(03-08-2017 04:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 02:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Building a home is something that most every program has to do at some point. SDSU has just been lucky in that regard and hasn't really needed to face that expense until now.

This.

SDSU hopes to extend their luck and find another situation in which they can play in a stadium that someone else built, with SDSU paying very little to play there. It looks like they don't like the MLS stadium proposal because it would require SDSU to contribute $100 million to the stadium cost, and SDSU can't (or doesn't want to attempt to) raise that money from donors so they'd have to issue bonds.

The report that the Padres will only permit SDSU to use Petco Park for one or two years max is probably correct. It's a significant inconvenience in September and would be very dicey in October if the Padres make the playoffs. Cal played its home football games at the SF Giants' AT&T Park in 2011 while Memorial Stadium was being renovated. The Bears had one home game at AT&T in September, plus one "neutral site" game at Candlestick Park (RIP) and four home games at AT&T from October 13 onward. The two Cal home games in October didn't conflict with MLB playoff games only because the Giants missed the playoffs that year (fortunately it was an odd-numbered year - ha).

But I doubt SDSU will pull the plug on football. Either they'll grudgingly accept the MLS deal or some other deal in which they split the cost of a new stadium, or they'll stall until their backs are against the wall in 2018 or 2019 and whip up a huge bond deal at the last minute that will cost them two or three times as much as a shared-cost deal that they could make in 2017.

In the end, they will negotiate a slightly better deal, fund raise for about half or more of the cost (50 million via donation and premium seat rights fees--maybe more) which will drastically cut the amount of bond money to be raised. The recurring annual season ticket money from the premium seating will pay much of the bond service---so in the end---the cost to the university will be very affordable. I mean, its a hell of a deal when compared to what the Colorado St stadium will cost CSU. If they can fund raise enough, the new stadium will spin off more money than the old one. They always do.

First, there's no guarantee San Diego will get an MLS team, even if they do have a stadium plan. There are 12 cities vying for 4 MLS expansion teams and some of those have really good stadium plans too

Secondly, aren't there any 15K high school stadiums in San Diego? Their all over in Texas. They could add some temp seats and get by for a couple years until they figure out what to do.

Before you laugh, have you seen some of the multi million dollar HS stadiums they have built in Texas. I would assume but don't know that they would have at least something like that in SD.

That's what I was wondering about too, Bulls.

But apparently there just aren't any reasonably sized facilities in the very southern part of California, save for Qualcomm and Petco.

(03-08-2017 07:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's what I was wondering about too, Bulls.

But apparently there just aren't any reasonably sized facilities in the very southern part of California, save for Qualcomm and Petco.

Yeah Texas has at least 10-15 HS stadiums that seat anywhere from 16-20 thousand. Is there not one decently sized HS stadium in all of San Diego?

(03-08-2017 03:41 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 03:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Think this is a little too hyped up article.

If SDSU did drop football, they go to the Big West as they had arranged before.

Unless UCSD gets there first.

Alternately, they could stay in the MWC, which then adds UTEP or Rice to get back to 12 football teams.

if the mwc did not let byu do that they wont allow sdsu to do that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did BYU actually want to stay in the MWC for non-fb sports?

(03-08-2017 07:54 PM)billings Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 03:41 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 03:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Think this is a little too hyped up article.

If SDSU did drop football, they go to the Big West as they had arranged before.

Unless UCSD gets there first.

Alternately, they could stay in the MWC, which then adds UTEP or Rice to get back to 12 football teams.

if the mwc did not let byu do that they wont allow sdsu to do that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure that the situation would be seen as the same. BYU still had a football team and that would be seen as a major insult to the rest of the MWC so keeping them in for other sports would be hard to swallow. NOw in this situation SDSU would have lost their football team (unlikely I think but we are just using this situation for fun) not just try to move them out of the conference.

Considering that SDSU has some history with the rst of the conference and has had success in other important sports I would think the MWC schools would at least consider keeping them in for their own benefit since SDSU did not do something to insult the conference.

(03-08-2017 07:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's what I was wondering about too, Bulls.

But apparently there just aren't any reasonably sized facilities in the very southern part of California, save for Qualcomm and Petco.

Play in Tijuana

No, there are no even 5K HS or CC stadiums in the San Diego region.

For the record, BYU left the MWC on their own, but there was some animus. Since that time the WAC remade itself, bringing in six WAC schools, most of whom helped BYU in their early years as an Independent. The sentiment has changed dramatically. The MWC has floated the idea of taking them back in Olympics. It's far from dead, but its a mixed deal. BYU likes the faith based WCC, but doesn't like the rinky dink basketball gyms. So it's sort of sitting there as a possible down the road.

(03-08-2017 08:16 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  No, there are no even 5K HS or CC stadiums in the San Diego region.

