Chargers moving to Los Angeles.

[k5james]

1 hour ago, AztecBill said:

No vision. A good stadium will make a huge difference.  

No sense of reality.  This will be a good stadium.

[AztecMD]

IMO tailgating will be replaced with boozing in the sports and entertainment district.  

[k5james]

45 minutes ago, AztecMD said:

IMO tailgating will be replaced with boozing in the sports and entertainment district.  

I bet there will still be tailgating in the river park a la UCLA.

[AztecBill]

On 1/26/2017 at 0:38 PM, k5james said:

No sense of reality.  This will be a good stadium.

Yes, and it will make a huge difference. Unfortunately all the new fans won't be able to attend. 

[BacksThePack]

On 1/26/2017 at 10:55 AM, RSF said:

And 4 are secondary tenants who share with a pro football team - Atlanta, Vancouver (both also domes), Seattle, New England.  The 5th is Portland, and the city of Portland owns their stadium.

That's also a converted baseball stadium in Portland.

[k5james]

3 hours ago, AztecBill said:

Yes, and it will make a huge difference. Unfortunately all the new fans won't be able to attend. 

Yes they will.  They'll just actually have to support the team now by buying season tickets.  The free ride of $99 season tickets and walking up to by $10 tickets on game day is over.

[RSF]

When all is said and done, I dont think SDSU is going to have to worry about sharing an undersized stadium with an MLS team.  San Diego has an uphill battle to land one of the 4 available expansion slots.  Of the 12 cities that have applied, only SD and Detroit dont have a team playing or ramping up to play in NASL or USL, their stadium plan is still very, VERY conceptual, and SD is the 9th largest TV market of the 12 involved (and one of the smaller ones in Cincinnati, which drew better crowds than 5 MLS teams in their 1st year of existence).  Plus, with Sacramento considered a near-lock for one slot (their USL team draws great crowds, they have in-place ownership and a stadium plan that has financing in place and the ability to put shovels in the dirt the day MLS says go), they'll also be looking at trying to fill a geographic hole that doesnt really exist.  What helps is time - the 1st 2 expansion teams arent expected to be playing until 2020.

[k5james]

24 minutes ago, RSF said:

When all is said and done, I dont think SDSU is going to have to worry about sharing an undersized stadium with an MLS team.  San Diego has an uphill battle to land one of the 4 available expansion slots.  Of the 12 cities that have applied, only SD and Detroit dont have a team playing or ramping up to play in NASL or USL, their stadium plan is still very, VERY conceptual, and SD is the 9th largest TV market of the 12 involved (and one of the smaller ones in Cincinnati, which drew better crowds than 5 MLS teams in their 1st year of existence).  Plus, with Sacramento considered a near-lock for one slot (their USL team draws great crowds, they have in-place ownership and a stadium plan that has financing in place and the ability to put shovels in the dirt the day MLS says go), they'll also be looking at trying to fill a geographic hole that doesnt really exist.  What helps is time - the 1st 2 expansion teams arent expected to be playing until 2020.

You'd be wrong.  As a soccer market San Diego blows the other out of the water.  There's a reason the commissioner was here to accept the application personally.

The attendance for the USMNT/Serbia match was more than double the attendance for any US friendly in '16.

San Diego is a virtual lock.

[madmartigan]

12 minutes ago, k5james said:

You'd be wrong.  As a soccer market San Diego blows the other out of the water.  There's a reason the commissioner was here to accept the application personally.

The attendance for the USMNT/Serbia match was more than double the attendance for any US friendly in '16.

San Diego is a virtual lock.

 

That booming Serbian population in San Diego....

[Old_SD_Dude]

39 minutes ago, RSF said:

When all is said and done, I dont think SDSU is going to have to worry about sharing an undersized stadium with an MLS team.  San Diego has an uphill battle to land one of the 4 available expansion slots.  Of the 12 cities that have applied, only SD and Detroit dont have a team playing or ramping up to play in NASL or USL, their stadium plan is still very, VERY conceptual, and SD is the 9th largest TV market of the 12 involved (and one of the smaller ones in Cincinnati, which drew better crowds than 5 MLS teams in their 1st year of existence).  Plus, with Sacramento considered a near-lock for one slot (their USL team draws great crowds, they have in-place ownership and a stadium plan that has financing in place and the ability to put shovels in the dirt the day MLS says go), they'll also be looking at trying to fill a geographic hole that doesnt really exist.  What helps is time - the 1st 2 expansion teams arent expected to be playing until 2020.

