(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)?