|
Post by mojo56 on May 13, 2017 8:37:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 13, 2017 9:03:02 GMT -8
Miss Palmieri, listen, while you have been busy carrying Hillary's bags for the past two decades, I've been busy soldiering, running a business, getting married (twice unfortunately), working in 27 different countries, taking care of family, and most importantly watching my beloved Aztecs since 1990. I understand the challenges you are facing are real. I understand the spin doctoring can be confusing. I know that the traffic heading north to Inglewood is a bear, but please, have fun up there, and show your elders some respect. The Woooood! You lost me at running a business. No way. You've demonstrated time and time again a complete lack of any business sense. But if any of the rest is true, then you're just sad. Grow up or be better. Listen Bolt man, I like you. That silly grin you cannot wipe off your face is actually kind of nice (Creepy as well though). There is a lot I can teach you regarding business, soldiering, marriage (certainly can learn from failures), training and overall good logic and life. With that, I don't think you want to learn anything. We have already gone over everyone of your silly assertions. I am just waiting to hear about how SDSU's "precarious" situation is going to put them "at risk" of losing football. Grab a Cup o Joe, fill the car up with gas, and head to Inglewood. You do get "The Wood" reference, right?
|
|
|
Post by badfish on May 13, 2017 10:33:23 GMT -8
You lost me at running a business. No way. You've demonstrated time and time again a complete lack of any business sense. But if any of the rest is true, then you're just sad. Grow up or be better. Listen Bolt man, I like you. That silly grin you cannot wipe off your face is actually kind of nice (Creepy as well though). There is a lot I can teach you regarding business, soldiering, marriage (certainly can learn from failures), training and overall good logic and life. With that, I don't think you want to learn anything. We have already gone over everyone of your silly assertions. I am just waiting to hear about how SDSU's "precarious" situation is going to put them "at risk" of losing football. Grab a Cup o Joe, fill the car up with gas, and head to Inglewood. You do get "The Wood" reference, right? I tried to find a PAC12 board to send him off to, but no luck.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on May 13, 2017 11:25:37 GMT -8
If this is true it needs to happen now and the FS plan needs to be flushed. I don't have time to look for it now, but there are seats that click on to a metal bar and when you design the stadium you build it for 40k seats at 26 (for example) inches width per seat. Then you tighten the space down to 23 inches for an NFL game and you would have north of 50k and with a collapsible seating section you could easily add another 10k. So going from 40k to 60k would not be hard. Then when you want to go down for soccer you give each seat 30 inches of width or so and take the stadium size down. It really isn't that hard and is in place now in other stadiums.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 13, 2017 12:21:51 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. Your assertion everyone's opinion has now changed is erroneous. You left out the part about creation of West Campus. If Wicker can be believed, and on this I don't see why he can't, the university was in fact discussing that concept with FSI for a year and a half as rumor had it was the case. However, when the FSI plan was released there was no mention of that whatsoever. Not even a middling 10% of the land would be set aside for SDSU if the FSI plan is implemented. In contrast, the Manchester idea does provide for campus expansion. And I'm not nor is anybody else here saying the Manchester idea would put SDSU first, simply that unlike the FSI plan, it wouldn't involve SDSU doing nothing more than paying for half of a SOCCER stadium. Of course not. Not immediately because all spare change would go to paying for half of SoccerCity but that doesn't mean SDSU won't have the required funds in a decade. And being used as a selling point? By whom and how? The only possible answer I can see is by FSI, to gather the required 100,000 petition signatures since it's well known many of FSI's signature gatherers were misleading voters to think that the university supports their plan.
