|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 13, 2017 21:05:49 GMT -8
She actually went further... Sally Roush Interview Q: You mentioned the Aztec football team and their future is a little bit squishy beyond 2018 when their lease with Qualcomm expires. What are the options there? A: Option No. 1 is for the city to come back to the table and extend our lease. That is a primary objective of mine is to get that lease extended. Secondarily, we want the lease extended for a sufficient period of time, probably two years is sufficient, to actually build a stadium. In order to do that we need to work with the city to identify a location on a site where we can move forward with stadium construction while the rest of the issues around the future use of the site are resolved. SDSU is working on solutions that can be approved and moved forward right now. As someone else said, they can't dance alone so the City has to participate... "To identify a location on THE site"... meaning a location on the Mission Valley/Qualcomm site. Yep!
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Jul 14, 2017 8:17:08 GMT -8
She actually went further... Sally Roush Interview Q: You mentioned the Aztec football team and their future is a little bit squishy beyond 2018 when their lease with Qualcomm expires. What are the options there? A: Option No. 1 is for the city to come back to the table and extend our lease. That is a primary objective of mine is to get that lease extended. Secondarily, we want the lease extended for a sufficient period of time, probably two years is sufficient, to actually build a stadium. In order to do that we need to work with the city to identify a location on a site where we can move forward with stadium construction while the rest of the issues around the future use of the site are resolved. SDSU is working on solutions that can be approved and moved forward right now. As someone else said, they can't dance alone so the City has to participate... "To identify a location on THE site"... meaning a location on the Mission Valley/Qualcomm site. Great adding points. None of this stadium situation is ideal on how it is going down. But its clear that Hirschman & SDSU wanted FS to work thru the channels SDSU could purchase the land because it didnt require public vote, initiative, etc. FS had other calculations to get what they wanted and wrote their initiative behind SDSU's back it seems spoiling any real chance to be a partnership. I believe this is why we are where we are-having to wait if MLS will extend their expansion decisions til after a 2018 November vote. I cant see that happening. A lease extension w/the Q definitely should be #1 priority in the immediate future.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 14, 2017 12:29:39 GMT -8
"To identify a location on THE site"... meaning a location on the Mission Valley/Qualcomm site. Great adding points. None of this stadium situation is ideal on how it is going down. But its clear that Hirschman & SDSU wanted FS to work thru the channels SDSU could purchase the land because it didnt require public vote, initiative, etc. FS had other calculations to get what they wanted and wrote their initiative behind SDSU's back it seems spoiling any real chance to be a partnership. I believe this is why we are where we are-having to wait if MLS will extend their expansion decisions til after a 2018 November vote. I cant see that happening. A lease extension w/the Q definitely should be #1 priority in the immediate future. IMO we will get a lease extension so long as we pay for operating costs of the Q sans the $5 million bond payment which I believe we can do with control of the stadium advertising, parking, naming rights and booking other events to help offset the costs. I also believe there will be no MLS bid for San Diego in the near term. Too many of the other 11 cities are going to have viable options. Perhaps MLS can happen in San Diego 5-10 years down the road. Not what MLS fans want to hear but for me I care about what is best for the long term interest of SDSU and Aztec football in Mission Valley. Unfortunately Soccer City San Diego is not in the best long term interest of the university or Aztec football. Go SDSU WEST! Go Aztecs!
