Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DrBulldog

For reals...what are SDSU's stadium options post 2019?

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

If you build your own stadium are you NOT responsible for operating costs?

The "argument" is not that it can't be expanded. it's that it would be "too expensive", as if building your own( land purchase, EIR, permits, design, site prep build out), all accomplished at prevailing wage, would be cheaper

I mean this in all sincerity WTF am I missing? What sooper genius is behind the sooper secret, sooper awesome sooper plan SDSU  is cooking up behind the scene that they plan to spring on the world any minute now? Who? What? What has JayDee Wicker ever done that makes you think he's up to the task?  What has Roush ever done? These are mediocre people at best.

 

The problem with assuming the operating costs in this case is that they are denied the revenue streams associated with the adjacent commercial development. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

The problem with assuming the operating costs in this case is that they are denied the revenue streams associated with the adjacent commercial development. 

Leaving it fiscally irresponsible for a public entity to absorb that kind of cost.  It would actually be better to drop football than eat what that loss every year could be.  Have you heard of any compromise to where SDSU pays half the cost, keeps half the revenue, and split O&M with MLS with no donation? I assume not, but figure why not exhaust options with someone who may know a lot more than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Leaving it fiscally irresponsible for a public entity to absorb that kind of cost.  It would actually be better to drop football than eat what that loss every year could be.  Have you heard of any compromise to where SDSU pays half the cost, keeps half the revenue, and split O&M with MLS with no donation? I assume not, but figure why not exhaust options with someone who may know a lot more than I.

I haven't had any involvement in the project for the last year. I just met with the investor guys a few times early on. At that time they expressed a commitment to work out a situation that would work for SDSU football, but they had definite opinions regarding the areas where they differed with the university on stadium size and configuration. And of course they're the ones with the $$.

I'm not even sure what the long-term relationship is between the investors and the eventual MLS ownership. As the details of the proposal came out, though, it was clear that "ownership" of the stadium by SDSU was not what it appeared to be. The investors want the district surrounding the stadium to be a commercial destination in its own right, one that of course would be full up on game days. That revenue will go to them or their successors, not SDSU. So SDSU would be left with event ticket revenue and, presumably, sales within the stadium itself. I'm sure MLS has it's own sweetheart arrangement written in. I really don't know what it all translates to in terms of revenue vs. O&M costs for SDSU.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I haven't had any involvement in the project for the last year. I just met with the investor guys a few times early on. At that time they expressed a commitment to work out a situation that would work for SDSU football, but they had definite opinions regarding the areas where they differed with the university on stadium size and configuration. And of course they're the ones with the $$.

I'm not even sure what the long-term relationship is between the investors and the eventual MLS ownership. As the details of the proposal came out, though, it was clear that "ownership" of the stadium by SDSU was not what it appeared to be. The investors want the district surrounding the stadium to be a commercial destination in its own right, one that of course would be full up on game days. That revenue will go to them or their successors, not SDSU. So SDSU would be left with event ticket revenue and, presumably, sales within the stadium itself. I'm sure MLS has it's own sweetheart arrangement written in. I really don't know what it all translates to in terms of revenue vs. O&M costs for SDSU.

That second paragraph is essentially what I thought.  It makes perfect sense for the investors, but it is pretty easy to see why SDSU could not rationalize the costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

SDSU isn't condemned to 238 acres. They control other parcels around the campus AND they can do what's done in dense, urban areas; build up.  The whole "land locked" argument is nonsense. Just as the future of almost everything is virtual, so is the future of education. The need for brick and mortar will decrease over time, not increase. One need only look at what ASU is doing (offering full degrees online) or look at Purdue university ( just purchased Kaplan College) or look at MIT (virtual accredited courses FREE) to see the future.

As to the stadium; you're goddamn right they need to buy in to a 35.000 seat stadium THAT WILL BE GIFTED TO THEM IN 5 YEARS and can then be expanded. Is this a trick question?  Who's buried in Grant's tomb?

