Jump to content
fanhood

Nothing happens without SDSU's needs being met

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, badfish said:

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.

It's horrible for suds. Soccer stadiums are designed different and are built for soccer. It won't be a true home and the soccer team will decide if and when expansion would ever take place. 

  • Like 1

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, fanhood said:

You should see the zeros behind his new salary. Unrelated

Forget the money.  Stevenson is a small private university established in 1947 with a little over 4,000 students.  Did he really go back because he was from that area?  Academically, it's a downgrade position.  If he was after money he would have never left to head SDSU.  We're a public institution that doesn't pay that much.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

It's horrible for suds. Soccer stadiums are designed different and are built for soccer. It won't be a true home and the soccer team will decide if and when expansion would ever take place. 

You haven't been following this. SDSU will own the stadium outright after five years. That has never been an argument. The issue now is, SDSU does not believe it will be cost effective to do so. But their "rights" to do so have never been in question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

Why would the soccer franchise agree to this?

There is no franchise yet. There are just investors that are trying to get the City Council to sell them public land. Thus, they are gaining political leverage by making it look like they are catering to the "community." This is why SDSU has leverage. City Council has to agree to the deal, and they will not agree to a deal unless SDSU is signs off on it. This is the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

Why would the soccer franchise agree to this?

Don't be misled. FSI = / = the soccer people. The soccer people are FSI's client and they have very limited money. As to FSI, its interest is all about developing the rest of the 166 acres.

If FSI's land grab is successful, SDSU is gonna get screwed.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Don't be misled. FSI = / = the soccer people. The soccer people are FSI's client and they have very limited money. As to FSI, its interest is all about developing the rest of the 166 acres.

If FSI's land grab is successful, SDSU is gonna get screwed.

I am just stating what was is in the initial proposal. Are there other motives? sure. But this was in the initial proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, fanhood said:

There is no franchise yet. There are just investors that are trying to get the City Council to sell them public land. Thus, they are gaining political leverage by making it look like they are catering to the "community." This is why SDSU has leverage. City Council has to agree to the deal, and they will not agree to a deal unless SDSU is signs off on it. This is the point.

I see

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Don't be misled. FSI = / = the soccer people. The soccer people are FSI's client and they have very limited money. As to FSI, its interest is all about developing the rest of the 166 acres.

If FSI's land grab is successful, SDSU is gonna get screwed.

80 acres and yes, money will change hands and someone will make a profit. God help us all. I'm also unclear  as to why it's a "land grab". It's a business deal. The details will be either approved by the city council or voted on by the residents.  A "land grab" would be a state institution gaining control for little or no money and removing the parcel from the tax role in perpetuity.

“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

2 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

80 acres and yes, money will change hands and someone will make a profit. God help us all. I'm also unclear  as to why it's a "land grab". It's a business deal. The details will be either approved by the city council or voted on by the residents.  A "land grab" would be a state institution gaining control for little or no money and removing the parcel from the tax role in perpetuity.

Because at would be a much better return on the cities investment.  1.6 million a year in taxes a year is pennies for a city the size of San Diego.

The deal as contracted now is a terrible deal for SDSU and not a very good deal for San Diego.

Theres a reason FSI is trying their damnedest to get this through city council without a public vote.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, k5james said:

Because at would be a much better return on the cities investment.  1.6 million a year in taxes a year is pennies for a city the size of San Diego.

The deal as contracted now is a terrible deal for SDSU and not a very good deal for San Diego.

Theres a reason FSI is trying their damnedest to get this through city council without a public vote.

Not from the perspective of the balance sheet. Not sure what $1.6M is about but sales and property taxes combined with taxes paid on wages etc far exceed 1.6 mil. The SDSU plan is essentially the same; housing. retail, offices, stadium. with the benefit redounding to the university and by extension, students and faculty. This is a very narrow subset of the larger community.  The university has no play. It needs to get on board.

“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

3 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

Not from the perspective of the balance sheet. Not sure what $1.6M is about but sales and property taxes combined with taxes paid on wages etc far exceed 1.6 mil. The SDSU plan is essentially the same; housing. retail, offices, stadium. with the benefit redounding to the university and by extension, students and faculty. This is a very narrow subset of the larger community.  The university has no play. It needs to get on board.

