fanhood Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/columnists/kevin-acee/sd-sp-aceesdsu-0319-story.html "In much the same way he got behind the Chargers’ stadium plan last year, the mayor is expected to eventually present a series of added provisions that must be agreed upon in order for him to sign on, and he wants to address the needs of his alma mater and San Diego’s largest university in that list of caveats. To that end, representatives from SDSU and the city are scheduled to meet Tuesday to discuss the university’s issues with the SoccerCity initiative. San Diego State said the current design made it cost-prohibitive to expand a stadium that would be built to hold 30,000 for football. Those concerns center around buildings planned adjacent to the stadium and are expected to be part of what the university brings to the city on Tuesday. The mayor could include provisions about that proposed construction in his subsequent petition to FS Investors. Also, the school desires the option to purchase a portion of the remaining land for future expansion. Qualcomm Stadium and its parking lot sit on approximately 166 acres owned by city entities. FS Investors has said it wants to work with SDSU and has made several entreaties to the school to resume talks. But the sides have not engaged in meaningful discussions in more than a month. With time running out on its football program’s lease at Qualcomm Stadium and the Padres promising just a year or two of hospitality at Petco Park, SDSU needs to find a place to play. Several sources said this week that it was impressed on SDSU that the SoccerCity project could meet several of the school’s needs if the university would elucidate its concerns and become involved in talks." As many have said, nothing happens without SDSU having its needs met. The original SDSU West will not happen, but SDSU will get a stadium of its liking, student housing, office space, etc. At the end of the day, this project does not get approved without SDSU being on board. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph90702 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Go Chargers, go. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecSU Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Just now, ph90702 said: Go Chargers, go. they already did...hehe 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boisewitha-s Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I don't see how any suds fans could be excited about playing in a 30k seat soccer stadium. 1 Quote "but we only lost to Stanford by 3." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDSUfan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 That's not how I read it. Sounds to me like SDSU is being told to get on board and to accept what ever terms the mayor negotiates for them. if SDSU wants to actually make things happen, the opportunity is there they're just not forward thinking enough to grasp it. Maybe I'll help them along. A parcel of land is being set aside for the next 5 years to accommodate a new NFL stadium. The odds of SD getting back in the NFL game in the next 5 years are long at best. SDSU should negotiate the right of first refusal on that parcel when the clock runs out. On it, they can build their 44,367.3456832 seat football( scientifically calculated to the correct SDSU size) stadium and a few offices and publically subsidized housing they so desire. 1 Quote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -Richard Feynman "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -P.J. O’Rourke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanhood Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said: I don't see how any suds fans could be excited about playing in a 30k seat soccer stadium. That's the point. One of SDSUs issues is the stadium size, and the lack of ability to expand. We'll get something that meets our needs. Will also get housing, offices, et. Nothing happens without SDSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanhood Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 1 minute ago, SDSUfan said: That's not how I read it. Sounds to me like SDSU is being told to get on board and to accept what ever terms the mayor negotiates for them. if SDSU wants to actually make things happen, the opportunity is there they're just not forward thinking enough to grasp it. Maybe I'll help them along. A parcel of land is being set aside for the next 5 years to accommodate a new NFL stadium. The odds of SD getting back in the NFL game in the next 5 years are long at best. SDSU should negotiate the right of first refusal on that parcel when the clock runs out. On it, they can build their 44,367.3456832 seat football( scientifically calculated to the correct SDSU size) stadium and a few offices and publically subsidized housing they so desire. Not sure how you read it that way. It's pretty clear that the Mayor (and by proxy the city council) will not be on board without certain amendments. Those amendments are SDSU. Yes, SDSU will have to compromise as well, but this is all working out fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanhood Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 SDSU does not hold all the cards, but has quite a bit of clout. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDSUfan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 23 minutes ago, fanhood said: Not sure how you read it that way. It's pretty clear that the Mayor (and by proxy the city council) will not be on board without certain amendments. Those amendments are SDSU. Yes, SDSU will have to compromise as well, but this is all working out fine. Money = clout. To think otherwise is a mistake. This will go forward with or without SDSU. FS is collecting the sigs and will bankroll the special election. A 50%+1 result will be a penalty kick (haha... see what I did there?) 