Guess where the MLS Commisioner was on the day of SD's announcement?

[RSF]

57 minutes ago, k5james said:

You'd be wrong.  As a soccer market San Diego blows the other out of the water.  There's a reason the commissioner was here to accept the application personally.

The attendance for the USMNT/Serbia match was more than double the attendance for any US friendly in '16.

San Diego is a virtual lock.

One game does not a lock make.  Anymore than St Louis - which MLS wants badly - is a lock because they drew 43K for a game against St Vincent and the Grenadines.  If St. Louis gets their stadium stuff together (sound familiar?) they are the lock.  BTW - USMNT had a couple friendlies in 2015 with better crowds - like 44k in Nashville (which is also an expansion candidate).  And they're expecting 20K in Chattanooga Friday.

42 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Guess where the MLS Commisioner was on the day of SD's announcement?

BFD.  Where else was he gonna be?  He visits ALL the expansion candidates.  Just last month he was swapping spit with the folks in Cincinnati.

The commissioner doesnt make the decision, BTW.

Qualified applicants will submit documentation that focuses on the following three areas: 1) Ownership – Structure and financial informations; 2) Stadium – details on proposed site, financing, approvals and support; and 3) Financial Projections, Corporate Support and Soccer Support – a business plan, projections and commitment letters for naming rights and a jersey-front sponsor, along with an overview of support from the soccer community.

Three key aspects are considered top priorities when reviewing candidates: 

1. A committed local ownership group that has a passion for the sport, a deep belief in Major League Soccer and the resources to invest in the infrastructure to build the sport in their respective market.
2. A market that has a history of strong fan support for soccer matches and other sporting events, is located in a desirable geographic location and is attractive to corporate sponsors and television partners.
3. A comprehensive stadium plan that ensures the club will have a proper home for their fans and players while also serving as a destination for the sport in the community.

Major League Soccer’s expansion committee consists of ownership representatives from five clubs including Jonathan Kraft (New England Revolution), Andrew Hauptman (Chicago Fire), Anthony Precourt (Columbus Crew SC), Phil Rawlins (Orlando City SC) and Jay Sugarman (Philadelphia Union).

[AztecSU]

I'll have to look it up. But I'm pretty sure aside from having a large crowd for the USMNT, SD is usually one of the top tv markets by % of viewership during US soccer matches. You better believe the MLS is carefully considering the vacuum left by the Chargers....and I know there have been comparisons to when the sonics left Seattle right after the arrival of the Sounders. 

[AztecMD]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-mls-20170130-story.html

San Diego is a virtual lock.  

"One more hint that San Diego might be on MLS’s fast track: The investors announced a new partner on Monday -- Juan Carlos Rodriguez, the Miami-based president of Univision Deportes, the most powerful sports channel in Mexico that holds the rights to MLS games.

Rodriguez said he is investing his own money, and despite no direct ties to San Diego, he said, “I believe in the group of owners. I believe in the future of the sport. I believe in the city.”

[masterfrog]

I believe that San Diego is a hotbed for soccer.  But, they are the only expansion candidate that has a team playing in a superior league 30 miles away.  The MLS team will be a virtual minor league team for that 50 mile radius.

[SleepingGiantFan]

3 hours ago, k5james said:

Yes they will.  They'll just actually have to support the team now by buying season tickets.  The free ride of $99 season tickets and walking up to by $10 tickets on game day is over.

I don't think that was Bill's point. I think his point, which is the same as mine, is that if the stadium holds just 30K, with the way our football team is improving, at least half the time fans wanting to attend are going to be turned away. Even if there are 30K seats + 5K standing room tickets sold, there are going to be games at which fans wanting to attend cannot do so.