The property taxes amount to about 1.6 million.  The sales and wage taxes will be paid just the same if it's a SDSU annex or FSI land grab.  The difference is there's a much higher return on investment with a SDSU annex.

 

SDSU has a ton of play and it's being executed.  FSI is the party that needs to get on board or this is going to a referendum and will be killed by a public vote requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

80 acres and yes, money will change hands and someone will make a profit. God help us all. I'm also unclear  as to why it's a "land grab". It's a business deal. The details will be either approved by the city council or voted on by the residents.  A "land grab" would be a state institution gaining control for little or no money and removing the parcel from the tax role in perpetuity.

Thanks for correcting my error on the number of acres. As for land grab, your definition is a bit narrow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grabbing#Definition

My assertion it's a land grab by FSI is that although obtaining large parcels by government and agribusiness also qualify, the third type of entity is exactly what FSI is. FSI is a classic middle man operation designed to bring together clients to transition the ownership of the parcel into profit making ventures. One of the prospective partners was supposed to be SDSU and another the FSI client which wants to bring an MLS franchise to SD. Although for many months rumor had it that FSI envisioned SDSU and the MLS people as being equal partners for development of about half the parcel, when FSI's plan was made public, it became apparent that in FSI's mind, SDSU was going to be merely a minor partner in the venture. Maybe those rumors misled us Aztecs or maybe we just viewed it with rose-colored glasses.

If when Kevin Faulconer meets with SDSU on Tuesday he can broker a deal wherein FSI will change its tune maybe SDSU will still sign on. Compromises like changing the name to Aztec Stadium at Soccer City since the university will ultimately own the stadium and setting aside an additional dozen acres or so for student housing might still make the plan palatable but I'm not holding my breath on that.

  • Like 1

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish SDSU luck in these negotiations.  Let me enumerate the reasons that the Soccer/SJSU negotiations foundered.  They may be instructive for SDSU as to what icebergs to avoid.

1.  SJSU could not get the Soccer people to agree to enlarge the stadium to a suitable size for football.  They wanted to create ticket "scarcity" with a smaller capacity and, thus, higher ticket prices.  Since they wanted an "overhang" over the seats, in the soccer style, that would hinder any future expansion.

2.  They insisted on the widest field allowable in soccer (soccer has a range of legal sizes).  That would place football fans too far from the action.

3.  They insisted on control of the venue (it would be on SJSU owned land) including control of any rental income to be accrued in the future.

Good luck, Aztecs!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpartaRick said:

I wish SDSU luck in these negotiations.  Let me enumerate the reasons that the Soccer/SJSU negotiations foundered.  They may be instructive for SDSU as to what icebergs to avoid.

1.  SJSU could not get the Soccer people to agree to enlarge the stadium to a suitable size for football.  They wanted to create ticket "scarcity" with a smaller capacity and, thus, higher ticket prices.  Since they wanted an "overhang" over the seats, in the soccer style, that would hinder any future expansion.

2.  They insisted on the widest field allowable in soccer (soccer has a range of legal sizes).  That would place football fans too far from the action.

3.  They insisted on control of the venue (it would be on SJSU owned land) including control of any rental income to be accrued in the future.

Good luck, Aztecs!!

Number 3 is the only issue we won't have. Numbers 1 and 2 are definitely current issues.

Good news is, we are not negotiating with "Soccer People." These are just investors that want to sell land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpartaRick said:

I wish SDSU luck in these negotiations.  Let me enumerate the reasons that the Soccer/SJSU negotiations foundered.  They may be instructive for SDSU as to what icebergs to avoid.

1.  SJSU could not get the Soccer people to agree to enlarge the stadium to a suitable size for football.  They wanted to create ticket "scarcity" with a smaller capacity and, thus, higher ticket prices.  Since they wanted an "overhang" over the seats, in the soccer style, that would hinder any future expansion.

2.  They insisted on the widest field allowable in soccer (soccer has a range of legal sizes).  That would place football fans too far from the action.

3.  They insisted on control of the venue (it would be on SJSU owned land) including control of any rental income to be accrued in the future.

Good luck, Aztecs!!

It may have worked out best for everyone.  San Jose built a great soccer facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...