Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,004
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 339
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #31
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-17-2017 08:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  University leadership tends to be more risk adverse than hard bargainers to get the perfect deal.

Arkansas State was looking to build a convention center and hotel on campus and one of the developers applying was quickly cut because they had a history of some financial issues. The developer liked the market and got hooked up with some locals to build a competing facility. I'll call the developer A.

Local media and local politicians quickly rallied to the project led by A, while AState picked developer B.

A was given a number of tax incentives while B's application was rejected.

Few months later. A's project is subject to two lawsuits for unpaid bills and at least three contractor liens are filed against the project. While B's project is just awaiting one more permitting clearance to start.

Based on the scant information I've read about SDSU, my instinct is to side with SDSU.

The fact that Arkansas State's development was on campus, while SDSU is trying to play hardball with land they neither own nor control, is a very significant difference between the two situations.
05-18-2017 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,327
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 51
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #32
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 10:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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.

Actually, couldn't SDSU just delay use of PETCO while they continue to use and maintain Qualcomm? In that case, if FC's deal does go through, then SDSU goes to PETCO for a season or two and then shares the new FC stadium when ready. That's not a bad worst case scenario - as maintenance costs would be more like $2-3M for a couple of years (plus the other $3M that Qualcomm gets for other events), not anywhere close to the $12M thrown out for 2015 (that includes $5M bond payments that are made regardless and $2M+ associated directly with Chargers games) or the cost of a brand new stadium, if it were self-funded by SDSU.
05-18-2017 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 19,624
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 551
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #33
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 11:13 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-17-2017 08:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  University leadership tends to be more risk adverse than hard bargainers to get the perfect deal.

Arkansas State was looking to build a convention center and hotel on campus and one of the developers applying was quickly cut because they had a history of some financial issues. The developer liked the market and got hooked up with some locals to build a competing facility. I'll call the developer A.

Local media and local politicians quickly rallied to the project led by A, while AState picked developer B.

A was given a number of tax incentives while B's application was rejected.

Few months later. A's project is subject to two lawsuits for unpaid bills and at least three contractor liens are filed against the project. While B's project is just awaiting one more permitting clearance to start.

Based on the scant information I've read about SDSU, my instinct is to side with SDSU.

The fact that Arkansas State's development was on campus, while SDSU is trying to play hardball with land they neither own nor control, is a very significant difference between the two situations.

More analogous to what Georgia State did with Turner Field.
05-18-2017 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,236
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 764
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #34
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 11:29 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 10:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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.

Actually, couldn't SDSU just delay use of PETCO while they continue to use and maintain Qualcomm? In that case, if FC's deal does go through, then SDSU goes to PETCO for a season or two and then shares the new FC stadium when ready. That's not a bad worst case scenario - as maintenance costs would be more like $2-3M for a couple of years (plus the other $3M that Qualcomm gets for other events), not anywhere close to the $12M thrown out for 2015 (that includes $5M bond payments that are made regardless and $2M+ associated directly with Chargers games) or the cost of a brand new stadium, if it were self-funded by SDSU.

But how is that going to work if they pulled out of the FC deal (which is what the thread is about)?
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 12:01 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-18-2017 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,327
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 51
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #35
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 11:29 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 10:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 09:34 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-18-2017 08:13 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  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.

Actually, couldn't SDSU just delay use of PETCO while they continue to use and maintain Qualcomm? In that case, if FC's deal does go through, then SDSU goes to PETCO for a season or two and then shares the new FC stadium when ready. That's not a bad worst case scenario - as maintenance costs would be more like $2-3M for a couple of years (plus the other $3M that Qualcomm gets for other events), not anywhere close to the $12M thrown out for 2015 (that includes $5M bond payments that are made regardless and $2M+ associated directly with Chargers games) or the cost of a brand new stadium, if it were self-funded by SDSU.

But how is that going to work if they pulled out of the FC deal (which is what the thread is about)?

Worse case is SDSU pays rent to use the new FC stadium. That's a lot less money than the $100M the FC deal was seeking from SDSU.
05-18-2017 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 896
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 41
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #36
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
PETCO is not much of an option. First off the math YNot is giving looks like a B1G school's rabid fan base. This is a CSU where student tickets are so deeply discount or even free as part of the student intercollegiate athletics fee. They make up at least 25% of the crowd (which separates SDSU from other Cal States). Also many people buy tickets at only the discount general admission rate -- G5 football is minor leagues afterall. You are not going to come anywhere near even half the gate you are claiming. The crowds are likely to be good for the first game or two but will almost certainly fall off quickly. To begin with it's a much more significant trip fro students to get to PETCO than to the Q. So unless it's a huge game that portion of the crowd will largely vanish.

But there are logistical problems. To begin with the stadium will be in baseball configuration at least through the end of September and some years well into October. This effectively limits SDSU to only late season home games, likely sacrificing 1 or even 2 of their 6 home games. Also even though the owner is a supporter, he has only indicated that perhaps a year or two bridge use while a new stadium is being built. This is not a long term solution.

SDSU is in a very bad spot. When they withdrew from the MLS group, it was a recognition of what many in San Diego have been saying, that FS Investors is nothing more than a sham front by developers who have no intention of ever building a stadium, and certainly no intention of paying $200M to MLS for a franchise. They just want to be able to develop city land for a huge profit without either paying for the land or going through the congestion mitigation requirements. This is a DOA proposal.