[AztecMD]

5 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I don't think that was Bill's point. I think his point, which is the same as mine, is that if the stadium holds just 30K, with the way our football team is improving, at least half the time fans wanting to attend are going to be turned away. Even if there are 30K seats + 5K standing room tickets sold, there are going to be games at which fans wanting to attend cannot do so.

That has been the case at Viejas arena since 2011...should we have built it considerably larger than 12,414?   Now with our first real poor stretch since then it's half full.   

[East Coast Aztec]

25 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I don't think that was Bill's point. I think his point, which is the same as mine, is that if the stadium holds just 30K, with the way our football team is improving, at least half the time fans wanting to attend are going to be turned away. Even if there are 30K seats + 5K standing room tickets sold, there are going to be games at which fans wanting to attend cannot do so.

Making it so big that it is 30% empty for the rest of the games is what dissuades me from an agreeance with you.  SDSU fans get a shot to prove they will actually attend with consistency.  SDSU has stated they want the ability to expand, so if that clause holds, I would have zero problem with 35k by whatever combination of seat options.

 

Viejas has shown that it was built a near perfect size for a winning program.  Maybe a handful of games that you could not a ticket for less than $75 on the secondary market.  That is not expensive for a big game.

 

[k5james]

32 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I don't think that was Bill's point. I think his point, which is the same as mine, is that if the stadium holds just 30K, with the way our football team is improving, at least half the time fans wanting to attend are going to be turned away. Even if there are 30K seats + 5K standing room tickets sold, there are going to be games at which fans wanting to attend cannot do so.

We're not going to have 30k season tickets right off the bat.  Anyone that's wants to go to a game will be able to for the first few years.  They'll just have to pay now to do it...

[k5james]

2 hours ago, RSF said:

One game does not a lock make.  Anymore than St Louis - which MLS wants badly - is a lock because they drew 43K for a game against St Vincent and the Grenadines.  If St. Louis gets their stadium stuff together (sound familiar?) they are the lock.  BTW - USMNT had a couple friendlies in 2015 with better crowds - like 44k in Nashville (which is also an expansion candidate).  And they're expecting 20K in Chattanooga Friday.

BFD.  Where else was he gonna be?  He visits ALL the expansion candidates.  Just last month he was swapping spit with the folks in Cincinnati.

The commissioner doesnt make the decision, BTW.

Qualified applicants will submit documentation that focuses on the following three areas: 1) Ownership – Structure and financial informations; 2) Stadium – details on proposed site, financing, approvals and support; and 3) Financial Projections, Corporate Support and Soccer Support – a business plan, projections and commitment letters for naming rights and a jersey-front sponsor, along with an overview of support from the soccer community.

Three key aspects are considered top priorities when reviewing candidates: 

1. A committed local ownership group that has a passion for the sport, a deep belief in Major League Soccer and the resources to invest in the infrastructure to build the sport in their respective market.
2. A market that has a history of strong fan support for soccer matches and other sporting events, is located in a desirable geographic location and is attractive to corporate sponsors and television partners.
3. A comprehensive stadium plan that ensures the club will have a proper home for their fans and players while also serving as a destination for the sport in the community.

Major League Soccer’s expansion committee consists of ownership representatives from five clubs including Jonathan Kraft (New England Revolution), Andrew Hauptman (Chicago Fire), Anthony Precourt (Columbus Crew SC), Phil Rawlins (Orlando City SC) and Jay Sugarman (Philadelphia Union).

San Diego checks all of those marks.  San Diego is a virtual lock.  The only thing that could derail this is the ownership group and SDSU not coming to an agreement.

[AztecBill]

On 1/31/2017 at 10:19 AM, AztecMD said:

That has been the case at Viejas arena since 2011...should we have built it considerably larger than 12,414?   Now with our first real poor stretch since then it's half full.   

Viejas was built at 4 times the then current crowd sizes. 12+K is a great size for NCAA basketball. None of that is true of 30K for NCAA football.  We need 42k - 41k is too small and 43k is too big.