Jump to content

SDSUfan

Members
  • Content count

    1,458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SDSUfan

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Team
    San Diego State
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Civilization
  1. LOL. Why? You see, I state my position and then you state yours. That is what is called an exchange of ideas or "discussion". How about you tell me where Im wrong or propose a different perspective that maybe I can learn from. Headed to the game. Go Aztecs!
  2. Soccer City http://www.soccercitysd.com/ The biggest advantage to SC is that it’s the clearest, shortest path to ridding the city of SDCCU stadium. It provides a venue for both soccer and college football. It develops the space in a way that adds to the city tax base. These are the tangible benefits. IMO, SC offers something entirely unique for the US; a place to consider sort of a Ground Zero for soccer. Like it or not, soccer will continue to grow here in the US and SD can position itself to benefit from that growth. It’s forward looking. Is it ideal for SDSU football? No, it isn’t. In a perfect world, we’d be in the Pac-12 pulling $30mil/yr in TV revenue and selling out a 70,000 seat stadium. This isn’t a perfect world. The reality is we get a couple of mil in TV money and draw 25-40k fans/game. In that context, it’s a more than adequate solution. If we outgrow it, there’s the possibility to expand the venue to 40k (SDSU claims it would be too expensive, SC folks disagree) or if things really take off and lightning strikes and we get a Pac or Big12 invite, the possibility exists to gain control of the site set aside for an NFL stadium. The biggest advantage for SDSU is that it provides an adequate solution to their dilemma as to where they will be playing football and it does it in a fiscally responsible fashion, insofar as football stadiums are fiscally responsible. SDSU West Aspiration is a positive trait in people, not so much in government entities. Although SDSU “aspires” to become a Top 50 public research university, that is NOT its core mission. It is a taxpayer subsidized university charged with conferring Bachelor’s degrees to the children of the working and middle class as well as recent immigrants at a reasonable cost. It is a NOBLE and VITALLY IMPORTANT mission. As such committing scarce donor and taxpayer resources to the pursuit of a football palace and “research” facilities is at best, profligate and at worst malfeasance IMHO. Here’s some hard truth most SDSU grads don’t want to hear; SDSU STEM offerings fall within the fair to good range for undergrad education. There is more, MUCH more that can and be done to improve this state of affairs and this is where scarce resources such as donor dollars should be focused, NOT football stadiums. As a state institution, SDSU has no business involving itself in speculative land ventures, putting taxpayers at risk and competing with the private sector for profits. Much of what SDSU wants to do involves 100’s of thousands of square feet of leasable office space, masquerading as “research” space. Anyone familiar with MV commercial property will tell you that it is very volatile. In down markets, the vacancy rates tend to run higher there than perhaps anywhere else in metro SD. What happens to SDSU’s budget when rents fail to cover stadium expenses? Who bails them out? The plan is for SDSU to take on anywhere between $300-500million in exposure, possibly more. Does this sound right to you? The plan also re directs profits out of the private economy and into state coffers. It also ultimately removes the land from the city tax roles. If you were a SD resident, how would this sit with you? Most of all, SDSU is running a very dishonest campaign in an era when trust of institutions is at an all-time low. The corrosive effect of this approach has the potential to do lasting and permanent damage to the institution. Sooner or later the “it’s about education” pitch will be exposed for the fraud that it is. Two simple questions can and will unravel it. 1. How many classrooms, student labs and lecture halls will be built in MV? 2. How many additional professors and instructors will be hired resulting from MV expansion?
  3. Tell us about your basketball team

    Kell, Hemsley and Newcomer Devin Watson will form a 3 guard rotation, Transfer Kam Rooks and RS Soph Narian in the low post. Then our typical logjam of 6-6 to 6-10 guys including Pope, RS frosh Mc Daniels, Montana (Hoetzel), frosh Matt Mitchell andGill-Ceaser. Two frosh additions. One or both may red shirt : Adam Seiko, 6-3 G and Jordan Schakel, 6-6 G With a new coach and given the disappointing season last year, we have much to prove. Kell, Hemsley and Pope need to show they know how to win when it counts.
  4. Tell us about your basketball team

