And I am not going to use Kaplan as proof of anything, but very confident he's correct in that Qualcomm is getting razed after your 2018 season. Tick tick tick. I may be a Padres honk too, but could see them being good in 2019. Will hate having to deal with Aztec football at Petco. It doesn't work. Needs to be figured out and shovels in the ground.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 12, 2017 6:21:17 GMT -8
I mean, if they started collecting money for our own stadium, with the notion that it would be refunded if we went a different route (such as FS partnership), I would be more than willing to part with some cash. Perhaps show them (and ourselves) that we aren't messing around. Give us a viable plan and a minimum 40K seats and I would be in for a brick.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 12, 2017 6:23:08 GMT -8
Instead of Kaplan being positive about the prospect of SDSU partnering with Manchester, his commentary is filled with doubt and sarcasm. I agree he goes rather negative after dropping some potentially good news. But IF SDSU and Manchester are kicking the tires, he's simply pointing out the obvious. You are up against a serious running clock. And I am not going to use Kaplan as proof of anything, but very confident he's correct in that Qualcomm is getting razed after your 2018 season. Tick tick tick. I may be a Padres honk too, but could see them being good in 2019. Will hate having to deal with Aztec football at Petco. It doesn't work. Needs to be figured out and shovels in the ground. Sadly, I cannot see the Padres being good....EVER.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 12, 2017 6:27:02 GMT -8
They've got some young pieces already here and more in the way. I'd rather they go this path than try and compete for free agents and trading for expiring contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 12, 2017 6:50:01 GMT -8
You can't drop the field 13 feet. You hit standing water within 2 feet. It would require an active water drainage system. Dropping the field was looked at years ago (and it was only 4' IIRC) and the cost to install and operate the system made this a non starter.
|
|
|
Post by Old School on May 12, 2017 6:58:10 GMT -8
Just give SDSU a big enough stadium to play in. Everything else is just window dressing.
Oldie Out
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on May 12, 2017 7:31:02 GMT -8
Not trying to derail, but I may be a Padres honk too, but could see them being good in 2019. ![](https://media.tenor.co/images/26a69fce0e7eb4496626e757c4ec2e63/tenor.gif)
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 12, 2017 7:37:17 GMT -8
They've got some young pieces already here and more in the way. I'd rather they go this path than try and compete for free agents and trading for expiring contracts. The problem in the past has been that they develop young players and when they become good they let them go as too expensive. The Pads will never be really good again until they bite the bullet and pay the guys they develop.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 12, 2017 7:42:16 GMT -8
You can't drop the field 13 feet. You hit standing water within 2 feet. It would require an active water drainage system. Dropping the field was looked at years ago (and it was only 4' IIRC) and the cost to install and operate the system made this a non starter. I don't think the solution is dropping the field. I think you pick one "good" side(line) of the stadium... get rid of ~10 rows of seats and move the playing field up closer to that sideline (to effectively raise the seating perspective vs the field). Then the tough (most expensive) part would be de-constructing / reconstructing the opposite sideline to bring it over much closer to the (adjusted) field. Would probably entail effectively building a whole new sideline section, using the current infrastructure. Done this way... it's not improbable that such a project could be accomplished for under $300m and result in a nice 40k-ish seat stadium. And I'm sure SDSU / Manchester would be happy to offer favorable lease terms to a SD MLS franchise in the future.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 12, 2017 7:45:18 GMT -8
Instead of Kaplan being positive about the prospect of SDSU partnering with Manchester, his commentary is filled with doubt and sarcasm. Why the hell not. It is nothing but roomer and pipe dream right now. Contrast it with the FS proposal and the response should not be surprising.
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on May 12, 2017 8:01:54 GMT -8
They've got some young pieces already here and more in the way. I'd rather they go this path than try and compete for free agents and trading for expiring contracts. The problem in the past has been that they develop young players and when they become good they let them go as too expensive. The Pads will never be really good again until they bite the bullet and pay the guys they develop. ^^THIS!^^ ![:toast](//storage.proboards.com/2927646/images/EBFtJzkrb1Z_5hqKWHNI.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Old School on May 12, 2017 8:11:08 GMT -8
The Padres trying to do more with less....just ain't working. Go back to 1998 and use that team as your template, then open up the purse strings a little more.
Oldie Out
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on May 12, 2017 8:51:30 GMT -8
Sadly, I cannot see the Padres being good....EVER. My friend is convinced the Padres are stockpiling young talent and we're in store for some great teams. I disagreed, so I bet him: $100 the Padres don't with the Division in the next ten years. $100 the Padres don't win the Division twice in the next ten years. $500 the Padres don't win the Division in the next six years.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on May 12, 2017 9:03:32 GMT -8
How do you people take a thread about something extremely important to the future is SDSU and turn it into baseball, which is dead to most people. Take your padre talk elsewhere and show a little common sense!