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 17, 2017 9:06:17 GMT -8
Great adding points. None of this stadium situation is ideal on how it is going down. But its clear that Hirschman & SDSU wanted FS to work thru the channels SDSU could purchase the land because it didnt require public vote, initiative, etc. FS had other calculations to get what they wanted and wrote their initiative behind SDSU's back it seems spoiling any real chance to be a partnership. I believe this is why we are where we are-having to wait if MLS will extend their expansion decisions til after a 2018 November vote. I cant see that happening. A lease extension w/the Q definitely should be #1 priority in the immediate future. IMO we will get a lease extension so long as we pay for operating costs of the Q sans the $5 million bond payment which I believe we can do with control of the stadium advertising, parking, naming rights and booking other events to help offset the costs. I also believe there will be no MLS bid for San Diego in the near term. Too many of the other 11 cities are going to have viable options. Perhaps MLS can happen in San Diego 5-10 years down the road. Not what MLS fans want to hear but for me I care about what is best for the long term interest of SDSU and Aztec football in Mission Valley. Unfortunately Soccer City San Diego is not in the best long term interest of the university or Aztec football. Go SDSU WEST! Go Aztecs! I'm not so optimistic about a lease extension. The city contends the operating costs are $12 million a year (outside of the bond payment). What incentive, other than "let's not kill SDSU football", does the mayor have to extend the lease. We helped bury not just one, but two of his legacy projects. Council can not extend the lease. That comes directly from Mayor Jelly Fish. I just don't know how we are going to get them to all of a sudden say "ok, water under the bridge" and extend our lease. Hoping. Praying. Biting my nails.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 17, 2017 9:20:00 GMT -8
IMO we will get a lease extension so long as we pay for operating costs of the Q sans the $5 million bond payment which I believe we can do with control of the stadium advertising, parking, naming rights and booking other events to help offset the costs. I also believe there will be no MLS bid for San Diego in the near term. Too many of the other 11 cities are going to have viable options. Perhaps MLS can happen in San Diego 5-10 years down the road. Not what MLS fans want to hear but for me I care about what is best for the long term interest of SDSU and Aztec football in Mission Valley. Unfortunately Soccer City San Diego is not in the best long term interest of the university or Aztec football. Go SDSU WEST! Go Aztecs! I'm not so optimistic about a lease extension. The city contends the operating costs are $12 million a year (outside of the bond payment). What incentive, other than "let's not kill SDSU football", does the mayor have to extend the lease. We helped bury not just one, but two of his legacy projects. Council can not extend the lease. That comes directly from Mayor Jelly Fish. I just don't know how we are going to get them to all of a sudden say "ok, water under the bridge" and extend our lease. Hoping. Praying. Biting my nails. And yet Voice of San Diego broke down the costs associated with the Q, and of that $12 million annual stadium operating costs, $4.8 million (approximately) is the bond payment. Not to mention another $1.1 million the city had to pay police and fire services for all Charger games, which I imagine would pretty much disappear for Aztec games. That's about half of the $12 million right there. Finally, through the great lease terms the Chargers had with the city, the city basically paid the Chargers to play at the Q--the $3 million the Chargers paid in rent was more than offset by rent credits. Methinks the city is full of bovine excrement.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 17, 2017 9:23:48 GMT -8
I'm not so optimistic about a lease extension. The city contends the operating costs are $12 million a year (outside of the bond payment). What incentive, other than "let's not kill SDSU football", does the mayor have to extend the lease. We helped bury not just one, but two of his legacy projects. Council can not extend the lease. That comes directly from Mayor Jelly Fish. I just don't know how we are going to get them to all of a sudden say "ok, water under the bridge" and extend our lease. Hoping. Praying. Biting my nails. And yet Voice of San Diego broke down the costs associated with the Q, and of that $12 million annual stadium operating costs, $4.8 million (approximately) is the bond payment. Not to mention another $1.1 million the city had to pay police and fire services for all Charger games, which I imagine would pretty much disappear for Aztec games. That's about half of the $12 million right there. Finally, through the great lease terms the Chargers had with the city, the city basically paid the Chargers to play at the Q--the $3 million the Chargers paid in rent was more than offset by rent credits. Methinks the city is full of bovine excrement. Do you have a link to that VOSD story?
