LINK

One pic shows it near baseball stadium (closer to ocean than current location). Could be good news for SDSU.

(04-22-2016 06:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  LINK

One pic shows it near baseball stadium (closer to ocean than current location). Could be good news for SDSU.

If the Chargers stay in San Diego, that's bad news for SDSU. Doesn't matter where they build a stadium if that means the Chargers don't leave their city. It's not sustainable for them...
Cheers!

If the Chargers build their stadium downtown, SDSU won't play there. So SDSU will be stuck with the same options they would have if Chargers move to Los Angeles.

1 ) continue to play in Crappy Qualcom, which has way more seats than they need.

2) replace Qualcom with new stadium near campus with roughly 35k capacity.

Of course if the Chargers do move to LA, the city might find another NFL team that would be willing to play in a new stadium on the existing Qualcom site, which SDSU would probably sharee.

This image shows the proximity of the proposed stadium to Petco Park, the bay, and the convention center.

If the Chargers move to LA, then it should be time to move on from the NFL. Don't get suckered into more corporate welfare and build a new stadium. They just want to protect their identity to avoid being lumped in with LA but at what price? Besides, how would it look for half of your city to be engaged with another team just up the coast while the other half roots for the new team? Can you imagine the chargers in La and their rival Raiders in San Diego? You could never get me to root for my division rivals.

(04-23-2016 12:33 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  If the Chargers move to LA, then it should be time to move on from the NFL. Don't get suckered into more corporate welfare and build a new stadium. They just want to protect their identity to avoid being lumped in with LA but at what price? Besides, how would it look for half of your city to be engaged with another team just up the coast while the other half roots for the new team? Can you imagine the chargers in La and their rival Raiders in San Diego? You could never get me to root for my division rivals.

Goodell now involved with the San Diego Stadium issue...from the article:

That was Roger Goodell's message to the city of San Diego on Saturday.

During a downtown rally for the team's proposed new stadium, Goodell told the estimated 4,000 people in attendance that the city would likely be rewarded with a Super Bowl if funds for the Chargers' new stadium gets approved by voters in November.

"I'm confident that if they can get a stadium built here, the owners will want to support it with a Super Bowl," Goodell said, via ESPN.com. "I think that's what this community deserves, and we're all going to work to try and find a solution."

Of the $1.8 billion in costs, the NFL and the Chargers will be chipping in a total of $650 million. The stadium itself -- minus the convention center -- is expected to cost around $1.1 billion.

At the downtown event on Saturday, Goodell was joined by Chargers head coach Mike McCoy, general manager Tom Telesco, cornerback Jason Verrett, Philip Rivers, LaDainian Tomlinson and team chairman Dean Spanos.

Goodell made it clear that he'd like to see the Chargers stay in San Diego.

"I think the Chargers belong in San Diego," Goodell said. "I think this is a great community, a great fan base. Everyone has acknowledged that we need a new stadium. The great thing I love about this proposal is it's more than a stadium. You're addressing not only the stadium, but you're addressing needs with the convention facility."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foot...ew-stadium

(04-24-2016 12:56 PM)Maize Wrote:  Goodell made it clear that he'd like to see the Chargers stay in San Diego.

"I think the Chargers belong in San Diego," Goodell said.

Obviously you have to take anything Goodell says with a grain of salt, or several grains of salt, but in this case I think it really is the NFL's view. The NFL would rather see the Chargers stay in SD because leaving LA open for the Raiders if/when they give up on the Bay Area, or just leaving LA as a one-team market, are both better outcomes, in the eyes of the league, than the Chargers sharing LA with the Rams.

Someone is gonna end up in LA. The Raiders are dead in Oakland to the taxpayers.

And nothing like the ol' bait of a Super Bowl. Everyone already knows how nice the weather is in February in San Diego, it doesn't need a Super Bowl for people to know that and visit. Let a place like El Paso, TX get suckered in and build a stadium to lure a team and Super Bowl because they need the publicity, not a place like San Diego.

The Raiders might still play in Santa Clara no matter what Mark Davis says now. Sharing Inglewood with the Rams would cost him $550 million more than sharing Santa Clara with the 49ers.

Yeah, Raiders moving into Levi stadium would seem to be the easy move, just spend some money changing all the seats to green. Raiders aren't doing anything until the chargers get settled but it doesn't seem like a new stadium in Oakland is realistic.

1) move to levi
2) move to LA if chargers stay in SD
3) move to SD if chargers move to LA, think the NFL wouldn't like it
4) move to Vegas, NFL not gonna like it
5) move to St Louis, davis doesn't like it but they did have a good stadium plan

think cowboys and texans would KO any move to san A

(04-22-2016 11:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This image shows the proximity of the proposed stadium to Petco Park, the bay, and the convention center.