    They're very good.especially Caroline, Foster and Drew to a slightly lesser extent than the other 2. We'll be chasing these guys all season.
  5. It's a question of what SDSU receives in this deal. …. No it isn’t. It’s about what’s best for the City. SDSU does not own the land, SDSU has no claim to the property. What FSI is currently offering is a 30k seat soccer stadium and some land - with the exact area and pricing to be determined. … 34,000 seat stadium. The price is $100,000,000 for a stadium +5 acres. It's hard to say that one is a "better" deal than the other when you don't have anything to measure. The first correct thing you’ve said. SDSU West isn’t a plan, it’s nothing more than a slogan and an attitude. When I say that the SDSU West option would be "cheaper", I should have more accurately said that the SDSU West option will provide a better value for SDSU than what they would likely receive via the FSI proposal. How do you know? A 200 mil stadium is twice as expensive when you don’t split the cost. Operations costs will be twice as expensive and the lack of a second tenant will add additional burden to find events to cover them. One of the major issues that I see is the disconnect between the amount of land SDSU wants and how much FSI is willing to part with. It’s called compromise. It’s what is expected of a state institution that has a primary mission of conferring Bachelor’s degrees; not “research” and NOT football. In that context, the monies SDSU is choosing to expend on this little venture should be minimized. Instead, SDSU seems to be choosing the most expensive path, burdening the SUBSIDIZED athletics budget with outsized debt service payments and asking the citizens of the city to continue to operate a money pit into the indefinite future Then we get into the question of defining 'market value'. Is it current market value for undeveloped land in a flood plain? Is it the market value of the undeveloped land after the basic demolition but before any other improvements? Or is it the value of the land after FSI has put condos, stores and an "entertainment district" nearby? Anyone who's played Monopoly can tell you that developed land costs much more than undeveloped land. If you buy a floodplain, the market value is the floodplain. If you buy a pad, the value is that of a pad. If you buy a building the value is the building. In a large development, you can’t set aside a plot of undeveloped floodplain. It all has to be graded and services installed at the same time. SDSU said that it wants 47 acres of the site - 12 acres under the stadium and 35 acres for future expansion. I haven't heard that FSI has agreed to this amount of acreage. It appears that there is a disconnect here - so, yes, FSI has offered SDSU an option to buy land, but again - how much and at what price? It doesn’t matter what SDSU “wants”. It isn’t SDSU land and SDSU has no claim to it. It’s city land and it’s what’s best for the city that matters first and foremost. This article in the U-T from March says that one option that was discussed is for 30 acres of land to be made available to SDSU is at the projected market rate in 30 years. I don't know about you, but my forecasts get a little sketchy after years 3-5. A forecast variance in year 1 within +/-3% is considered to be really good and anything within +/- 10% in year 5 is fantastic. To go out to 30 years for a valuation basis stretches the term "wild ass guess" to its most encompassing meaning. (The same information contained in this piece by Fox5 San Diego from May states that SDSU would have the right to buy the land in 30 years at the market value at that time.) This is only one of three options offed to the university IN ADDITION to the stadium and 5 adjacent acres. It seems fair to me that if SDSU purchases the land 30 years hence, it should pay the market rate at the time of purchase. This is just dumb. There are no audited financials or independently validated forecasts for either side - which makes this very difficult to put a value on for comparison basis. The devil's in the details - especially when you're dealing with what may be the most valuable contiguous plot of land in San Diego county. You have no SDSU West details…Hello?...is this thing on? The most practical comparison I can use for this deal is one of those car leases you see advertised where you get an incredibly low payment of less than $200 a month for what looks like a really nice car - but when you read the fine print, you can only drive the car 5,000 miles a year without incurring punitive charges per mile. At the end of the day, what looks like a great deal on the face could cost you a lot more in the long run and you receive far less than what you needed. Ultimately, you're better off buying the car at a slightly higher up front cost and avoiding getting duped into paying more than you should have. Well you’re right in that cars and stadiums are equally bad investments. Other than that, your analogy is incoherent. That's what I mean by "cheaper" - don't pay more than you should. Based on the information available, I can't conclude that the FSI deal is a good deal - let alone that it's fairly priced. At best, SDSU West will be twice as expensive. At worst, it could virtually bankrupt the athletics department ( See Cal Berkley)
  6. Thanks for your typically content free contribution.
  7. There's no definition of cheaper you can come up with that will make SDSU West a better deal than what FSI is offering..The problem you are going to have is the ABJECT dishonesty with which the university is undertaking this effort. You'll be exposed once the voters understand that there are NO CLASSROOMS and "Research" space = office space. There's no formulation, no spin that can be applied that will prevent SDSU from looking very bad as this thing goes along. Transparency and truth are your enemies. That's a tough way to run a campaign.
  8. Preseason Basketball Predictions

    FIF....uhh....M
  9. Preseason Basketball Predictions

    SDSU wins season and tourney. SDSU advances to the Final 4, defeating Duke in the finals. Kell, Pope and Hemsley who departs early, drafted in the 1st round Dutcher gets hired away by Michgan SDSU inks Calipari to a 5yr deal (with a morals clause) Cal begins turning SDSU into 1 and Done West by signing 2 McD AA's. I win PowerBall
  10. I'm trying to stay out of this discussion,understanding that dissension is not something Aztec snowflakes are very good at handling....BUT..... BULLSHIT! The SDSU-FS Investors finance proposal called for equal shares of $100million. SDSU committed to $20 million in startup capital based upon the reasonable assumption that they could raise that much from their donor base. The remainder would be financed through CSU revenue bonds to be serviced by revenue generated by the developed 5 acre parcel. An addition 35 acres are made available AT MARKET rate to the university. Tell me how SDSU West will be cheaper? .
  11. Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs

    Cell phone hardware doesn't really have anywhere else to go. That's why all you see anymore are improvements/enhancements on the margins; improved cameras, better/larger displays etc. It's all become very boring. I prefer Android in that there are multiple HW vendors, each trying to add a feature here or there to distinguish themselves from the competition. Manufacturers are in a quandary. The next step is really to imbed the interface/display in something other than a large piece of glass but to date success has been elusive. Google Glass was too creepy and I think that perception will endure for quite a while. Not sure where else there is to go other than some other sort of "wearable" device but anything that's not overtly an appliance will likely be considered too intrusive by the general public, like Google Glass.
  12. HaHa. I've given up on the National Debt. It's going to destroy the country and nobody in a position to do anything about it seems to want to, Therefore, it's all about me.
  13. WGAF? If I get to keep more of the money I EARN, it helps MY economy. Phuckall "the economy".
×