2 Quote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -Richard Feynman "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -P.J. O’Rourke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecSU Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, SDSUfan said: Money = clout. To think otherwise is a mistake. This will go forward with or without SDSU. FS is collecting the sigs and will bankroll the special election. A 50%+1 result will be a penalty kick (haha... see what I did there?) I would caveat that the situation for FS could quickly change if the general public understood that FS is getting a sweetheart deal regarding value of the land pre and post padding...which is also the main reason other developers(Manchester) are throwing half assed plans out there. If the public truly understood this aspect of the deal they would be pissed that the city is getting ripped yet again by wealthy land sharks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingGiantFan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 54 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said: I don't see how any suds fans could be excited about playing in a 30k seat soccer stadium. None with half a brain and if the FSI plan becomes reality, considering the 100K or so San Diegans who are SDSU alumni, there must be a lot more half-brained Aztecs than I thought there were. Quote Boom goes the dynamite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingGiantFan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 47 minutes ago, fanhood said: Not sure how you read it that way. It's pretty clear that the Mayor (and by proxy the city council) will not be on board without certain amendments. Those amendments are SDSU. Yes, SDSU will have to compromise as well, but this is all working out fine. I have to disagree. SDSU was taken aback by the FSI plan. No way did SDSU think those guys were going to call their proposal SOCCER City and have absolutely zero land put aside for expanding our campus. I'm not saying we're going to get screwed because it's too early to tell but you're much too optimistic. Quote Boom goes the dynamite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDSUfan Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 6 hours ago, AztecSU said: I would caveat that the situation for FS could quickly change if the general public understood that FS is getting a sweetheart deal regarding value of the land pre and post padding...which is also the main reason other developers(Manchester) are throwing half assed plans out there. If the public truly understood this aspect of the deal they would be pissed that the city is getting ripped yet again by wealthy land sharks. The land as it sits now is effectively worthless. If the city is to sell it to another party, the deal would be similar. Tearing down the Q is an expensive undertaking. Entitling the land, working the EIRS , fixing the infrastructure and mitigating surface contamination is likewise difficult and expensive. The city has a money pit on it's hands. Any sane landlord would do the necessary thing to cut losses asap Quote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -Richard Feynman "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -P.J. O’Rourke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelado Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 That article does not sound particularly positive for SDSU. Makes it sound like FS Investors is the only group so far that has shown interest in the project, and that SDSU has not had "meaningful" discussions with FSI in over a month. I'd be somewhat concerned with the quote below: Quote Several sources said this week that it was impressed on SDSU that the SoccerCity project could meet several of the school’s needs if the university would elucidate its concerns and become involved in talks. Makes it sound as though SDSU doesn't know or can't communicate what it really wants out of the project. Based on that article, doesn't sound like SDSU will get close to what it wants from the project unless another investment group comes together with a more SDSU-favorable plan. And also from the article: Quote While SDSU has maintained it has other options for development partners that could better serve its needs for student and faculty housing, expanded office and research space and even a stadium, no other plan has surfaced. (emphasis added) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecSU Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 looks like a couple folks here are clueless about FSI's time constraint created by MLS and it's expansion and approval process. FSI plan is pretty sexy, but it's also about to expire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badfish Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 2 hours ago, boisewitha-s said: I don't see how any suds fans could be excited about playing in a 30k seat soccer stadium. Clearly we aren't... the stadium design sounds great: steep seating, luxury suites, SRO grass seats, etc. but we need to be able to expand to 40. The 30k is to please the MLS, then we expand to 40 when they're fan base grows as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDSUfan Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 39 minutes ago, AztecSU said: looks like a couple folks here are clueless about FSI's time constraint created by MLS and it's expansion and approval process. FSI plan is pretty sexy, but it's also about to expire. So is Qualcomm. The perfect is the enemy of the good. A 32,000 seat stadium is more than adequate for a few years. It gives everybody breathing space; the city gets out from under its White Elephant, SDSU gets a more than adequate venue, the city gets an MLS franchise and the taxpayers get some relief from paying out the ass to keep an empty stadium. SDSU has no leadership since Hirschman is a lame duck. The CSU system has been invisible in all of this as has the legislature. To turn FS into some sort of villain out to steal lunch money from school kids is patently asinine when they are offering a lifeline to the University. Negotiate, make a suitable deal for the near term and move forward on a long term plan. Not sure what all the angst is about. Quote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -Richard Feynman "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -P.J. O’Rourke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztech Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Pelado said: That article does not sound particularly positive for SDSU. Makes it sound like FS Investors is the only group so far that has shown interest in the project, and that SDSU has not had "meaningful" discussions with FSI in over a month. I'd be somewhat concerned with the quote below: Makes it sound as though SDSU doesn't know or can't communicate what it really wants out of the project. Based on that article, doesn't sound like SDSU will get close to what it wants from the project unless another investment group comes together with a more SDSU-favorable plan. And also from the article: (emphasis added) Our president skipped town. Not a good omen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanhood Posted March 19, 2017 Author Share Posted March 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, aztech said: Our president skipped town. Not a good omen. You should see the zeros behind his new salary. Unrelated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalua pig Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 30,000 is perfect.sdsu will not sell out every game.maybe on fire cracker night. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...