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 12, 2017 15:04:07 GMT -8
You can't drop the field 13 feet. You hit standing water within 2 feet. It would require an active water drainage system. Dropping the field was looked at years ago (and it was only 4' IIRC) and the cost to install and operate the system made this a non starter. I don't think the solution is dropping the field. I think you pick one "good" side(line) of the stadium... get rid of ~10 rows of seats and move the playing field up closer to that sideline (to effectively raise the seating perspective vs the field). Then the tough (most expensive) part would be de-constructing / reconstructing the opposite sideline to bring it over much closer to the (adjusted) field. Would probably entail effectively building a whole new sideline section, using the current infrastructure. Done this way... it's not improbable that such a project could be accomplished for under $300m and result in a nice 40k-ish seat stadium. And I'm sure SDSU / Manchester would be happy to offer favorable lease terms to a SD MLS franchise in the future. There is nothing wrong with the Q that can't be solved with a few hundred (perhaps thousand) pounds of C4. The stadium was not designed for football and it sits in the middle of the lot. Building a structure inside it means its footprint is much larger than it needs to be. Raze it and build something new, it has served its purpose and is an eyesore. Building to half of it would make it an asymmetric eyesore. Before the Chargers left so many on here were calling for a new stadium and used attracting a MSL team to help finance it. Now that the Chargers are gone now having a group who wants to bring a MSL team in to build a multi-use stadium and they are now an enemy because they want to develop the site and it may not be exactly what SDSU wants right now. So we look to Moores or Manchester (both developers) as somehow they are people who are going to put SDSU first. I saw someone post that $300M is chump change for Manchester. Sorry, he didn't get rich by throwing money away, he got there by leveraging it. SDSU doesn't have the money to develop the Q site, if they did they would have made a move to do so as soon as the Chargers left. Their needs for a campus expansion and stadium can have a positive influence for the developer they finally get behind (if they actually ever do so) but they are being used as a selling point and will be taking the back seat when it comes to driving the development of the property. If you want to be in the driver's seat you have to be the one driving and SDSU doesn't have the keys.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on May 12, 2017 15:25:31 GMT -8
To bring this thread back to where it belongs I found not a word about this new proposal in the UT print edition today. Instead yet another pr story for FS touting soccer stars as advocates.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 12, 2017 15:25:57 GMT -8
I don't think the solution is dropping the field. I think you pick one "good" side(line) of the stadium... get rid of ~10 rows of seats and move the playing field up closer to that sideline (to effectively raise the seating perspective vs the field). Then the tough (most expensive) part would be de-constructing / reconstructing the opposite sideline to bring it over much closer to the (adjusted) field. Would probably entail effectively building a whole new sideline section, using the current infrastructure. Done this way... it's not improbable that such a project could be accomplished for under $300m and result in a nice 40k-ish seat stadium. And I'm sure SDSU / Manchester would be happy to offer favorable lease terms to a SD MLS franchise in the future. There is nothing wrong with the Q that can't be solved with a few hundred (perhaps thousand) pounds of C4. The stadium was not designed for football and it sits in the middle of the lot. Building a structure inside it means its footprint is much larger than it needs to be. Raze it and build something new, it has served its purpose and is an eyesore. Building to half of it would make it an asymmetric eyesore. Before the Chargers left so many on here were calling for a new stadium and used attracting a MSL team to help finance it. Now that the Chargers are gone now having a group who wants to bring a MSL team in to build a multi-use stadium and they are now an enemy because they want to develop the site and it may not be exactly what SDSU wants right now. So we look to Moores or Manchester (both developers) as somehow they are people who are going to put SDSU first. I saw someone post that $300M is chump change for Manchester. Sorry, he didn't get rich by throwing money away, he got there by leveraging it. SDSU doesn't have the money to develop the Q site, if they did they would have made a move to do so as soon as the Chargers left. Their needs for a campus expansion and stadium can have a positive influence for the developer they finally get behind (if they actually ever do so) but they are being used as a selling point and will be taking the back seat when it comes to driving the development of the property. If you want to be in the driver's seat you have to be the one driving and SDSU doesn't have the keys. 1. So you dont feel that SDSU should have the opportunity to buy and develop a percentage of the land aside from the stadium itself? Becuase from what i understand under the Soccer City group and their plan they want all the land themselves and then lease it to SDSU. That would make SDSU a tenant. So you would actually be okay with them lording over the University like that? 2. That $300 mil figure for Manchester for building a stadium would be as a partner with SDSU who could pay the other half of $150 mil. 3. Still dont understand how so many just gloss over the fact that the stadium land has not gone under the for sale process. Yes the FS was the only group with an initiative, but if the land would be put up for sale, there would be more developers looking to go in with SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on May 12, 2017 16:08:23 GMT -8
