Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
Author Message
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,029
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 176
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #21
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-17-2017 11:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The city owns the stadium and the land. Reportedly it costs the city $12 million/year to maintain and operate the stadium. To stop that bleeding, the city wants the stadium torn down after 2018 when the SDSU lease ends. I suspect that's one of the attractions of the MLS developer's proposal - they would tear down the Q at no cost to the city, relieving the city of both the annual operations cost and the cost of demolition/cleanup.

Looks to me like SDSU is taking two risks here.

1. Hoping there will be no backlash against SDSU if they kill the MLS proposal and San Diego doesn't get an MLS franchise. IMO they're probably safe there because the number of diehard soccer fans in San Diego is surely less than 50% of the population.

2. Gambling that either a billionaire angel will build a football stadium for the Aztecs at little or no cost to SDSU, or that SDSU can play on public sympathy to pressure the city to both leave the Q standing indefinitely and to pay all the operations costs indefinitely. I have no idea whether or not this is a good risk to take.

SDSU does have one trick up its sleeve: time. PETCO park is owned by SDSU's biggest supporter.

But the soccercity people have a big thing on their side too: the ignorance of the general public.

The land is worth hundreds of millions (maybe even $1 billion with those development rights). But somehow the Soccercity folks have made the deal look like a favor they're doing for the city because it eliminates the $12 million/yr cost.
05-17-2017 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 8,120
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 315
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #22
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-17-2017 10:51 AM)YNot Wrote:  I'm not up-to-speed on all the issues. Is playing in Qualcomm after 2019 or whatever not a realistic option? Isn't an old stadium better than none? Is it too expensive to operate in Qualcomm as the sole tenant? What is the urgency?

The city has said multiple times that they are tearing it down after the 2018 season. Stadium is too expensive too maintain; Too old and the land it sits on is worth a billion so that's why it's gonzos
05-17-2017 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aztec Since 88 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 114
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2
I Root For: San Diego State
Location:
Post: #23
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
The city says it cost 12 to 14 million to operate the Q, but what they don't tell everyone that at least 5 million of that is a bond payment that has to be made from when they expanded it in the early 2000s. The city still has to make that bond payment even when the Q is raised. The real cost is around 7 million to operate annually. Any lease beyond 2018 would have SDSU picking up the cost of maintenance minus the bond debt.

If you read the soccer city proposal it is bad for the city of SD. The are trying to get the land to build a condo city under the ruse of building stadium and river park, without traffic mitigation for and additional 500O units and any events held at the new stadium. This area of toen is already congested. FS Investors could potentially get the 166 acres of land for 10K, plus the cost of stadium demo and removal.

The Soccer City plan is not good for SDSU, and they should not support it, SDSU's goal is more about campus expansion to grow the university in enrollment than it is about the stadium. Although if SDSU is able obtain part or all of the of 166, that is where they would prefer to build a new stadium.
05-17-2017 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,535
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 65
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-17-2017 02:23 PM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  The city says it cost 12 to 14 million to operate the Q, but what they don't tell everyone that at least 5 million of that is a bond payment that has to be made from when they expanded it in the early 2000s. The city still has to make that bond payment even when the Q is raised. The real cost is around 7 million to operate annually. Any lease beyond 2018 would have SDSU picking up the cost of maintenance minus the bond debt.

If you read the soccer city proposal it is bad for the city of SD. The are trying to get the land to build a condo city under the ruse of building stadium and river park, without traffic mitigation for and additional 500O units and any events held at the new stadium. This area of toen is already congested. FS Investors could potentially get the 166 acres of land for 10K, plus the cost of stadium demo and removal.

The Soccer City plan is not good for SDSU, and they should not support it, SDSU's goal is more about campus expansion to grow the university in enrollment than it is about the stadium. Although if SDSU is able obtain part or all of the of 166, that is where they would prefer to build a new stadium.

The city also ignores/hides the high costs related directly to the Chargers games that won't affect the future operational budget. A big portion of these high costs came from disability access lawsuit payments and a horrible lease - which essentially eliminated any revenue received from the Chargers.

Take away the $5M debt-service, the $800K paid to the Chargers (lawsuit related), $1.1M in public safety, and probably a good portion of their $3.4M annual personnel budget, and the cost to continue operations of Qualcomm is more likely in the $4-5M/year range.

Qualcomm made $3.1M in revenue in 2015 from non-Chargers/SDSU events. SDSU starts paying $2M in rent ($333K per game) and the problem is solved. That's $11 extra per ticket (on the average), if SDSU gets 30K attendance (The Aztecs averaged 37K in 2016, 29K in 2015, and 32K in 2014).

Of course, the other side is the $50M remaining on the bond and the fact that the land is allegedly worth $1B. Hard to keep such valuable land when it will only be used for 7 annual college football games (including bowl game), some monster truck rallies, and the weekly swap meet.

But, at that valuation, sell off like 5-10% of the parking area, and keep the rest, and the bond is paid off in full and you would probably still have enough left over for an endowment for ongoing stadium maintenance and repairs.

