(04-08-2017 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 06:48 AM)goofus Wrote:  I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?

It's probably maintenance on the stadium that San Diego doesn't want to pay for any longer, particularly without the Chargers as the primary tenant.

Right. Reportedly maintenance on the old stadium is costing the city $12 million a year.

USC is spending about $200 million of its own money (from donors and sponsors) to rehab the LA Coliseum. UCLA pays substantial rent and is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl; UCLA's rent money helped to finance renovations at the Rose Bowl. (That long-term lease looks especially good for the Rose Bowl in hindsight, because it now eliminates the possibility of UCLA moving its home games to KroenkeWorld.)

Based on what I've read, SDSU hopes that they can use local political clout to solve their football stadium problem on someone else's dime, at little or no cost to SDSU, which is obviously a completely different strategy than what USC and UCLA have done.