|
Post by rebar619 on May 13, 2017 18:58:43 GMT -8
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. Sorry man, you are really out of touch on some of this. Like I said before, negotiations are NOT going well for SDSU, and that is coming from someone involved in negotiations. I don't totally agree with Bolt, but at least he is being realistic. Your myopia and trolling are tiresome and don't add to the conversation. So far we have seen NOTHING from SDSU since the SDSU West watercolors over a year ago. Focus your ire on the lack of vision and leadership on campus, not Bolt.
|
|
|
Post by giju on May 13, 2017 22:21:32 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! I agree. Why the f%#^ are we talking Padres on an Aztecs thread...get that out of here
|
|
|
Post by La Mesa Aztec on May 13, 2017 22:49:39 GMT -8
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. It's called an inferiority complex. The NFL is relevant. Some of NCAA football is too, like Colorado's conference. But the MGC is not.
|
|
|
Post by jmarshall on May 13, 2017 22:55:37 GMT -8
Perhaps you two should get a room?
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on May 14, 2017 8:30:47 GMT -8
If this is true it needs to happen now and the FS plan needs to be flushed. Since nobody at the UT has picked up on this I think Kaplan's info is suspect.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 14, 2017 9:07:58 GMT -8
If this is true it needs to happen now and the FS plan needs to be flushed. Since nobody at the UT has picked up on this I think Kaplan's info is suspect. Maybe Manchester has fully financed yet another rendering of a stadium.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 14, 2017 10:22:16 GMT -8
Perhaps you two should get a room? No perhaps about it.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 14, 2017 21:33:29 GMT -8
If this is true it needs to happen now and the FS plan needs to be flushed. Since nobody at the UT has picked up on this I think Kaplan's info is suspect. I love this idea but there is no way Manchester is building an NFL-sized stadium without an NFL team. And I don't see the NFL coming back to San Diego for a very long time, if ever. SDSU and FS need to come to an agreement.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on May 15, 2017 7:23:26 GMT -8
With all of the utter uncertainty, confusion and incompetence displayed by Sterky, Hirshy and now the Wickster, what is one to conclude about our future football recruiting success? These pretenders have handed this truncheon to our competitors. What recruits will want to go somewhere in which the school could have just slouched into a collapse of its FBS football program?
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on May 15, 2017 7:32:06 GMT -8
Perhaps you two should get a room? No perhaps about it. Too late. A Morning After Pill would be apropos.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 15, 2017 7:45:57 GMT -8
If this is true it needs to happen now and the FS plan needs to be flushed. Since nobody at the UT has picked up on this I think Kaplan's info is suspect. At least Kaplan gets info, good or bad. BR Smith just sits there and giggles.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on May 15, 2017 7:47:13 GMT -8
Too late. A Morning After Pill would be apropos. That's not nice.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 15, 2017 8:39:59 GMT -8
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. So again, the land is not officially up for sale for competitive bids. Credit to FS for going ahead with building their initiative. But anyone expecting SDSU to come out with their own proposal is not being reasonable. They have stated from the beginning they are seeking a partnership in the development. Any developer partner wether FS, Manchester, Moores will all want to make money on development. Everyone knows that. The problem is why does the FS group not want a partner with SDSU? Why do they want to lord over the University and take all of the available land for themselves? Thats not right. Thats what the issue really is. The stadium size is a similar issue but to a lesser degree. Also, the leak that Manchester has a plan with SDSU is only information right now. If its true, then i believe he and SDSU have worked on a slightly different plan than the previous renderings he released a few months back. But until then you cant assume what it will or wont have included.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on May 15, 2017 10:59:32 GMT -8
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. So again, the land is not officially up for sale for competitive bids. Credit to FS for going ahead with building their initiative. But anyone expecting SDSU to come out with their own proposal is not being reasonable. They have stated from the beginning they are seeking a partnership in the development. Any developer partner wether FS, Manchester, Moores will all want to make money on development. Everyone knows that. The problem is why does the FS group not want a partner with SDSU? Why do they want to lord over the University and take all of the available land for themselves? Thats not right. Thats what the issue really is. The stadium size is a similar issue but to a lesser degree. Also, the leak that Manchester has a plan with SDSU is only information right now. If its true, then i believe he and SDSU have worked on a slightly different plan than the previous renderings he released a few months back. But until then you cant assume what it will or wont have included. As I understand it, SDSU has no short term goals for developing much of the site and the FS proposal does take care of some of their immediate needs. They have some long term goals for expansion. They do need a stadium by 2020 if they want to keep the football program and they don't have the money to procure land and build that on their own. As you say, they need a partner and that partner is going to want to develop the site now, not