Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,241
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 355
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #21
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
$200 million is what the would-be San Diego MLS team owners say their stadium (which they proposed to share with SDSU football) would cost. I suppose that's reasonable if it's designed as a 30,000-seat MLS stadium. The San Jose MLS stadium, opened in 2015, seats 18,000 and cost $100 million to build. But SDSU apparently wants a stadium it will control itself (and, I'm guessing, thinks that being a subtenant in a soccer stadium would make SDSU football look small-time).

The better measure is Colorado State's new football stadium that opens this fall. CSU built the stadium on its own campus, so they didn't have to buy land. It has 36,000 seats and cost $220 million. Given the higher construction costs in California, it would likely cost about 50% more ($330 million total) to build the same stadium in San Diego. And AFAIK, SDSU doesn't currently have room on its campus, or any other land they own, to build a stadium.
04-09-2017 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 7,912
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 304
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #22
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-09-2017 08:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  $200 million is what the would-be San Diego MLS team owners say their stadium (which they proposed to share with SDSU football) would cost. I suppose that's reasonable if it's designed as a 30,000-seat MLS stadium. The San Jose MLS stadium, opened in 2015, seats 18,000 and cost $100 million to build. But SDSU apparently wants a stadium it will control itself (and, I'm guessing, thinks that being a subtenant in a soccer stadium would make SDSU football look small-time).

The better measure is Colorado State's new football stadium that opens this fall. CSU built the stadium on its own campus, so they didn't have to buy land. It has 36,000 seats and cost $220 million. Given the higher construction costs in California, it would likely cost about 50% more ($330 million total) to build the same stadium in San Diego. And AFAIK, SDSU doesn't currently have room on its campus, or any other land they own, to build a stadium.

It's odd because all the SDSU posters pointed to the Chargers leaving as being a game changer in a good way for SDSU. I bought into it. It now looks like it could cost them their football program. It's like they didn't have a plan for when the moment came. I don't get why they thought the Chargers leaving was going to so great for them now. ?
04-09-2017 09:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shizzle787 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 494
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 0
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #23
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Hmm...so if SDSU's football program goes in the can is there any chance the WCC (yes, it's all private) would take them?
04-09-2017 10:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 7,912
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 304
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #24
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-09-2017 10:12 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Hmm...so if SDSU's football program goes in the can is there any chance the WCC (yes, it's all private) would take them?

BYU would probably like it. Old rivals.
04-09-2017 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,956
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 176
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #25
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-09-2017 08:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  $200 million is what the would-be San Diego MLS team owners say their stadium (which they proposed to share with SDSU football) would cost. I suppose that's reasonable if it's designed as a 30,000-seat MLS stadium. The San Jose MLS stadium, opened in 2015, seats 18,000 and cost $100 million to build. But SDSU apparently wants a stadium it will control itself (and, I'm guessing, thinks that being a subtenant in a soccer stadium would make SDSU football look small-time).

The better measure is Colorado State's new football stadium that opens this fall. CSU built the stadium on its own campus, so they didn't have to buy land. It has 36,000 seats and cost $220 million. Given the higher construction costs in California, it would likely cost about 50% more ($330 million total) to build the same stadium in San Diego. And AFAIK, SDSU doesn't currently have room on its campus, or any other land they own, to build a stadium.

First, SDSU thinks the 30,000 seat stadium is inadequate for FBS football.

Second, that $200 million doesn't count land costs. They're counting on the city giving them the entire Qualcomm site at "fair market value" (as determined in the future by a "neutral 3rd party" which sounds bogus).

Third, a lot of folks think the whole MLS stadium is a ruse for the development group behind the proposal to get there hands on the entire 166 acre Qualcomm site. I'd tend to agree because the proposal also includes 5000 condos, 2 million sq ft of office (equal to 1/7th of downtown San Diego), and 750k sq ft of retail (equal to a large shopping mall).
04-10-2017 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,241
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 355
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #26
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-10-2017 04:27 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(04-09-2017 08:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  $200 million is what the would-be San Diego MLS team owners say their stadium (which they proposed to share with SDSU football) would cost. I suppose that's reasonable if it's designed as a 30,000-seat MLS stadium. The San Jose MLS stadium, opened in 2015, seats 18,000 and cost $100 million to build. But SDSU apparently wants a stadium it will control itself (and, I'm guessing, thinks that being a subtenant in a soccer stadium would make SDSU football look small-time).

