Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Author Message
Wedge Offline
There will be no extra point.
*

Posts: 11,767
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 337
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #11
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(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.
04-08-2017 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 6,671
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 265
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #12
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

That's cheap. SDSU wants to play big boy football but doesn't want to pay for a stadium? That's simply astonishing.
04-08-2017 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,988
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 224
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #13
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 06:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

That's cheap. SDSU wants to play big boy football but doesn't want to pay for a stadium? That's simply astonishing.

The difference between USC spending $200 million and SDSU not spending any is that USC actually HAS $200 million and SDSU doesn't.
04-08-2017 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,471
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 321
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #14
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Bust.

Stadium will get to be a real issue in the next decade.
04-08-2017 07:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
There will be no extra point.
*

Posts: 11,767
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 337
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #15
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

That's cheap. SDSU wants to play big boy football but doesn't want to pay for a stadium? That's simply astonishing.

The difference between USC spending $200 million and SDSU not spending any is that USC actually HAS $200 million and SDSU doesn't.

Right, USC can raise that money. They have a massive athletic donor base and they net several million in ticket sales and concessions from each home football game.
04-08-2017 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,118
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 162
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #16
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-07-2017 01:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Pro - If you're a football fan in San Diego, I'd imagine that your eyes are probably on the Aztecs.

Con - If Qualcomm goes away, where will SDSU play? I can't imagine that it will be easy to get a new stadium. And w/ the Chargers gone, will Qualcomm stay put? I'd imagine that the Padres will want a baseball-only stadium, and they might now have the leverage to get it (if they haven't already).

So is SDSU a buy, sell, or hold?

Bust.

The future is bleak for the Aztecs.
04-08-2017 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 6,671
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 265
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #17
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 07:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Bust.

Stadium will get to be a real issue in the next decade.

Well bullet, the AAC dodged a bullet on adding SDSU
04-08-2017 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,471
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 321
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #18
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

And it seems really contrary to the political climate in California. The Rams 20 years ago, the Raiders and the Chargers couldn't get anyone to pay for their stadiums.
04-08-2017 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,782
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 86
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #19
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  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.

And it seems really contrary to the political climate in California. The Rams 20 years ago, the Raiders and the Chargers couldn't get anyone to pay for their stadiums.

Yeah, this March 27th article from the San Diego paper does make it look like SDSU is trying to bargain down from an offer of a $100m SDSU investment into a shared MLS/SDSU stadium with an alternative proposal of a $150m all-SDSU stadium with no financing plan attached.
04-08-2017 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,708
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 158
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #20
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

That's cheap. SDSU wants to play big boy football but doesn't want to pay for a stadium? That's simply astonishing.

The difference between USC spending $200 million and SDSU not spending any is that USC actually HAS $200 million and SDSU doesn't.

SDSU probably could raise $200 million. But $200 million won't buy you an FBS-quality stadium in California.

They'd probably spend $200 million before they even moved the first dirt. The land alone would cost half of that, and the environmental review might take that much too (slight exaggeration - but didn't you know that everything in California is in a "sensitive" ecological area?). And then there's California's unions, which make New Jersey look like a free market.
04-09-2017 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.