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Jul 17, 2017 9:54:21 GMT -8
And yet Voice of San Diego broke down the costs associated with the Q, and of that $12 million annual stadium operating costs, $4.8 million (approximately) is the bond payment. Not to mention another $1.1 million the city had to pay police and fire services for all Charger games, which I imagine would pretty much disappear for Aztec games. That's about half of the $12 million right there. Finally, through the great lease terms the Chargers had with the city, the city basically paid the Chargers to play at the Q--the $3 million the Chargers paid in rent was more than offset by rent credits. Methinks the city is full of bovine excrement. Do you have a link to that VOSD story? I have the breakdown here from the KabeerThirty blog posts. kabeerthirty.com/2017/06/12/sdsu-needs-to-step-up/SDSU is basically saying to the Mayor, look SoccerCity is dead, you can save face, dissociate yourself from that losing initiative and jump back on w/SDSU to form a good plan that will actually work. By signing a lease extension it would go a LONG ways in to restoring his relationship with the University moving forward passed SoccerCity. In my opinion i believe the Mayor is kissing the MLS Commissioner's @$$ so much right now trying to get an extension on their expansion selection so that the SoccerCity vote will matter in 2018. He is all in with FS investors. Again, SDSU is giving him a lifesaver out of the ocean and into their boat. I doubt he grabs it.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jul 17, 2017 9:58:39 GMT -8
I'm not so optimistic about a lease extension. The city contends the operating costs are $12 million a year (outside of the bond payment). What incentive, other than "let's not kill SDSU football", does the mayor have to extend the lease. We helped bury not just one, but two of his legacy projects. Council can not extend the lease. That comes directly from Mayor Jelly Fish. I just don't know how we are going to get them to all of a sudden say "ok, water under the bridge" and extend our lease. Hoping. Praying. Biting my nails. And yet Voice of San Diego broke down the costs associated with the Q, and of that $12 million annual stadium operating costs, $4.8 million (approximately) is the bond payment. Not to mention another $1.1 million the city had to pay police and fire services for all Charger games, which I imagine would pretty much disappear for Aztec games. That's about half of the $12 million right there. Finally, through the great lease terms the Chargers had with the city, the city basically paid the Chargers to play at the Q--the $3 million the Chargers paid in rent was more than offset by rent credits. Methinks the city is full of bovine excrement. Even if the real "costs" are closer to $3-4MM/year where does SDSU come up with that money? The athletic program struggles to finish in the black, and I really doubt suite sales and stadium naming rights over 2 extra years will make up the difference. The city will need to be extremely confident they can book the stadium with concerts, etc., to effectively bridge the gap. Plus, every year development is pushed is another year the development doesn't lead to new taxes & additional revenue, so opportunity costs come into play. I hope SDSU manages to get another year or two out of the lease but I definitely understand the city's position.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jul 17, 2017 10:03:48 GMT -8
Hoping the City extends SDSUs lease and keeps that garbage dump standing past their current obligations is not a plan. Never has been. The fact it's still being discussed in July 2017 is extremely alarming. I don't know how you guys are putting up with this crap, black and red glasses or not.
Still fully expect SDSU to get taken care of, but the level of incompetence to date is damn near unbelievable.
So much unadulterated BS the last couple years. But yay, the NFL is gone.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 17, 2017 10:07:28 GMT -8
Do you have a link to that VOSD story? I have the breakdown here from the KabeerThirty blog posts. kabeerthirty.com/2017/06/12/sdsu-needs-to-step-up/SDSU is basically saying to the Mayor, look SoccerCity is dead, you can save face, dissociate yourself from that losing initiative and jump back on w/SDSU to form a good plan that will actually work. By signing a lease extension it would go a LONG ways in to restoring his relationship with the University moving forward passed SoccerCity. In my opinion i believe the Mayor is kissing the MLS Commissioner's @$$ so much right now trying to get an extension on their expansion selection so that the SoccerCity vote will matter in 2018. He is all in with FS investors. Again, SDSU is giving him a lifesaver out of the ocean and into their boat. I doubt he grabs it. I agree. He has shown no loyalty to SDSU in this stadium debacle. He has all his eggs in the professional sports basket. Roush says we need to get the city back to the table. Making AztecMesa happy is not incentive enough to get the mayor back to the table with us. I just don't know where this is going ... especially with no ongoing conversations with FS. Seems like even making a show of fixing the FS/SDSU mess would help our relationship with the mayor at this point.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 17, 2017 10:18:42 GMT -8