The better measure is Colorado State's new football stadium that opens this fall. CSU built the stadium on its own campus, so they didn't have to buy land. It has 36,000 seats and cost $220 million. Given the higher construction costs in California, it would likely cost about 50% more ($330 million total) to build the same stadium in San Diego. And AFAIK, SDSU doesn't currently have room on its campus, or any other land they own, to build a stadium.

First, SDSU thinks the 30,000 seat stadium is inadequate for FBS football.

Second, that $200 million doesn't count land costs. They're counting on the city giving them the entire Qualcomm site at "fair market value" (as determined in the future by a "neutral 3rd party" which sounds bogus).

Third, a lot of folks think the whole MLS stadium is a ruse for the development group behind the proposal to get there hands on the entire 166 acre Qualcomm site. I'd tend to agree because the proposal also includes 5000 condos, 2 million sq ft of office (equal to 1/7th of downtown San Diego), and 750k sq ft of retail (equal to a large shopping mall).

If they want to develop the rest of the land to justify the cost of paying for both a stadium and a huge MLS expansion fee, that would make sense. I wouldn't expect someone spending over $350 million on a stadium plus a team to just sink in that money without making some of it back in some way. Can't make that kind of money back just by selling tickets and jerseys.

SDSU's objection isn't to the proposed number of seats. If it was, then they would say, "We will support the project if the stadium has 40,000 seats." But that's not the message, from what I've read. So a reasonable assumption is that SDSU thinks they can find a place for their football team either by having the city or someone else build it, or by playing on public sentiment to get the Padres owners to let SDSU use Petco Park indefinitely. Time will tell if they're right.
04-10-2017 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,020
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 42
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #27
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
The land on the open market is probably worth over $500m.

Everyone knows it, but politicians are incredibly able to forget things like that.
04-11-2017 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lance99 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 997
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Akron Zips
Location:
Post: #28
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-09-2017 04:54 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(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:  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.
You for forgot to add to comply to California Earthquake Laws...

Sent from my Z988 using CSNbbs mobile app
04-11-2017 01:37 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,357
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 415
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #29
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-09-2017 09:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-09-2017 08:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  $200 million is what the would-be San Diego MLS team owners say their stadium (which they proposed to share with SDSU football) would cost. I suppose that's reasonable if it's designed as a 30,000-seat MLS stadium. The San Jose MLS stadium, opened in 2015, seats 18,000 and cost $100 million to build. But SDSU apparently wants a stadium it will control itself (and, I'm guessing, thinks that being a subtenant in a soccer stadium would make SDSU football look small-time).

The better measure is Colorado State's new football stadium that opens this fall. CSU built the stadium on its own campus, so they didn't have to buy land. It has 36,000 seats and cost $220 million. Given the higher construction costs in California, it would likely cost about 50% more ($330 million total) to build the same stadium in San Diego. And AFAIK, SDSU doesn't currently have room on its campus, or any other land they own, to build a stadium.

It's odd because all the SDSU posters pointed to the Chargers leaving as being a game changer in a good way for SDSU. I bought into it. It now looks like it could cost them their football program. It's like they didn't have a plan for when the moment came. I don't get why they thought the Chargers leaving was going to so great for them now. ?

Actually it sounds like they want something like Georgia State did where a developer picks up much of the tab. But they don't have the money themselves to do what needs to be done. And they don't necessarily have a sympathetic group of city politicians and residents.
04-11-2017 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 7,912
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 304
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #30
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Bust...I can't believe this is happening. A big city first loses their NFL team and now their FBS football team????
04-11-2017 11:45 AM
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.