Hugh Jiddump Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Maybe Tijuana's soccer team will let SUDS use it's stadium If there's no conflict with its games. Or @Dr. Dre's moms daily donkey show. #FireworksHo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDSUfan Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On 3/19/2017 at 0:41 AM, k5james said: 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. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/chargers/sd-sp-chargers-nfl-20170319-story.html 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...
sactowndog Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, SDSUfan said: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/chargers/sd-sp-chargers-nfl-20170319-story.html Wow not a lot positive in that article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k5james Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 24 minutes ago, SDSUfan said: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/chargers/sd-sp-chargers-nfl-20170319-story.html Why did you quote me with this article? There's nothing of real substance pertaining to our discussion in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Convert Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 On 3/18/2017 at 7:58 PM, aztech said: Our president skipped town. Not a good omen. Could be worse. If this were the mid-80's clowns that were running the show, this would get solved by tearing down the BB arena and bring back the Aztec Bowl for football, and BB would go back to the SD Sports Arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Coast Aztec Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 At this point, I just expect to see a bunch of cookie cutter overpriced apartments and condos, with the same old retail and Subways, a traffic nightmare, and a bunch of people wondering if it was worth it to rush things when I visit in 2027. So in other words, typical of what I have seen in SD. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k5james Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 17 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said: At this point, I just expect to see a bunch of cookie cutter overpriced apartments and condos, with the same old retail and Subways, a traffic nightmare, and a bunch of people wondering if it was worth it to rush things when I visit in 2027. So in other words, typical of what I have seen in SD. Nah, this thing won't be that difficult to kill. Especially with the money the other MV developers have to throw at the fight against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Coast Aztec Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 10 minutes ago, k5james said: Nah, this thing won't be that difficult to kill. Especially with the money the other MV developers have to throw at the fight against it. I hope you are right. Pessimism does help soften the disappointment though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingGiantFan Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 I'd feel a lot more comfortable about that, James, if we actually knew for certain there were other legit developers. Right now Manchester just has an idea and not an actual plan and although one would think a parcel like that in the middle of the city of SD would interest many developers, who else is out there? Quote Boom goes the dynamite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k5james Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said: I'd feel a lot more comfortable about that, James, if we actually knew for certain there were other legit developers. Right now Manchester just has an idea and not an actual plan and although one would think a parcel like that in the middle of the city of SD would interest many developers, who else is out there? They don't have to have a legit plan to torpedo this one. Sudberry who has the Civita development being the one with the biggest gripe. He had to jump through hoops to get Civita finally approved and now FSI is getting to fast track direct competition for Civita without a public vote? I don't see him taking that standing still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badfish Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 What are your expected outcomes of this meeting? Think FSI budges on the 32k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingGiantFan Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 23 minutes ago, badfish said: What are your expected outcomes of this meeting? Think FSI budges on the 32k? Last I heard it was just 30K and yes, I DO think FSI will express a willingness to move off that figure. Most of the members of the media think SDSU should just capitulate and some Aztec wimps think the same but if SDSU sticks to its guns, unless FSI's MLS partners can come up with another $100M to build that stadium, what choice do they have? As I've said before, if FSI would agree to go to 35K and to reconfigure its plan to allow SDSU to get another 15-20 acres to build student housing, I could probably live with that. Student housing in such close proximity to the stadium would do wonders for our football program while freeing up some land on the existing site to build additional classrooms. 1 Quote Boom goes the dynamite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDSUfan Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 3 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said: Last I heard it was just 30K and yes, I DO think FSI will express a willingness to move off that figure. Most of the members of the media think SDSU should just capitulate and some Aztec wimps think the same but if SDSU sticks to its guns, unless FSI's MLS partners can come up with another $100M to build that stadium, what choice do they have? As I've said before, if FSI would agree to go to 35K and to reconfigure its plan to allow SDSU to get another 15-20 acres to build student housing, I could probably live with that. Student housing in such close proximity to the stadium would do wonders for our football program while freeing up some land on the existing site to build additional classrooms. Does SDSU want to bear the cost of bringing 25% of the total land up to a buildable standard and pay 25% of the cost of Qualcomm demolition, or is this a gift? What about infrastructure? Does SDSU plan to pay for 25% of the required site infrastructure? So if I'm reading you correctly; SDSU DEMANDS that FS pay for 1/2 of a stadium built to SDSU's specifications AND SDSU DEMANDS that they be gifted 25% of the developable parcel ready to build, free of charge. 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...
k5james Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, SDSUfan said: Does SDSU want to bear the cost of bringing 25% of the total land up to a buildable standard and pay 25% of the cost of Qualcomm demolition, or is this a gift? What about infrastructure? Does SDSU plan to pay for 25% of the required site infrastructure? So if I'm reading you correctly; SDSU DEMANDS that FS pay for 1/2 of a stadium built to SDSU's specifications AND SDSU DEMANDS that they be gifted 25% of the developable parcel ready to build, free of charge. Built to SDSU's specifications? Extra capacity does not equal being built to SDSU's specifications. The things you mentioned need to be done anyway if they want to execute this land grab. As for the rest? Nobody said it's cheap to grease the wheels of impropriety... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badfish Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWC Tex Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Seems to me that the Aztecs are playing with fire and are about to get burned with their 'demands'. The reality is SDSU will not have a place to play football at all if they still push back against the MLS investors. 30k is fine, SDSU hasn't proven otherwise they need more. Just agree to get it built and then IF the demand shows there is a need for expansion, it will happen. SDSU really doesn't have any leverage here. The Padres aren't going to allow SDSU to play more than 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k5james Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 23 minutes ago, MWC Tex said: Seems to me that the Aztecs are playing with fire and are about to get burned with their 'demands'. The reality is SDSU will not have a place to play football at all if they still push back against the MLS investors. 30k is fine, SDSU hasn't proven otherwise they need more. Just agree to get it built and then IF the demand shows there is a need for expansion, it will happen. SDSU really doesn't have any leverage here. The Padres aren't going to allow SDSU to play more than 2 years. Yes they will. The only person saying they won't is a columnist who's shilling for FSI. The owner of the Padres is already on record saying he won't let SDSU football go homeless. SDSU hasn't proven we needed more? Quit talking out of your ass. Since 2010 we've averaged over 30k in all but one season. Stick to blowing Craig Thompson. Meanwhile as I was saying earlier... http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/mar/17/ticker-political-money-war-mission-valley/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterfrog Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 21 minutes ago, k5james said: Yes they will. The only person saying they won't is a columnist who's shilling for FSI. The owner of the Padres is already on record saying he won't let SDSU football go homeless. SDSU hasn't proven we needed more? Quit talking out of your ass. Since 2010 we've averaged over 30k in all but one season. Stick to blowing Craig Thompson. Meanwhile as I was saying earlier... http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/mar/17/ticker-political-money-war-mission-valley/ Petco is an even worse solution than what they have now. I hope the Aztecs don't have to play there for more than a year or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k5james Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, masterfrog said: Petco is an even worse solution than what they have now. I hope the Aztecs don't have to play there for more than a year or two. I don't know if Petco is worse than what we have now but agreeing to this sham as it sits now would be locking ourselves into what we have now but in a too small soccer stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Jiddump Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 After reaching heights it has never seen before, the best P5 expansion strategy SUDS can muster is to crash on Soccer Faig's couch! PAC 12 gone be hella impressed! #SUDSgonnaSUDS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...