I have the breakdown here from the KabeerThirty blog posts. kabeerthirty.com/2017/06/12/sdsu-needs-to-step-up/SDSU is basically saying to the Mayor, look SoccerCity is dead, you can save face, dissociate yourself from that losing initiative and jump back on w/SDSU to form a good plan that will actually work. By signing a lease extension it would go a LONG ways in to restoring his relationship with the University moving forward passed SoccerCity. In my opinion i believe the Mayor is kissing the MLS Commissioner's @$$ so much right now trying to get an extension on their expansion selection so that the SoccerCity vote will matter in 2018. He is all in with FS investors. Again, SDSU is giving him a lifesaver out of the ocean and into their boat. I doubt he grabs it. I agree. He has shown no loyalty to SDSU in this stadium debacle. He has all his eggs in the professional sports basket. Roush says we need to get the city back to the table. Making AztecMesa happy is not incentive enough to get the mayor back to the table with us. I just don't know where this is going ... especially with no ongoing conversations with FS. Seems like even making a show of fixing the FS/SDSU mess would help our relationship with the mayor at this point. SoccerCity is dying, if not already dead. As we have rehashed in other threads, the MLS has numerous viable bids, and will not award one to SD. Ultimately, the Mayor will not have a choice.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 17, 2017 10:25:12 GMT -8
I agree. He has shown no loyalty to SDSU in this stadium debacle. He has all his eggs in the professional sports basket. Roush says we need to get the city back to the table. Making AztecMesa happy is not incentive enough to get the mayor back to the table with us. I just don't know where this is going ... especially with no ongoing conversations with FS. Seems like even making a show of fixing the FS/SDSU mess would help our relationship with the mayor at this point. SoccerCity is dying, if not already dead. As we have rehashed in other threads, the MLS has numerous viable bids, and will not award one to SD. Ultimately, the Mayor will not have a choice. I wouldn't be so confident about that. I think the arbitrary timeline was just that. This is a very viable soccer town and until the MLS picks all four new cities, and San Diego is not one of them, SoccerCity is not dead. And it's on the ballot, not coming off of the ballot. So if there is still a city available come Nov. 18, it still has a chance. And with no plan from SDSU STILL, except urging the city to come back to the table and give us an extension, I'm not terribly confident right now in our future.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Jul 17, 2017 10:28:34 GMT -8
I have the breakdown here from the KabeerThirty blog posts. kabeerthirty.com/2017/06/12/sdsu-needs-to-step-up/SDSU is basically saying to the Mayor, look SoccerCity is dead, you can save face, dissociate yourself from that losing initiative and jump back on w/SDSU to form a good plan that will actually work. By signing a lease extension it would go a LONG ways in to restoring his relationship with the University moving forward passed SoccerCity. In my opinion i believe the Mayor is kissing the MLS Commissioner's @$$ so much right now trying to get an extension on their expansion selection so that the SoccerCity vote will matter in 2018. He is all in with FS investors. Again, SDSU is giving him a lifesaver out of the ocean and into their boat. I doubt he grabs it. I agree. He has shown no loyalty to SDSU in this stadium debacle. He has all his eggs in the professional sports basket. Roush says we need to get the city back to the table. Making AztecMesa happy is not incentive enough to get the mayor back to the table with us. I just don't know where this is going ... especially with no ongoing conversations with FS. Seems like even making a show of fixing the FS/SDSU mess would help our relationship with the mayor at this point. Many on here would argue with me i'm sure, or say i have my red & black glasses on. But when SDSU has said anything, they have been totally straight to the point. So when Roush says the SoccerCity deal is dead to SDSU, i believe it. And they've been saying that for months now. Anyone expecting (not making this personal at you) or wanting SDSU to come back to the table under this initiative by now just has not been paying attention or is just so bitter that the SoccerCity deal didnt work out that they dont want to truly listen to what SDSU has been saying. They negotiated for over a year with FS, with by SDSU's account, tried to pull one over on the University. If you believe SDSU when they say that, you wouldnt want or expect them to negotiate on the deal any further. If you dont believe SDSU when they say that, then i dont know what to tell you. That seems to be just the cold hard truth. As for not knowing where this is going, SDSU has said where they want it to go and where they are trying to get it to go. She said it plain & clear. The ball-again, is at the foot of the Mayor to right his course and make the lease extension happen, open up the land for bids, and allow SDSU to form that plan & make it ready for once the FS vote fails or is no longer relevant. Where this is going is up to which way the Mayor wants to take it.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 17, 2017 10:29:13 GMT -8