For the record, BYU left the MWC on their own, but there was some animus. Since that time the WAC remade itself, bringing in six WAC schools, most of whom helped BYU in their early years as an Independent. The sentiment has changed dramatically. The MWC has floated the idea of taking them back in Olympics. It's far from dead, but its a mixed deal. BYU likes the faith based WCC, but doesn't like the rinky dink basketball gyms. So it's sort of sitting there as a possible down the road.

BYU dwarfs everything non-PAC out West (and even some PAC) so what's the difference?

(03-08-2017 07:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Did BYU actually want to stay in the MWC for non-fb sports?

Yes. In early June of 2010, Utah announced they were going to the PAC, BYU instantly started talking about going Indy in football. They wanted to keep everything else in the MWC. The MWC refused giving them an all or nothing ultimatum. They first tried putting their Olympic sports in the WAC but the WAC got raided by the MWC. It looked dicey, then around 11:59 PM, 8/31/2010, The WCC offered them a spot at the 11th hour allowing for them to go Indy.
Cheers!

I thought PetCo was basically off limits to football?

(03-08-2017 09:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I thought PetCo was basically off limits to football?

I remember for years SDSU playing in the Padres baseball stadium. Every time I'd see SDSU playing I remember laughing when a tackle was made "in the outfield" hahahaha
Cheers!

(03-08-2017 09:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I thought PetCo was basically off limits to football?

Based on what I've read, the Padres have offered to do a slight remodel so that a football field can fit inside their ballpark, and to ask the city to amend the no-football clause in their lease, so that the Holiday Bowl can be played there permanently and the Aztecs can play there for a year or two after Qualcomm Stadium is torn down. .

Why does Qualcomm have to be torn down. Why can't SDSU take over all maintenance and costs of the facility.

Quote:

"The city is all but set to shutter Qualcomm Stadium after 2018 due to the venue’s unfeasible debt burden, meaning the Aztecs will need a place to play for no less than one season."

Maybe someone from that area can explain this statement to me. If there is a heavy debt burden due to Qualcomm Stadium, how does shutting it down fix the problem? Why wouldn't the debt still be owed? Debt doesn't disappear just because the collateral is destroyed.

Or is this just an example of a reporter misspeaking about details he doesn't understand?

(03-08-2017 10:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Why does Qualcomm have to be torn down. Why can't SDSU take over all maintenance and costs of the facility.

Given how expensive real estate is in that part of the nation, it's pretty stupid to let an outdated football stadium and parking lot sit there empty for all but six football games and a handful of other special events. I don't know where the stadium is in San Diego, but unless it's in a remote part of the metro area (and I don't think it is), there's a better use for it now. Maybe as another stadium and mixed use complex perhaps, but not Qualcomm in its current iteration.

It costs San Diego something like $10m a year just to operate the site - that is from an earlier UT-SD article quoting a city official. Add to that the need for maintenance, which will quickly run into the tens of millions to keep an old stadium like that in usable condition, and it's clear why they don't want to keep it going. SDSU simply does not pay enough rent to operate a stadium like that. They were riding the Chargers who were the real income driver.

Supposedly the land is worth $60m, but that number seems ridiculously low for California, so I'd guess imply selling the land in the open market could get double that. Plus if it is developed into a business park (tech) the revenue derived could run well into the 8 figures easily in tax revenue. So keeping the site open for SDSU has a total cost of a minimum of $20m per year compared to building a tech park. Land is getting to be like NYC in parts of California; hard to get and ridiculously expensive.

I just don't see the SDSU or the CSU system coming up with the money. That is why I'm be looking around for another site to build a more minimalist stadium. It amazes me they never identified and bought a patch of land before this. Besides the Q site, the only suitable area close is 2 miles south in Oak Park (city owned), and otherwise 10 miles north in Miramar (somewhere in the landfill near the airport) or Sorrrento Valley -- both far closer to UCSD.

It's a very bad situation

(03-08-2017 10:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  Quote:

"The city is all but set to shutter Qualcomm Stadium after 2018 due to the venue’s unfeasible debt burden, meaning the Aztecs will need a place to play for no less than one season."

Maybe someone from that area can explain this statement to me. If there is a heavy debt burden due to Qualcomm Stadium, how does shutting it down fix the problem? Why wouldn't the debt still be owed? Debt doesn't disappear just because the collateral is destroyed.

Or is this just an example of a reporter misspeaking about details he doesn't understand?

Maybe they plan to destroy the stadium and sell the land using the proceeds to pay off the debt. That probably is easier on the budget than holding the stadium and losing money on it every year with Aztec football as the only paying tenant.

Is Balboa Stadium still around or is it the site of condos and office buildings now? It was big enough for the real NASL and a few years of AFL as I recall.