I no longer post to AztecMesa but have been lurking frequently lately because of all the hubbub going on. With due respect, you need to go over there and read all the articles linked. If you do you'll realize how naive your latter statement is.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I no longer post to AztecMesa but have been lurking frequently lately because of all the hubbub going on. With due respect, you need to go over there and read all the articles linked. If you do you'll realize how naive your latter statement is.

I'll accept that maybe I'm naive to some of the details. What I do not accept is that going it alone can any ANY way be more cost effective for the university. As I'm sure you know, if football stadiums were profitable  folks would be falling over themselves to build them.  No matter what, if some other entity  offers to share a burden  you are a goddamn fool to walk away from it.  A goddamn fool. Especially if you are a marginal, poor public university. The abject stupidity of SDSU's position is astounding.  Never seen anything like it in my life. I'd like to think that there's a strategy and that there are smart people with a plan, then I watch that mouth breathing idiot JD Wicker make a jackass of himself and just shake my head in disgust.

Train wreck. Big train wreck is coming....

“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

21 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

If you build your own stadium are you NOT responsible for operating costs?

The "argument" is not that it can't be expanded. it's that it would be "too expensive", as if building your own( land purchase, EIR, permits, design, site prep build out), all accomplished at prevailing wage, would be cheaper

I mean this in all sincerity WTF am I missing? What sooper genius is behind the sooper secret, sooper awesome sooper plan SDSU  is cooking up behind the scene that they plan to spring on the world any minute now? Who? What? What has JayDee Wicker ever done that makes you think he's up to the task?  What has Roush ever done? These are mediocre people at best.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

I'll accept that maybe I'm naive to some of the details. What I do not accept is that going it alone can any ANY way be more cost effective for the university. As I'm sure you know, if football stadiums were profitable  folks would be falling over themselves to build them.  No matter what, if some other entity  offers to share a burden  you are a goddamn fool to walk away from it.  A goddamn fool. Especially if you are a marginal, poor public university. The abject stupidity of SDSU's position is astounding.  Never seen anything like it in my life. I'd like to think that there's a strategy and that there are smart people with a plan, then I watch that mouth breathing idiot JD Wicker make a jackass of himself and just shake my head in disgust.

Train wreck. Big train wreck is coming....

You need to take a finance course, or a remedial.  If you think getting full ownership and responsibilities of  a stadium and not getting full rights for all revenue rightfully entitled is a good thing, well....  i guess you are a San Diegan.  You say SDSU isn't entitled to soccer revenues in its supposed stadium.  What about rent?  What about Ligas and National friendlies. Is SDSU not privy?  To build a stadium, city code requires parking.  Splitting a revenue enducer should mean for at least games in the stadium should be split then, right?  We are talking not stepping on toes and doing folks dirty, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does not the City of SD own Qualcomm Stadium?

Without pumping any money into it, cant they use the existing stadium, as is, without improvements?

I suppose within a couple of years, SUDS will need to decide what their long term plans are going to be.

Either:

1) Start into the modifications to make Qualcomm a suitable home for the next 20ish years.

2) Find a spot for a new stadium site, Get plans drawn up, Do the Environmental Impact Study, Get Crackin on Construction.

But for now, can not they just move forward with the Q?  It's far from the perfect college stadium, but honestly, it's a darn site better than what many programs in the conference have today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balboa stadium was once a 30,000 seat stadium where the Chargers played before Qualcomm.  The city of San Diego owns the land but the current 3,000 seat stadium would need a complete demolishing.  Calling this stadium a high school stadium is ignorant of history.

These FS guys act like SDSU doesn't have a possibility of making this happen, and they would only have to deal with public entities that don't have a profit motive. They are way overplaying their hand and they have to win an election to get their project through.  They need SDSU more than SDSU needs them.

A total Balboa rebuild is at least as good as the plan from this soccer team group from SDSU's perspective because it would mean they won't have private interests taking a cut from revenue generated from games that offset the costs of athletic operations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:53 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

Still outattending SJSU  :banana:

Didn't SJSU have 239 at their last home coming game? Oh never mind, they were counting the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

Balboa stadium was once a 30,000 seat stadium where the Chargers played before Qualcomm.  The city of San Diego owns the land but the current 3,000 seat stadium would need a complete demolishing.  Calling this stadium a high school stadium is ignorant of history.