SoccerCity is dying, if not already dead. As we have rehashed in other threads, the MLS has numerous viable bids, and will not award one to SD. Ultimately, the Mayor will not have a choice. I wouldn't be so confident about that. I think the arbitrary timeline was just that. This is a very viable soccer town and until the MLS picks all four new cities, and San Diego is not one of them, SoccerCity is not dead. And it's on the ballot, not coming off of the ballot. So if there is still a city available come Nov. 18, it still has a chance. And with no plan from SDSU STILL, except urging the city to come back to the table and give us an extension, I'm not terribly confident right now in our future. Look at the breakdowns from the thread I created the other day about joining their club. Sacramento, Cincinnati, Nashville, Tampa Bay, San Antonio, Raleigh, Detroit, etc are all tracking forward. Sacramento and Cinci are basically sure things. Many of the other cities already have teams, and cities. SD will get a team sometime in 2024 when they expand to 32, but not this time around.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Jul 17, 2017 10:32:07 GMT -8
Hoping the City extends SDSUs lease and keeps that garbage dump standing past their current obligations is not a plan. Never has been. The fact it's still being discussed in July 2017 is extremely alarming. I don't know how you guys are putting up with this crap, black and red glasses or not. Still fully expect SDSU to get taken care of, but the level of incompetence to date is damn near unbelievable. So much unadulterated BS the last couple years. But yay, the NFL is gone. Agreed its not a plan, but it has never been said it was a plan-just a priority in a list of things to get done. What it IS-is the gate that needs to be opened, that will allow SDSU to make that plan happen so they are not evicted to Petco Park for 1-2 years. Otherwise the Mayor is basically saying he's going to fight SDSU tooth & nail to try and make SoccerCity happen and block anything SDSU has as a plan.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Jul 17, 2017 10:33:03 GMT -8
I wouldn't be so confident about that. I think the arbitrary timeline was just that. This is a very viable soccer town and until the MLS picks all four new cities, and San Diego is not one of them, SoccerCity is not dead. And it's on the ballot, not coming off of the ballot. So if there is still a city available come Nov. 18, it still has a chance. And with no plan from SDSU STILL, except urging the city to come back to the table and give us an extension, I'm not terribly confident right now in our future. Look at the breakdowns from the thread I created the other day about joining their club. Sacramento, Cincinnati, Nashville, Tampa Bay, San Antonio, Raleigh, Detroit, etc are all tracking forward. Sacramento and Cinci are basically sure things. Many of the other cities already have teams, and cities. SD will get a team sometime in 2024 when they expand to 32, but not this time around. Miami seems like a lock as well right? Thats already 3 cities that are far ahead of San Diego i believe.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 17, 2017 10:41:55 GMT -8
I agree. He has shown no loyalty to SDSU in this stadium debacle. He has all his eggs in the professional sports basket. Roush says we need to get the city back to the table. Making AztecMesa happy is not incentive enough to get the mayor back to the table with us. I just don't know where this is going ... especially with no ongoing conversations with FS. Seems like even making a show of fixing the FS/SDSU mess would help our relationship with the mayor at this point. Many on here would argue with me i'm sure, or say i have my red & black glasses on. But when SDSU has said anything, they have been totally straight to the point. So when Roush says the SoccerCity deal is dead to SDSU, i believe it. And they've been saying that for months now. Anyone expecting (not making this personal at you) or wanting SDSU to come back to the table under this initiative by now just has not been paying attention or is just so bitter that the SoccerCity deal didnt work out that they dont want to truly listen to what SDSU has been saying. They negotiated for over a year with FS, with by SDSU's account, tried to pull one over on the University. If you believe SDSU when they say that, you wouldnt want or expect them to negotiate on the deal any further. If you dont believe SDSU when they say that, then i dont know what to tell you. That seems to be just the cold hard truth. As for not knowing where this is going, SDSU has said where they want it to go and where they are trying to get it to go. She said it plain & clear. The ball-again, is at the foot of the Mayor to right his course and make the lease extension happen, open up the land for bids, and allow SDSU to form that plan & make it ready for once the FS vote fails or is no longer relevant. Where this is going is up to which way the Mayor wants to take it. I don't disagree. And I have heard very clearly what the university has said, have supported their position. But at this point - now they they succeeded in killing the special election and pissing off the mayor - hoping the mayor will all of a sudden come to his senses and realize he needs SDSU seems a bit far fetched. If he is still supporting SoccerCity, then he is NOT supporting SDSU, right? How do you fix that, without trying to fix the relationship with FS? I'm trying to be realistic here. And the reality is, we can tell them all we want what we think should happen, but the mayor is in control.