I guess I haven't been paying attention - I thought the stadium would be adjacent to or across the street from the convention center (convadium). This shows a long walk from convention center to stadium. Kind of weird for an annex.

I haven't seen much discussion on whether or not this could be a general fund tax increase. I know the mayor and Chargers think it is but I assume there will be groups that object and at least threaten to take this to court. That's probably the most crucial issue in this whole plan - whether it'll take 50.1% or 66.7% to pass.

(04-25-2016 09:48 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Yeah, Raiders moving into Levi stadium would seem to be the easy move, just spend some money changing all the seats to green. Raiders aren't doing anything until the chargers get settled but it doesn't seem like a new stadium in Oakland is realistic.

1) move to levi
2) move to LA if chargers stay in SD
3) move to SD if chargers move to LA, think the NFL wouldn't like it
4) move to Vegas, NFL not gonna like it
5) move to St Louis, davis doesn't like it but they did have a good stadium plan

think cowboys and texans would KO any move to san A

Why change all the seats to green? Just suck it up and be the secondary tenant, the Jets were with the Giants for decades. The Raiders could have been co-tenants but that ship sailed.

The Cowboys and Texans can be compensated with a little green and I don't mean the Hippie Lettuce. San Antonio is a factor.

(04-25-2016 01:12 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 11:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This image shows the proximity of the proposed stadium to Petco Park, the bay, and the convention center.

I guess I haven't been paying attention - I thought the stadium would be adjacent to or across the street from the convention center (convadium). This shows a long walk from convention center to stadium. Kind of weird for an annex.

There's a pedestrian bridge at the south end of the existing convention center (on the drawing, look behind the home plate side of Petco Park to see it) and after crossing that bridge, it would be a 2 or 3 minute walk to the "convadium". I can't say whether convention-goers would think that walk is too long, but it appears to be about the same distance as the walk from one end of the current convention center to the other (the north end is cut off in the drawing shown above).

(04-25-2016 01:12 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I haven't seen much discussion on whether or not this could be a general fund tax increase. I know the mayor and Chargers think it is but I assume there will be groups that object and at least threaten to take this to court. That's probably the most crucial issue in this whole plan - whether it'll take 50.1% or 66.7% to pass.

No doubt that's the #1 issue. No ballot measure could win two-thirds of the vote.

Just no unless they're going to build a dome. Football stadiums bring nothing, especially for a place like San Diego that's already nationally famous and attracts visitors. If I were a citizen forced to pay for that crap I'd do some stuff that I won't even type for a number of reasons.

Why do people keep insisting that domes are so much better than open air stadia? They may increase the value of the venue but the incremental increase to the municipality is non-existent. Significantly more people aren't going to go to San Diego to see events, in a dome or otherwise. (Getting a Super Bowl and/or Final Four every 10-15 years isn't enough.) They'll just go to this event instead of that event. There is no real benefit to the local economy (hence, no justification for the public expenditure).

Every 10-15 years? A place like San Diego would get a Final Four every 5-8 years if it had a dome. Believe me when I say people would rather spend a week(end) in San Diego than here in Houston, heck I would as well from a tourist value/weather standpoint. The Super Bowl would also be a regular event. It's not much but they do help and a whole lot more than having a football stadium be used 10-13 times a year (including preseason games).

San Diego has some element of Phoenix and its snowbird bloom but it's still a place that can draw extra people for extra events.

(04-25-2016 10:31 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Every 10-15 years? A place like San Diego would get a Final Four every 5-8 years if it had a dome. Believe me when I say people would rather spend a week(end) in San Diego than here in Houston, heck I would as well from a tourist value/weather standpoint. The Super Bowl would also be a regular event. It's not much but they do help and a whole lot more than having a football stadium be used 10-13 times a year (including preseason games).

San Diego has some element of Phoenix and its snowbird bloom but it's still a place that can draw extra people for extra events.

Still not enough.

If they go in with San Diego State, keep the bowls and add a few side events such as high school football, they can get into the mid-30's in days used per year.

(04-26-2016 03:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If they go in with San Diego State, keep the bowls and add a few side events such as high school football, they can get into the mid-30's in days used per year.

You are making my point. These kinds of public funding deals only work if they bring NEW money to the city. They have to grow SD's economy enough to justify the 9 figure tax collection. But too many of the events you describe simply shift money from one local venue to another. Again, that helps the venue but not the city.

2020 AFC West
Las Vegas Raiders
Kansas City Chiefs
San Diego Chargers
Denver Broncos

Lol