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on May 13, 2017 13:20:24 GMT -8
I don't have time to look for it now, but there are seats that click on to a metal bar and when you design the stadium you build it for 40k seats at 26 (for example) inches width per seat. Then you tighten the space down to 23 inches for an NFL game and you would have north of 50k and with a collapsible seating section you could easily add another 10k. So going from 40k to 60k would not be hard. Then when you want to go down for soccer you give each seat 30 inches of width or so and take the stadium size down. It really isn't that hard and is in place now in other stadiums There are these like at Cowboy Stadium, and the Rose Bowl is using the same type of system... Then there are these types, but I am not sure if there has been an outdoor application... I could see using the movable seats in the main decks of the stadium, and adding the telescopic seats at the field level. The telescopic seats can be put out for NFL or larger SDSU/ Bowl games, and brought in for the MLS to expand the field width as well as reduce capacity.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 13, 2017 13:50:42 GMT -8
I don't have time to look for it now, but there are seats that click on to a metal bar and when you design the stadium you build it for 40k seats at 26 (for example) inches width per seat. Then you tighten the space down to 23 inches for an NFL game and you would have north of 50k and with a collapsible seating section you could easily add another 10k. So going from 40k to 60k would not be hard. Then when you want to go down for soccer you give each seat 30 inches of width or so and take the stadium size down. It really isn't that hard and is in place now in other stadiums There are these like at Cowboy Stadium, and the Rose Bowl is using the same type of system... Then there are these types, but I am not sure if there has been an outdoor application... I could see using the movable seats in the main decks of the stadium, and adding the telescopic seats at the field level. The telescopic seats can be put out for NFL or larger SDSU/ Bowl games, and brought in for the MLS to expand the field width as well as reduce capacity. Are these magic telescoping seats at field level really necessary? The reason I say that, is if there are seats right at field level (think: the Q field level seats), you are already staring at the backs of people on the sideline. Why not have the first row of seats elevated at a level that puts you above all of the people/players on the sideline of a football game? If memory serves me correctly, I believe the old Aztec Bowl was designed with that feature.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 13, 2017 14:03:45 GMT -8
Talk about something we've been over before. Do you ever contribute anything to a thread other than stupid trolling? Or am I giving you too much credit and you're just incredibly dense? I knew you weren't working with a lot the first time you started in on SDSU building your own 125 million stadium because Hirschman personally told you so. But damn kid. Come on. Be better. Now, now John. Don't get angry. Just head North to Inglewood. The rest of us will be busy watching SDSU win more championships. Bye Bye. Fanhood, the trolling about Inglewood is old. Just stop. It makes you look incredibly petty and small.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmouse on May 13, 2017 15:09:35 GMT -8
Now, now John. Don't get angry. Just head North to Inglewood. The rest of us will be busy watching SDSU win more championships. Bye Bye. Fanhood, the trolling about Inglewood is old. Just stop. It makes you look incredibly petty and small. Agreed. It actually weakens his stance, as it makes it seem like he's basically just plugging his ears and saying "nanana i can't hear you!" Either respond with respect or at least be clever about it.
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on May 13, 2017 16:18:55 GMT -8
There are these like at Cowboy Stadium, and the Rose Bowl is using the same type of system... Then there are these types, but I am not sure if there has been an outdoor application... I could see using the movable seats in the main decks of the stadium, and adding the telescopic seats at the field level. The telescopic seats can be put out for NFL or larger SDSU/ Bowl games, and brought in for the MLS to expand the field width as well as reduce capacity. Are these magic telescoping seats at field level really necessary? The reason I say that, is if there are seats right at field level (think: the Q field level seats), you are already staring at the backs of people on the sideline. Why not have the first row of seats elevated at a level that puts you above all of the people/players on the sideline of a football game? If memory serves me correctly, I believe the old Aztec Bowl was designed with that feature. I wouldn't put those in for those very reasons, but I guess they could be added at the back of the end zones. Seems like it would be a big expense for a small area where simple temporary bleachers could be rolled in. A lot of college stadium, especially older ones have seats right up to the edge of about a 5 foot wall, then the field sidelines.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 13, 2017 16:36:14 GMT -8
Fanhood, the trolling about Inglewood is old. Just stop. It makes you look incredibly petty and small. Agreed. It actually weakens his stance, as it makes it seem like he's basically just plugging his ears and saying "nanana i can't hear you!" Either respond with respect or at least be clever about it. Oh lord, I have responded no less than ten times. Refuting his very few direct statements. I'm tired. I just hope he has fun in Inglewood. Would you like to go?
