(10-02-2017 10:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 08:41 AM)panite Wrote:  

(09-30-2017 09:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-30-2017 09:21 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(09-30-2017 08:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If putting this second ballot measure on the ballot just helps to kill off the possibility of MLS in San Diego and the would-be MLS owners' plan, it's a big win for SDSU. The SD mayor says in that article that he will help arrange for SDSU to use the existing stadium until it's torn down -- if it ever is torn down.

I don't see why SDSU would want to "win" the vote on that ballot proposition. The best case scenario for SDSU football, given the outrageous cost of building any new stadium, is that they kill off all plans for that site, the old stadium stays there out of sheer inertia, and they use their political connections to rent the old stadium at a dirt cheap price indefinitely.

SDSU athletics has almost zero infrastructure debt. I think they owe a few hundred k for some lights on the practice field. They'll be able to afford to finance a new stadium. "The Bank" is not a long term solution.

I've been to a couple of Holiday Bowl games in that stadium. It's not perfect but it's definitely usable and it's not going to collapse. It's in much better shape than Candlestick was before it was torn down.

Hope SDSU gets the stadium and property and uses it which ever way they want too. Maybe they can rent it to the Chargers when they come crawling back to San Diego where they were loved. They can't draw flies in LA. They are even putting tarps over the empty upper decks in a 20,000 seat stadium.

Is it too late for the Chargers to swap deals with the Raiders? They would draw well in LA.

The mayor of LA doesn't want the Raiders in her city. From the sound of it, I don't really think she wants the Chargers there either.