beginning 20 or 30 years from now. The city would like to eliminate their costs associated with maintaining the Q and they would also like to see tax revenue from developing the site so they are not going to want to wait decades either. They also want to see a park along the river which increases the cost of the development while restricting income to the developer. The needs of the university for a football stadium built exactly they way they want is not going to be the priority of any developer. If the university wants control of the property they should have had a plan out months ago but, of course, a plan is no good without the money to at least convince someone you can and will implement it. SDSU has a lot of land they already own for university expansion. They own much of the land around Alvarado Hospital (and they have some long term plans for redevelopment there advancement.sdsu.edu/masterplan/2007/images/Alvarado%20Campus%20lowres.jpg), they have numerous parking lots (not the highest and best use of the property) that they can build on, and they have areas on the campus that can be redeveloped. If Hardy Elementary is ever shuttered they should pursue that land vigorously though they would never get approval for a stadium to be built there. Personally, I prefer keeping as much of the academic and "on campus" living areas on the campus itself as possible. If the CSU charter ever changes to allow CSU schools to have law or med schools then that campus can be separate from the main campus with little impact on the students
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on May 15, 2017 12:44:12 GMT -8
So again, the land is not officially up for sale for competitive bids. Credit to FS for going ahead with building their initiative. But anyone expecting SDSU to come out with their own proposal is not being reasonable. They have stated from the beginning they are seeking a partnership in the development. Any developer partner wether FS, Manchester, Moores will all want to make money on development. Everyone knows that. The problem is why does the FS group not want a partner with SDSU? Why do they want to lord over the University and take all of the available land for themselves? Thats not right. Thats what the issue really is. The stadium size is a similar issue but to a lesser degree. Also, the leak that Manchester has a plan with SDSU is only information right now. If its true, then i believe he and SDSU have worked on a slightly different plan than the previous renderings he released a few months back. But until then you cant assume what it will or wont have included. As I understand it, SDSU has no short term goals for developing much of the site and the FS proposal does take care of some of their immediate needs. They have some long term goals for expansion. They do need a stadium by 2020 if they want to keep the football program and they don't have the money to procure land and build that on their own. As you say, they need a partner and that partner is going to want to develop the site now, not beginning 20 or 30 years from now. The city would like to eliminate their costs associated with maintaining the Q and they would also like to see tax revenue from developing the site so they are not going to want to wait decades either. They also want to see a park along the river which increases the cost of the development while restricting income to the developer. The needs of the university for a football stadium built exactly they way they want is not going to be the priority of any developer. If the university wants control of the property they should have had a plan out months ago but, of course, a plan is no good without the money to at least convince someone you can and will implement it. SDSU has a lot of land they already own for university expansion. They own much of the land around Alvarado Hospital (and they have some long term plans for redevelopment there advancement.sdsu.edu/masterplan/2007/images/Alvarado%20Campus%20lowres.jpg), they have numerous parking lots (not the highest and best use of the property) that they can build on, and they have areas on the campus that can be redeveloped. If Hardy Elementary is ever shuttered they should pursue that land vigorously though they would never get approval for a stadium to be built there. Personally, I prefer keeping as much of the academic and "on campus" living areas on the campus itself as possible. If the CSU charter ever changes to allow CSU schools to have law or med schools then that campus can be separate from the main campus with little impact on the students You seem to not believe any of SDSU's stances on the MV site. The only immediate need the FS plan takes care of is a place to play football. But none of that deal is partnership material. No cost effective expansion, and not the revenue structures SDSU claims are not on a partnership level either. As for developing the land, you are taking one sound bite you heard from one person about taking 20-30 years to develop the land and are running with it like many soccer honks around town. They did say they would immediately begin to develop the land, but it would no doubt take many years to get to completion. And as for campus expansion it all just depends on what direction their vision aims for. But just as Scott Lewis from Voice of SD noted, the soccer city proposal is not the only plan that will generate a tax base. ANYTHING that is developed there on the site will generate a positive tax base compared to what is currently there. Maybe its true like others have noted, that i see things with only my red & black goggles on but I'm really curious since you dont seem to believe the University on ANY of their stances, What do you think is the motivation for SDSU not supporting the FS deal? If its such a great deal for them, why do you think they are so opposed to it? These investors ARE SDSU donors after all right? Why would SDSU take such an opposing stance against them, if the deal is such a good one?