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on May 13, 2017 16:40:20 GMT -8
Fanhood, the trolling about Inglewood is old. Just stop. It makes you look incredibly petty and small. Agreed. It actually weakens his stance, as it makes it seem like he's basically just plugging his ears and saying "nanana i can't hear you!" Either respond with respect or at least be clever about it. While I kind of agree with you two, I kind of understand his point. The guy is on a SDSU site and he doesn't care (his words) about SDSU and is a Colorado fan who is not on our future schedule, ever. He is a football fan, but likely won't go to any Aztec games this year. His only reason for being on this site is to get folks riled up about whether or. It the Aztecs will have anywhere to play in 2020 or 2021. It is really old and everyone has heard his points over and over and they are the same points, over and over. I would rather listen to the crazy guy from Cal ( El Droski) last year, because at least he had a stance on something relevant. It really is hard to understand and after reading his crap over and over one rational solution is to just say "buhby" every time he posts the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 13, 2017 16:42:43 GMT -8
Agreed. It actually weakens his stance, as it makes it seem like he's basically just plugging his ears and saying "nanana i can't hear you!" Either respond with respect or at least be clever about it. While I kind of agree with you two, I kind of understand his point. The guy is on a SDSU site and he doesn't care (his words) about SDSU and is a Colorado fan who is not on our future schedule, ever. He is a football fan, but likely won't go to any Aztec games this year. His only reason for being on this site is to get folks riled up about whether or. It the Aztecs will have anywhere to play in 2020 or 2021. It is really old and everyone has heard his points over and over and they are the same points, over and over. I would rather listen to the crazy guy from Cal ( El Droski) last year, because at least he had a stance on something relevant. It really is hard to understand and after reading his crap over and over one rational solution is to just say "buhby" every time he posts the same thing. ] I actually liked Droski, but he didn't have the decency to come back to eat crow after the loss.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 13, 2017 17:00:19 GMT -8
While I kind of agree with you two, I kind of understand his point. The guy is on a SDSU site and he doesn't care (his words) about SDSU and is a Colorado fan who is not on our future schedule, ever. He is a football fan, but likely won't go to any Aztec games this year. His only reason for being on this site is to get folks riled up about whether or. It the Aztecs will have anywhere to play in 2020 or 2021. It is really old and everyone has heard his points over and over and they are the same points, over and over. I would rather listen to the crazy guy from Cal ( El Droski) last year, because at least he had a stance on something relevant. It really is hard to understand and after reading his crap over and over one rational solution is to just say "buhby" every time he posts the same thing. ] I actually liked Droski, but he didn't have the decency to come back to eat crow after the loss. It was great to beat Cal in both Football & Basketball last year. Go Aztecs!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 17:01:45 GMT -8
Fanhood, the trolling about Inglewood is old. Just stop. It makes you look incredibly petty and small. Agreed. It actually weakens his stance, as it makes it seem like he's basically just plugging his ears and saying "nanana i can't hear you!" Either respond with respect or at least be clever about it. Well, if we are going to be totally honest here both of their positions are getting old. I can see both you and rebar agree with the buffalo's position, which is totally fine but it is just as old reading the same stuff from buffalo as it is fanhood. In my mind, however, fanhood gets a break because he is actually an Aztec fan and the Colorado guy is not. That's my opinion on it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 13, 2017 17:01:50 GMT -8