These FS guys act like SDSU doesn't have a possibility of making this happen, and they would only have to deal with public entities that don't have a profit motive. They are way overplaying their hand and they have to win an election to get their project through.  They need SDSU more than SDSU needs them.

A total Balboa rebuild is at least as good as the plan from this soccer team group from SDSU's perspective because it would mean they won't have private interests taking a cut from revenue generated from games that offset the costs of athletic operations. 

Any construction would need traffic and parking development.  That area is a fairly tight squeeze as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dr. Dre
1 hour ago, ag4fr said:

Does not the City of SD own Qualcomm Stadium?

Without pumping any money into it, cant they use the existing stadium, as is, without improvements?

I suppose within a couple of years, SUDS will need to decide what their long term plans are going to be.

Either:

1) Start into the modifications to make Qualcomm a suitable home for the next 20ish years.

2) Find a spot for a new stadium site, Get plans drawn up, Do the Environmental Impact Study, Get Crackin on Construction.

But for now, can not they just move forward with the Q?  It's far from the perfect college stadium, but honestly, it's a darn site better than what many programs in the conference have today.

 

you are so far out of the loop with this post that its frightening. your post count would assume you visit this site with regularity, yet you ask dumb questions and make even dumber statements about things that have been typed about ad nauseam. Scary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ag4fr said:

True.  I'm not on the site much these days.

So what is the plan for SUDS football?

I must not have heard anyone clearly articulate the direction they are going.

 

City isclosing Qualcomm after 2018 season (mayor faulconer using it as tool to pressure SDSU into deal. It was originally scheduled to close after 2020).

Padres have said SDSU can play at Petco for 2019 season.

Soccer City, SDSU stadium, or whatever it is, will be built by 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2017 at 8:14 PM, sactowndog said:

Sure they will but the question is at what rate?   At that point they can charge you what they want because you will have few options.  

Jesus, this again. SDSU has until December 2017 to join the party. The election would be in November. For those morons that still don't get it, SDSU has the luxury of opposing this shifty plan. Then if it passes, they would just join it.

if they join it they would get 10-15 acres to develop, and they would contribute $100 million to the Stadium which  would have a capacity of 33,500. They would own the Stadium after five years. Its a shitty plan, but far from a disaster for SDSU. 

 

Any other dumb questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, badfish said:

City isclosing Qualcomm after 2018 season (mayor faulconer using it as tool to pressure SDSU into deal. It was originally scheduled to close after 2020).

Padres have said SDSU can play at Petco for 2019 season.

Soccer City, SDSU stadium, or whatever it is, will be built by 2019.

We will be homeless.  And still win the MWC.  :banana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, East Coast Aztec said:

We will be homeless.  And still win the MWC.  :banana:

Well we do need a team in LA so I guess the Aztecs can follow the Chargers and play in LA.  

I guess we know why the Big West didn't expand with UCSD since they will soon get SDSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MWC Tex said:

Well we do need a team in LA so I guess the Aztecs can follow the Chargers and play in LA.  

I guess we know why the Big West didn't expand with UCSD since they will soon get SDSU.

there is rumor that byu,hawaii,boise,sdsu,and unlv are going to form a football indy syndicate.the big west will become a three bid basketball conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fanhood said:

Jesus, this again. SDSU has until December 2017 to join the party. The election would be in November. For those morons that still don't get it, SDSU has the luxury of opposing this shifty plan. Then if it passes, they would just join it.

if they join it they would get 10-15 acres to develop, and they would contribute $100 million to the Stadium which  would have a capacity of 33,500. They would own the Stadium after five years. Its a shitty plan, but far from a disaster for SDSU. 

 

Any other dumb questions?

So are they bailing on the deal or not?   My understanding is they are withdrawing not exploring other alternatives.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...