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 15, 2017 13:14:01 GMT -8
As I understand it, SDSU has no short term goals for developing much of the site and the FS proposal does take care of some of their immediate needs. They have some long term goals for expansion. They do need a stadium by 2020 if they want to keep the football program and they don't have the money to procure land and build that on their own. As you say, they need a partner and that partner is going to want to develop the site now, not beginning 20 or 30 years from now. The city would like to eliminate their costs associated with maintaining the Q and they would also like to see tax revenue from developing the site so they are not going to want to wait decades either. They also want to see a park along the river which increases the cost of the development while restricting income to the developer. The needs of the university for a football stadium built exactly they way they want is not going to be the priority of any developer. If the university wants control of the property they should have had a plan out months ago but, of course, a plan is no good without the money to at least convince someone you can and will implement it. SDSU has a lot of land they already own for university expansion. They own much of the land around Alvarado Hospital (and they have some long term plans for redevelopment there advancement.sdsu.edu/masterplan/2007/images/Alvarado%20Campus%20lowres.jpg), they have numerous parking lots (not the highest and best use of the property) that they can build on, and they have areas on the campus that can be redeveloped. If Hardy Elementary is ever shuttered they should pursue that land vigorously though they would never get approval for a stadium to be built there. Personally, I prefer keeping as much of the academic and "on campus" living areas on the campus itself as possible. If the CSU charter ever changes to allow CSU schools to have law or med schools then that campus can be separate from the main campus with little impact on the students You seem to not believe any of SDSU's stances on the MV site. The only immediate need the FS plan takes care of is a place to play football. But none of that deal is partnership material. No cost effective expansion, and not the revenue structures SDSU claims are not on a partnership level either. As for developing the land, you are taking one sound bite you heard from one person about taking 20-30 years to develop the land and are running with it like many soccer honks around town. They did say they would immediately begin to develop the land, but it would no doubt take many years to get to completion. And as for campus expansion it all just depends on what direction their vision aims for. But just as Scott Lewis from Voice of SD noted, the soccer city proposal is not the only plan that will generate a tax base. ANYTHING that is developed there on the site will generate a positive tax base compared to what is currently there. Maybe its true like others have noted, that i see things with only my red & black goggles on but I'm really curious since you dont seem to believe the University on ANY of their stances, What do you think is the motivation for SDSU not supporting the FS deal? If its such a great deal for them, why do you think they are so opposed to it? These investors ARE SDSU donors after all right? Why would SDSU take such an opposing stance against them, if the deal is such a good one? The biggest problem is that SDSU has really given the public nothing to consider. Even the SDSU West concept that was floated last year is distant memory to the general public. The FS horse is out of the barn and running. If it is not too late already, it soon will be to get it back. Again, the biggest issue many of us have is that SDSU never had a plan. A large part of that is a funding plan for a stadium and for campus expansion. There has to be a vision and leadership to make that happen. If you wait for the opportunity to come to plan it is too late.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 15, 2017 13:49:38 GMT -8
As I understand it, SDSU has no short term goals for developing much of the site and the FS proposal does take care of some of their immediate needs. They have some long term goals for expansion. They do need a stadium by 2020 if they want to keep the football program and they don't have the money to procure land and build that on their own. As you say, they need a partner and that partner is going to want to develop the site now, not beginning 20 or 30 years from now. The city would like to eliminate their costs associated with maintaining the Q and they would also like to see tax revenue from developing the site so they are not going to want to wait decades either. They also want to see a park along the river which increases the cost of the development while restricting income to the developer. The needs of the university for a football stadium built exactly they way they want is not going to be the priority of any developer. If the university wants control of the property they should have had a plan out months ago but, of course, a plan is no good without the money to at least convince someone you can and will implement it. SDSU has a lot of land they already own for university expansion. They own much of the land around Alvarado Hospital (and they have some long term plans for redevelopment there advancement.sdsu.edu/masterplan/2007/images/Alvarado%20Campus%20lowres.jpg), they have numerous parking lots (not the highest and best use of the property) that