While I kind of agree with you two, I kind of understand his point. The guy is on a SDSU site and he doesn't care (his words) about SDSU and is a Colorado fan who is not on our future schedule, ever. He is a football fan, but likely won't go to any Aztec games this year. His only reason for being on this site is to get folks riled up about whether or. It the Aztecs will have anywhere to play in 2020 or 2021. It is really old and everyone has heard his points over and over and they are the same points, over and over. I would rather listen to the crazy guy from Cal ( El Droski) last year, because at least he had a stance on something relevant. It really is hard to understand and after reading his crap over and over one rational solution is to just say "buhby" every time he posts the same thing. Everyone is saying the same thing over and over. My posts are almost always in direct response to someone saying something that either isn't accurate or full of wishful thinking. Yes, I am a football fan. Yes, I am a San Diegan highly interested in what stadium gets built. Yes, I am a little bitter at the rhetoric and promises that were made when many on this board were ecstatic the Chargers could be leaving. Yes, I thought rooting for the Chargers to leave was extremely short sighted. No, I've never understood how Aztec fans can be so disrespectful towards the Aztecs who were fans of both. You'd never see CU fans treat the Donkeys like that. Yes, I am a little bitter at how many arguments I got into with people who told me all about these great plans that were a done deal. Yes, I am going to continue to hang around and see what shakes. Yes, I will continue to offer a perspective that isn't shaded through Red and Black glasses. No, I don't have anything against SDSU football. While I am not a "fan" - SDSU football will be the ONLY game in town for the countries 8th largest City. Yes, I find that disgusting and depressing. And finally - Yes, I understand I am not an Aztec and my posts are annoying. fanhood doesn't have the juice to try and tackle me with anything but trolls, moving the goal posts or putting words in my mouth. He's always posted from a position of weakness. My opinion may not be popular, but I have always welcomed anyone to disagree with cogent and valid arguments. Said it a hundred times, I think it will eventually work out. But this isn't playing out like many here thought it would. Including fanhood and his 125M stadium that was going to get built. He's taken two victory laps recently - for what? Let's put it another way. When a new stadium gets built in San Diego - I won't be coming around to eat crow because I have never said it won't happen. Only way I'll be eating crow is if SDSU steps up and builds on your own.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 13, 2017 17:15:25 GMT -8
While I kind of agree with you two, I kind of understand his point. The guy is on a SDSU site and he doesn't care (his words) about SDSU and is a Colorado fan who is not on our future schedule, ever. He is a football fan, but likely won't go to any Aztec games this year. His only reason for being on this site is to get folks riled up about whether or. It the Aztecs will have anywhere to play in 2020 or 2021. It is really old and everyone has heard his points over and over and they are the same points, over and over. I would rather listen to the crazy guy from Cal ( El Droski) last year, because at least he had a stance on something relevant. It really is hard to understand and after reading his crap over and over one rational solution is to just say "buhby" every time he posts the same thing. Everyone is saying the same thing over and over. My posts are almost always in direct response to someone saying something that either isn't accurate or full of wishful thinking. Yes, I am a football fan. Yes, I am a San Diegan highly interested in what stadium gets built. Yes, I am a little bitter at the rhetoric and promises that were made when many on this board were ecstatic the Chargers could be leaving. Yes, I thought rooting for the Chargers to leave was extremely short sighted. No, I've never understood how Aztec fans can be so disrespectful towards the Aztecs who were fans of both. You'd never see CU fans treat the Donkeys like that. Yes, I am a little bitter at how many arguments I got into with people who told me all about these great plans that were a done deal. Yes, I am going to continue to hang around and see what shakes. Yes, I will continue to offer a perspective that isn't shaded through Red and Black glasses. No, I don't have anything against SDSU football. While I am not a "fan" - SDSU football will be the ONLY game in town for the countries 8th largest City. Yes, I find that disgusting and depressing. And finally - Yes, I understand I am not an Aztec and my posts are annoying. fanhood doesn't have the juice to try and tackle me with anything but trolls, moving the goal posts or putting words in my mouth. He's always posted from a position of weakness. My opinion may not be popular, but I have always welcomed anyone to disagree with cogent and valid arguments. Said it a hundred times, I think it will eventually work out. But this isn't playing out like many here thought it would. Including fanhood and his 125M stadium that was going to get built. He's taken two victory laps recently - for what? SDSU's own spokesman saying they could build a stadium for close to the same number Hirshman stated. Plans being floated from competing developers. Multiple sources stating SDSU has leverage. JD Wicker stating he is negotiating with the mayor. FS Investors clearly speaking in compromising tones on the radio (subjective opinion, sure,)..........with the worst case scenario being SDSU plays in a s#!++y Soccer Stadium. But you know all this. Have fun in Inglewood.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 13, 2017 17:25:36 GMT -8