If this is true it needs to happen now and the FS plan needs to be flushed.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 12, 2017 16:08:25 GMT -8
There is nothing wrong with the Q that can't be solved with a few hundred (perhaps thousand) pounds of C4. The stadium was not designed for football and it sits in the middle of the lot. Building a structure inside it means its footprint is much larger than it needs to be. Raze it and build something new, it has served its purpose and is an eyesore. Building to half of it would make it an asymmetric eyesore. Before the Chargers left so many on here were calling for a new stadium and used attracting a MSL team to help finance it. Now that the Chargers are gone now having a group who wants to bring a MSL team in to build a multi-use stadium and they are now an enemy because they want to develop the site and it may not be exactly what SDSU wants right now. So we look to Moores or Manchester (both developers) as somehow they are people who are going to put SDSU first. I saw someone post that $300M is chump change for Manchester. Sorry, he didn't get rich by throwing money away, he got there by leveraging it. SDSU doesn't have the money to develop the Q site, if they did they would have made a move to do so as soon as the Chargers left. Their needs for a campus expansion and stadium can have a positive influence for the developer they finally get behind (if they actually ever do so) but they are being used as a selling point and will be taking the back seat when it comes to driving the development of the property. If you want to be in the driver's seat you have to be the one driving and SDSU doesn't have the keys. 1. So you dont feel that SDSU should have the opportunity to buy and develop a percentage of the land aside from the stadium itself? Becuase from what i understand under the Soccer City group and their plan they want all the land themselves and then lease it to SDSU. That would make SDSU a tenant. So you would actually be okay with them lording over the University like that? 2. That $300 mil figure for Manchester for building a stadium would be as a partner with SDSU who could pay the other half of $150 mil. 3. Still dont understand how so many just gloss over the fact that the stadium land has not gone under the for sale process. Yes the FS was the only group with an initiative, but if the land would be put up for sale, there would be more developers looking to go in with SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 12, 2017 16:22:05 GMT -8
There is nothing wrong with the Q that can't be solved with a few hundred (perhaps thousand) pounds of C4. The stadium was not designed for football and it sits in the middle of the lot. Building a structure inside it means its footprint is much larger than it needs to be. Raze it and build something new, it has served its purpose and is an eyesore. Building to half of it would make it an asymmetric eyesore. Before the Chargers left so many on here were calling for a new stadium and used attracting a MSL team to help finance it. Now that the Chargers are gone now having a group who wants to bring a MSL team in to build a multi-use stadium and they are now an enemy because they want to develop the site and it may not be exactly what SDSU wants right now. So we look to Moores or Manchester (both developers) as somehow they are people who are going to put SDSU first. I saw someone post that $300M is chump change for Manchester. Sorry, he didn't get rich by throwing money away, he got there by leveraging it. SDSU doesn't have the money to develop the Q site, if they did they would have made a move to do so as soon as the Chargers left. Their needs for a campus expansion and stadium can have a positive influence for the developer they finally get behind (if they actually ever do so) but they are being used as a selling point and will be taking the back seat when it comes to driving the development of the property. If you want to be in the driver's seat you have to be the one driving and SDSU doesn't have the keys. 1. So you dont feel that SDSU should have the opportunity to buy and develop a percentage of the land aside from the stadium itself? Becuase from what i understand under the Soccer City group and their plan they want all the land themselves and then lease it to SDSU. That would make SDSU a tenant. So you would actually be okay with them lording over the University like that? 2. That $300 mil figure for Manchester for building a stadium would be as a partner with SDSU who could pay the other half of $150 mil. 3. Still dont understand how so many just gloss over the fact that the stadium land has not gone under the for sale process. Yes the FS was the only group with an initiative, but if the land would be put up for sale, there would be more developers looking to go in with SDSU. 1. Didn't say that. But has the university proposed to do anything with the site? They have the opportunity to bid for the whole property but they haven't proposed to do a damn thing, they have just said that they don't like what others are proposing. 2. I don't trust that Manchester is going to be a savior to SDSU and neither do I think Moores will be (he wanted a MSL franchise as well but he mostly just wants the property). Both are looking at the property to make money. If you think differently then you are being naive. Any development of the property to include a stadium is going to require the developer to make money to do more than just zero that cost out. 3. The FS proposal stays under the acreage where that has to go up for a vote. It appears they will go through that process but right now it is the only proposal out there. Personally, I think the FS proposal is close enough that SDSU should be up front in working to meet the university's needs. Manchesters, which is an old proposal to keep the Chargers, includes a new sports arena. Sorry, that won't pencil out without a NBA or NHL tenant. There is not enough of a development to support building a stadium which is a money loser. The Q is going away. It won't, and shouldn't be saved. Time is pretty short to have another stadium built before 2020. That is just 3 years away.
|
|