SDSU seems to have woken up to that fact. But they need to now get a very serious task force together to identify a feasible site to build a stadium on their own. And it is not going to be some slick top tier all the bells and whistles stadium, it si going to be a bare bones, perhaps simply and earthen stadium with bench seating and a single building for football facilities and locker rooms. But even that requires they get the fund raising going in parallel. From what I have seen , I give the chances of doing something like this in the next five years less than 10% chance. And unless they have something like this really moving, I can't see the city extending their lease even a year. (why would you if nothing is going). The Q will become a serious safety issue in just a few years if it is cut down to the absolute minimum maintenance. We saw that with similar aged Candlestick in it's last couple years, after the baseball team moved out and the 49ers were throwing everything at getting the new stadium built. Literally pieces of concrete were falling randomly.

In related news the Inglewood stadium is delayed almost a year, so the Rams and Chargers wont play there until 2020. (The rains caused major delays and issues ... 49ers got lucky and completed theirs during the drought). So the cChargers will be in that rinky dink soccer stadium for 3 years. That shoudl make San Diegans smile.
05-18-2017 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,004
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 339
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #37
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 01:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  PETCO is not much of an option. First off the math YNot is giving looks like a B1G school's rabid fan base. This is a CSU where student tickets are so deeply discount or even free as part of the student intercollegiate athletics fee. They make up at least 25% of the crowd (which separates SDSU from other Cal States). Also many people buy tickets at only the discount general admission rate -- G5 football is minor leagues afterall. You are not going to come anywhere near even half the gate you are claiming. The crowds are likely to be good for the first game or two but will almost certainly fall off quickly. To begin with it's a much more significant trip fro students to get to PETCO than to the Q. So unless it's a huge game that portion of the crowd will largely vanish.

But there are logistical problems. To begin with the stadium will be in baseball configuration at least through the end of September and some years well into October. This effectively limits SDSU to only late season home games, likely sacrificing 1 or even 2 of their 6 home games. Also even though the owner is a supporter, he has only indicated that perhaps a year or two bridge use while a new stadium is being built. This is not a long term solution.

SDSU is in a very bad spot. When they withdrew from the MLS group, it was a recognition of what many in San Diego have been saying, that FS Investors is nothing more than a sham front by developers who have no intention of ever building a stadium, and certainly no intention of paying $200M to MLS for a franchise. They just want to be able to develop city land for a huge profit without either paying for the land or going through the congestion mitigation requirements. This is a DOA proposal.

SDSU seems to have woken up to that fact. But they need to now get a very serious task force together to identify a feasible site to build a stadium on their own. And it is not going to be some slick top tier all the bells and whistles stadium, it si going to be a bare bones, perhaps simply and earthen stadium with bench seating and a single building for football facilities and locker rooms. But even that requires they get the fund raising going in parallel. From what I have seen , I give the chances of doing something like this in the next five years less than 10% chance. And unless they have something like this really moving, I can't see the city extending their lease even a year. (why would you if nothing is going). The Q will become a serious safety issue in just a few years if it is cut down to the absolute minimum maintenance. We saw that with similar aged Candlestick in it's last couple years, after the baseball team moved out and the 49ers were throwing everything at getting the new stadium built. Literally pieces of concrete were falling randomly.

In related news the Inglewood stadium is delayed almost a year, so the Rams and Chargers wont play there until 2020. (The rains caused major delays and issues ... 49ers got lucky and completed theirs during the drought). So the cChargers will be in that rinky dink soccer stadium for 3 years. That shoudl make San Diegans smile.

StubHub Center isn't rinky dink, it's a really nice facility. The only issue for NFL is the number of seats. The Chargers games there will probably be a great experience for anyone who attends. Certainly 30,000 fans in a 30,000 seat building is better than 30,000 fans in the 90,000 seat LA Coliseum.
05-18-2017 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 896
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 41
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #38
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
The Rams will be able to get some corporate box money from the coliseum. And they wont have just 30,000 for all games, some will definitely be higher.

The Chargers will lose a ton of money on lost gate. And a 3rd year there will be a lot of lost money.

Ironic the Raiders will be in a new stadium at the same time. Still wonder what they'll do in 2019.
05-18-2017 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,572
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 56
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #39
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
I've hoped for some time SDSU could get out of the UC-controlled PAC region and find a home as a major elsewhere. Among all of the schools remaining in the MWC, other than AFA, it's the Aztecs and not CSU I would think could have found their way by now. The Big East fb-only thing was just a momentary taste. But, when you see stuff like this, then see CSU going full bore into a football stadium the state is just letting them blow money on, I guess this is why CSU's on deck as the school most likely to leave for a major on that side of the country.

It's a crappy game, football stadiums for colleges; to be among the major players club, the thing has to be yours, whether you can afford it or not. To not have one makes you look weak and non-committal. But, really, if you're in CA, what are your options when everything is glacial?
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 02:49 PM by The Cutter of Bish.)
05-18-2017 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,955
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 316
I Root For: Tulane, Jags
Location:
Post: #40
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
So, is this still happening?
(01-12-2017 12:13 PM)SDSU-Alum2003 Wrote:  This is the future for San Diego State University...

[Image: 837]
05-18-2017 05:28 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.