SDSU's own spokesman saying they could build a stadium for close to the same number Hirshman stated. Plans being floated from competing developers. Multiple sources stating SDSU has leverage. JD Wicker stating he is negotiating with the mayor. FS Investors clearly speaking in compromising tones on the radio (subjective opinion, sure,)..........with the worst case scenario being SDSU plays in a s#!++y Soccer Stadium. But you know all this. Have fun in Inglewood. 1. SDSU own spokesman said you could build a 30-35K seat stadium for close to 125M. You should be insulted at the absurdity. And it's never going to happen - so we'll move on. 2. Of course there are competing developers. There are 166 acres of prime real estate. So many on this board lose their **** when these developers want to make money vs. "giving SDSU what they want". 3. Leverage? Multiple sources? Your leverage exists in what I've been saying from jump. Whoever gets the land is going to play nice with SDSU to grease the skids. Your leverage is front and center with how much FS has been willing to bend. 4. Negotiating with the Mayor? Unless SDSU has the stroke to do it on their own - I think you mean pleading with the Mayor, not negotiating. 5. Compromising tones? Um, no. 6. The worse case scenario is no s#!++y soccer stadium gets built because FS fails in November. Then the City razes Qualcomm in 2018. I'd repeat myself for the 100th time here explaining the worst case scenario. But you obviously do not get it.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on May 13, 2017 17:42:59 GMT -8
SDSU's own spokesman saying they could build a stadium for close to the same number Hirshman stated. Plans being floated from competing developers. Multiple sources stating SDSU has leverage. JD Wicker stating he is negotiating with the mayor. FS Investors clearly speaking in compromising tones on the radio (subjective opinion, sure,)..........with the worst case scenario being SDSU plays in a s#!++y Soccer Stadium. But you know all this. Have fun in Inglewood. 1. SDSU own spokesman said you could build a 30-35K seat stadium for close to 125M. You should be insulted at the absurdity. And it's never going to happen - so we'll move on. 2. Of course there are competing developers. There are 166 acres of prime real estate. So many on this board lose their **** when these developers want to make money vs. "giving SDSU what they want". 3. Leverage? Multiple sources? Your leverage exists in what I've been saying from jump. Whoever gets the land is going to play nice with SDSU to grease the skids. Your leverage is front and center with how much FS has been willing to bend. 4. Negotiating with the Mayor? Unless SDSU has the stroke to do it on their own - I think you mean pleading with the Mayor, not negotiating. 5. Compromising tones? Um, no. 6. The worse case scenario is no s#!++y soccer stadium gets built because FS fails in November. Then the City razes Qualcomm in 2018. I'd repeat myself for the 100th time here explaining the worst case scenario. But you obviously do not get it. Cenk, you and Young Turks need to stop with the duplicitous propaganda. We have already discussed points 1-5. The fact the you cannot acknowledge that competing bids for "166 acres of prime real estate" will not include a football stadium just shows how dense you really are. Have fun at the next Bernie rally, and enjoy the drive to Inglewood.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 13, 2017 17:57:24 GMT -8
Cenk, you and Young Turks need to stop with the duplicitous propaganda. We have already discussed points 1-5. The fact the you cannot acknowledge that competing bids for "166 acres of prime real estate" will not include a football stadium just shows how dense you really are. Have fun at the next Bernie rally, and enjoy the drive to Inglewood. Duplicitous? Already discussed? Points 1-5 was in direct response to the 1-5 points you just made. Competing bids for the 166 acres will all include a stadium? What? In what world do you live? Regardless, for grins lets say that's accurate. You're up against a ticking clock man. I don't know how else to say it. Maybe I am constantly repeating myself because you don't understand 1+1 = 2. If FS fails in November - then you are already begging Fowler to float Petco for the 2020 season. Something they really do not want to do. Does that compute with you at all? Or do you not understand how long it takes to build a stadium? Not even counting all the time it's going to take to actually break ground once it's approved.
|
|