they can build on, and they have areas on the campus that can be redeveloped. If Hardy Elementary is ever shuttered they should pursue that land vigorously though they would never get approval for a stadium to be built there. Personally, I prefer keeping as much of the academic and "on campus" living areas on the campus itself as possible. If the CSU charter ever changes to allow CSU schools to have law or med schools then that campus can be separate from the main campus with little impact on the students You seem to not believe any of SDSU's stances on the MV site. The only immediate need the FS plan takes care of is a place to play football. But none of that deal is partnership material. No cost effective expansion, and not the revenue structures SDSU claims are not on a partnership level either. As for developing the land, you are taking one sound bite you heard from one person about taking 20-30 years to develop the land and are running with it like many soccer honks around town. They did say they would immediately begin to develop the land, but it would no doubt take many years to get to completion. And as for campus expansion it all just depends on what direction their vision aims for. But just as Scott Lewis from Voice of SD noted, the soccer city proposal is not the only plan that will generate a tax base. ANYTHING that is developed there on the site will generate a positive tax base compared to what is currently there. Maybe its true like others have noted, that i see things with only my red & black goggles on but I'm really curious since you dont seem to believe the University on ANY of their stances, What do you think is the motivation for SDSU not supporting the FS deal? If its such a great deal for them, why do you think they are so opposed to it? These investors ARE SDSU donors after all right? Why would SDSU take such an opposing stance against them, if the deal is such a good one? And don't forget FS will simply be the Master Developer & have stated the site would take 15 years to build out.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on May 15, 2017 13:55:36 GMT -8
Folks, many on this board are giving FSI way too much credit...
Do you really believe that they are that much smarter than all of the other local or nation investors/developers? Do you really think they are the only ones who thought of using an initiative to bypass the local government and go directly to the community?
There is no way. It has been tried in SD County and failed and because of that no other group has decided to try it other than FSI.
It is not going to work this time either. From what I am hearing there is a good chance (75%) that there will not be a special election in the fall and even if there is it will fail and even if by a miracle it passes there will be multiple lawsuits filed almost immediately after the approval.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on May 15, 2017 14:00:05 GMT -8
Folks, many on this board are giving FSI way too much credit... Do you really believe that they are that much smarter than all of the other local or nation investors/developers? Do you really think they are the only ones who thought of using an initiative to bypass the local government and go directly to the community? There is no way. It has been tried in SD County and failed and because of that no other group has decided to try it other than FSI. It is not going to work this time either. From what I am hearing there is a good chance (75%) that there will not be a special election in the fall and even if there is it will fail and even if by a miracle it passes there will be multiple lawsuits filed almost immediately after the approval. That seems quite optimistic. The mayor has already called a special election for the convention center. Why would there not be an election for FSI to jump onto? Their polling is quite strong. That is recognized internally at SDSU. There becomes a point where opinion becomes fact because enough people buy into it. We are rapidly approaching the point where SoccerCity will be fait compli. The believe otherwise is just grasping at straws. Would love to see some solid evidence pointing to a different conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 15, 2017 15:18:36 GMT -8
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. So again, the land is not officially up for sale for competitive bids. Credit to FS for going ahead with building their initiative. But anyone expecting SDSU to come out with their own proposal is not being reasonable. They have stated from the beginning they are seeking a partnership in the development. Any developer partner wether FS, Manchester, Moores will all want to make money on development. Everyone knows that. The problem is why does the FS group not want a partner with SDSU? Why do they want to lord over the University and take all of the available land for themselves? Thats not right. Thats what the issue really is. The stadium size is a similar issue but to a lesser degree. Also, the leak that Manchester has a plan with SDSU is only information right now. If its true, then i believe he and SDSU have worked on a slightly different plan than the previous renderings he released a few months back. But until then you cant assume what it will or wont have included. Anyone who is not an expert in these type of dealings would have to think that since the City hasn't officially put the land up for sale that they are working on an under-the-table or backdoor deal with the soccer guys. As a taxpayer too I think this stinks of corruption.
|
|