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 17, 2017 10:43:30 GMT -8
Hoping the City extends SDSUs lease and keeps that garbage dump standing past their current obligations is not a plan. Never has been. The fact it's still being discussed in July 2017 is extremely alarming. I don't know how you guys are putting up with this crap, black and red glasses or not. Still fully expect SDSU to get taken care of, but the level of incompetence to date is damn near unbelievable. So much unadulterated BS the last couple years. But yay, the NFL is gone. Agreed its not a plan, but it has never been said it was a plan-just a priority in a list of things to get done. What it IS-is the gate that needs to be opened, that will allow SDSU to make that plan happen so they are not evicted to Petco Park for 1-2 years. Otherwise the Mayor is basically saying he's going to fight SDSU tooth & nail to try and make SoccerCity happen and block anything SDSU has as a plan.Has the mayor shown any evidence to the contrary?
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Jul 17, 2017 10:44:15 GMT -8
Look at the breakdowns from the thread I created the other day about joining their club. Sacramento, Cincinnati, Nashville, Tampa Bay, San Antonio, Raleigh, Detroit, etc are all tracking forward. Sacramento and Cinci are basically sure things. Many of the other cities already have teams, and cities. SD will get a team sometime in 2024 when they expand to 32, but not this time around. Miami seems like a lock as well right? Thats already 3 cities that are far ahead of San Diego i believe. Until it is announced, it's all just speculation. And we will not be anyone's priority, until speculation is put to rest.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 17, 2017 10:47:10 GMT -8
I have the breakdown here from the KabeerThirty blog posts. kabeerthirty.com/2017/06/12/sdsu-needs-to-step-up/SDSU is basically saying to the Mayor, look SoccerCity is dead, you can save face, dissociate yourself from that losing initiative and jump back on w/SDSU to form a good plan that will actually work. By signing a lease extension it would go a LONG ways in to restoring his relationship with the University moving forward passed SoccerCity. In my opinion i believe the Mayor is kissing the MLS Commissioner's @$$ so much right now trying to get an extension on their expansion selection so that the SoccerCity vote will matter in 2018. He is all in with FS investors. Again, SDSU is giving him a lifesaver out of the ocean and into their boat. I doubt he grabs it. I agree. He has shown no loyalty to SDSU in this stadium debacle. He has all his eggs in the professional sports basket. Roush says we need to get the city back to the table. Making AztecMesa happy is not incentive enough to get the mayor back to the table with us. I just don't know where this is going ... especially with no ongoing conversations with FS. Seems like even making a show of fixing the FS/SDSU mess would help our relationship with the mayor at this point. There is no fixing the "FS/SDSU mess." SCSD and MLS are dead in San Diego in the near term. I will be very interested to see what comes from the upcoming city council meeting in a couple of weeks. Faulconer still has a chance to leave a legacy with his 120 year old alma mater if he wants. We will see.
|
|