CSNbbs

Latest in the SDSU saga

https://twitter.com/berniewilson/status/...5061348352

Bernie Wilson‏ @berniewilson

#SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site, urges city to pursue "transparent" process to develop plan

3:07 PM - 16 May 2017

You should have quoted the same reporter's next tweet, too:

Quote:Bernie Wilson‏
@berniewilson

SDSU says it can get something done with another partner.
Or maybe it could play home games in Spokane's Joe Albi Stadium?

3:12 PM - 16 May 2017

They are playing with fire. They are in no position to get everything they want.

What on earth are they doing? They are going to end up beating out UMass for the longest distance from campus to their "home" stadium.

"Spokane's Joe Albi Stadium" is sarcasm. The poster is from north Idaho and Spokane is across the border in Washington.

Wedge you live in California, you should have caught that.

(05-16-2017 06:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]"Spokane's Joe Albi Stadium" is sarcasm. The poster is from north Idaho and Spokane is across the border in Washington.

Wedge you live in California, you should have caught that.

I know its a joke. But driving to the nearest FBS/NFL stadium isn't. In fact, the nearest NFL/FBS stadium will literally be their only option if they are left out of this deal.

(05-16-2017 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]What on earth are they doing? They are going to end up beating out UMass for the longest distance from campus to their "home" stadium.

This could be a disaster of epic proportions....Fanhood, what is going on????

who owns petco park
padres want no FB that will tear up grass
stadium is spending millions dollars to refigure field for Holiday bowl
8 fb games [6 SDST & 2 bowls] at 40,000 a game spending 100 bucks is 32 million
u can fix alot of grass for that money

could SDST play neutral site game every yr vs BYU in LA on labour day wkedme in sept
that would give SDST 1 home game in sept

could SDST play neutral site game EVERY other yr vs Ariz in LV
in early oct would help avoid MLB playoffs

(05-16-2017 09:15 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2017 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]What on earth are they doing? They are going to end up beating out UMass for the longest distance from campus to their "home" stadium.

This could be a disaster of epic proportions....Fanhood, what is going on????

SDSU fans seem to be saying the Kool-Aid tastes great!

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.

(05-16-2017 09:24 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: [ -> ]could SDST play neutral site game EVERY other yr vs Ariz in LV
in early oct would help avoid MLB playoffs

I dont think anyone in SD needs to worry about the Padres hosting playoff games.

The one way to ensure you don't get anything you want is to not be at the negotiating table. Unless SDSU has an extremely rich benefactor, they need to go back to the negotiating table.

SDSU needs to stay out of LA. There are 2 NFL teams, UCLA, USC, and who knows how many other smaller schools. At best they would be the #5 draw. I suspect there is a sibling rivalry between San Diego and Los Angeles. Telling San Diego fans they are going to have to drive to LA to see a San Diego team play will backfire.

(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.

Makes sense from that perspective. Maybe SDSU holds some Trump card we don't know about?

(05-17-2017 08:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]The one way to ensure you don't get anything you want is to not be at the negotiating table. Unless SDSU has an extremely rich benefactor, they need to go back to the negotiating table.

SDSU needs to stay out of LA. There are 2 NFL teams, UCLA, USC, and who knows how many other smaller schools. At best they would be the #5 draw. I suspect there is a sibling rivalry between San Diego and Los Angeles. Telling San Diego fans they are going to have to drive to LA to see a San Diego team play will backfire.

Play in Los Angeles?! SDSU has the opportunity of a lifetime!!! The Chargers are gone. It's just them in a big, destination city and for the first time in decades they are very good at football. 6 straight bowls, top 25 finish last year, About 40k attendance with Chargers....(who knows how much more this year?) It would be an absolute tragedy if they don't have a local stadium to play in a couple years and they are going to LA to play. This is just crazy.

(05-17-2017 08:53 AM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-17-2017 08:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]The one way to ensure you don't get anything you want is to not be at the negotiating table. Unless SDSU has an extremely rich benefactor, they need to go back to the negotiating table.

SDSU needs to stay out of LA. There are 2 NFL teams, UCLA, USC, and who knows how many other smaller schools. At best they would be the #5 draw. I suspect there is a sibling rivalry between San Diego and Los Angeles. Telling San Diego fans they are going to have to drive to LA to see a San Diego team play will backfire.

Play in Los Angeles?! SDSU has the opportunity of a lifetime!!! The Chargers are gone. It's just them in a big, destination city and for the first time in decades they are very good at football. 6 straight bowls, top 25 finish last year, About 40k attendance with Chargers....(who knows how much more this year?) It would be an absolute tragedy if they don't have a local stadium to play in a couple years and they are going to LA to play. This is just crazy.

I don't think playing in the Los Angeles area is something San Diego State is willing to do. If they can't get a new stadium to replace Qualcomm and playing at Petco beyond 1-2 years becomes impossible, I think, but with extreme reluctance, the Aztecs suspend the program for a few years or possibly drop it altogether.

I think arkstfan has one point correct, FS Investors were not the right people to work with. Their plan is one of those schemes to build basically a condo city without any traffic mitigation and the city basically giving them the land. That was never going to fly.

But what this shows is that SDSU wasted time, and lacks the competence to take on the task, from both a planning and a legal side. It doesn't sound like they really have much of a group together within the school working on the problem. They have only figured out that relying on FS Investors was not going to work. (they probably got told that by several local politicians). The biggest thing I see is a complete failure to correctly identify the problem, and thus set realistic criteria and milestones to run a project, beginning with site analysis. If they sized this they would have a clue how much money they would need to raise, and they would be working on that in parallel.

This lack of focus tells me this looks like an AD run project and not a functional committee of key decision makers at SDSU, along with a representative from the CSU system. Put another way amateur hour. I would be very worried, as to date everything seems to be focused on finding somebody else to do the heavy lifting for the Aztecs, who seem to be looking to hitch a ride. It has Oakland Raiders/San Deigo Charger failure written all over it.

(05-17-2017 10:08 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]I think arkstfan has one point correct, FS Investors were not the right people to work with. Their plan is one of those schemes to build basically a condo city without any traffic mitigation and the city basically giving them the land. That was never going to fly.

But what this shows is that SDSU wasted time, and lacks the competence to take on the task, from both a planning and a legal side. It doesn't sound like they really have much of a group together within the school working on the problem. They have only figured out that relying on FS Investors was not going to work. (they probably got told that by several local politicians). The biggest thing I see is a complete failure to correctly identify the problem, and thus set realistic criteria and milestones to run a project, beginning with site analysis. If they sized this they would have a clue how much money they would need to raise, and they would be working on that in parallel.

This lack of focus tells me this looks like an AD run project and not a functional committee of key decision makers at SDSU, along with a representative from the CSU system. Put another way amateur hour. I would be very worried, as to date everything seems to be focused on finding somebody else to do the heavy lifting for the Aztecs, who seem to be looking to hitch a ride. It has Oakland Raiders/San Deigo Charger failure written all over it.

FAU and Georgia State have done area development projects that helped fund their stadiums and neither was easily approved.

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 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.

(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.

However, I will to bet that San Diego will support the MLS much better than SDSU football.
Also, which would the city prefer now....SDSU paying the maintenance cost of the stadium or sell the land to the MLS investors to get tax revenue from the MLS stadium and village area they plan on developing? Even if they got a reduced tax rate, the money coming in would be much greater than zero that SDSU would provide.