But this is all moot because the city seems determined to shut down Qualcomm after 2018.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2017 05:19 PM by YNot.)
05-17-2017 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,986
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #25
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
everyone is saying the land is worth $1 billion, but the reality as it stands now and probably for a while it is worth zero

and even when something is finally done the city will not come close to seeing $1 billion in actual payments or in taxes paid over decades

by the time they get in there and put restrictions and let idiot neighbors (that live 5 miles away) and everyone else get in there and get a bribe, handout, payoff or some other BS much less the use restrictions they will put on it the city will be lucky if it does not cost them $500 million over several years to get anything on that land besides a decaying falling apart stajium

it is like saying the Alameda Naval Air Station is worth X dollars, but when the morons that run that area are done you probably can't give that land away to someone that would actually be wiling to build the crap and do the things they would be required to do to actually do anything with that land......it will just sit there and be worthless (especially with Myth Busters off the air) and be nothing

the same fate awaits Qualcom most likely in about 15 years they will finally have some plans approved before either a new lawsuit of a poor economy stops that project dead and you have to start over again which means all new plans and all new lawsuits and a new group of grifters looking to shake anyone and everyone down to build on that land
05-18-2017 07:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #26
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 07:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  everyone is saying the land is worth $1 billion, but the reality as it stands now and probably for a while it is worth zero

and even when something is finally done the city will not come close to seeing $1 billion in actual payments or in taxes paid over decades

by the time they get in there and put restrictions and let idiot neighbors (that live 5 miles away) and everyone else get in there and get a bribe, handout, payoff or some other BS much less the use restrictions they will put on it the city will be lucky if it does not cost them $500 million over several years to get anything on that land besides a decaying falling apart stajium

it is like saying the Alameda Naval Air Station is worth X dollars, but when the morons that run that area are done you probably can't give that land away to someone that would actually be wiling to build the crap and do the things they would be required to do to actually do anything with that land......it will just sit there and be worthless (especially with Myth Busters off the air) and be nothing

the same fate awaits Qualcom most likely in about 15 years they will finally have some plans approved before either a new lawsuit of a poor economy stops that project dead and you have to start over again which means all new plans and all new lawsuits and a new group of grifters looking to shake anyone and everyone down to build on that land

Yes. Cities often move at a glacial pace. Houston, over a decade after opening NRG Stadium (it was Reliant Stadium back then) and closing the Astrodome---still hasn't figured out what to do with the Astrodme. So they continue to pay on bonds floated for a seat expansion in the 1980's and for maintenance/utility costs that are several million a year. They have plans to tear it down and proposals to use it as anything from a casino to an indoor park. To date--still no decision.

Given Houston doesn't have zoning, you'd think they would be more nimble.at this sort of thing. I hope San Diego moves faster than Houston for SDSU's sake.
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 07:57 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-18-2017 07:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,426
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 269
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #27
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 07:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Houston, over a decade after opening NRG Stadium (it was Reliant Stadium back then) and closing the Astrodome---still hasn't figured out what to do with the Astrodme. So they continue to pay on bonds floated for a seat expansion in the 1980's

The bond obligations don't go away if the stadium is torn down or converted to some other use. They would be due no matter what.
05-18-2017 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #28
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 08:13 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 07:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Houston, over a decade after opening NRG Stadium (it was Reliant Stadium back then) and closing the Astrodome---still hasn't figured out what to do with the Astrodme. So they continue to pay on bonds floated for a seat expansion in the 1980's

The bond obligations don't go away if the stadium is torn down or converted to some other use. They would be due no matter what.

Correct. But my point was to illustrate that these things can drag on for an extended period of time (15 years in the Astrodomes case). SDSU needs something to come together pretty quickly if they want to be ready in the next 2-3 years.
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 09:19 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-18-2017 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,535
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 65
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 08:13 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 07:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Houston, over a decade after opening NRG Stadium (it was Reliant Stadium back then) and closing the Astrodome---still hasn't figured out what to do with the Astrodme. So they continue to pay on bonds floated for a seat expansion in the 1980's

The bond obligations don't go away if the stadium is torn down or converted to some other use. They would be due no matter what.

Same thing for Qualcomm, which is why it is a little disingenuous to say that the annual cost to "operate" the stadium is $12M, when 40% of that is the ongoing bond obligation. (not to mention the $2M portion of that amount that related directly Chargers games).
05-18-2017 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,449
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #30
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 09:34 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 08:13 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 07:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Houston, over a decade after opening NRG Stadium (it was Reliant Stadium back then) and closing the Astrodome---still hasn't figured out what to do with the Astrodme. So they continue to pay on bonds floated for a seat expansion in the 1980's

The bond obligations don't go away if the stadium is torn down or converted to some other use. They would be due no matter what.

Same thing for Qualcomm, which is why it is a little disingenuous to say that the annual cost to "operate" the stadium is $12M, when 40% of that is the ongoing bond obligation. (not to mention the $2M portion of that amount that related directly Chargers games).

The only thing I can figure is that SDSU's planned worst case scenario is they take over maintenance on the stadium as a "time buying" bridge to their long term solution. But that just buys time as long as there is no winning bid on a future for Qualcom. The danger is---if FC's deal finally succeeds---Qualcomm is gone and there is no viable nearby alternative for SDSU.
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 10:06 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-18-2017 10:03 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.