Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Author Message
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #1
SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Pro - If you're a football fan in San Diego, I'd imagine that your eyes are probably on the Aztecs.

Con - If Qualcomm goes away, where will SDSU play? I can't imagine that it will be easy to get a new stadium. And w/ the Chargers gone, will Qualcomm stay put? I'd imagine that the Padres will want a baseball-only stadium, and they might now have the leverage to get it (if they haven't already).

So is SDSU a buy, sell, or hold?
04-07-2017 01:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #2
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
MLS stadium or bust, basically.

I'm gonna buy. Something will get worked out, I think.
(This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 01:20 PM by MplsBison.)
04-07-2017 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #3
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-07-2017 01:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'd imagine that the Padres will want a baseball-only stadium

You don't have to imagine. The Padres have been playing in their baseball-only ballpark for more than 13 years.
04-07-2017 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GhentFan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,173
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 38
I Root For: ODU YALE MN NDSU
Location:
Post: #4
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-07-2017 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 01:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'd imagine that the Padres will want a baseball-only stadium

You don't have to imagine. The Padres have been playing in their baseball-only ballpark for more than 13 years.

Awesome stadium at that too.
04-07-2017 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,271
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 108
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #5
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
The Padres are willing to let SDSU use Petco for a year or two. After that, it gets dicey.
04-07-2017 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #6
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-07-2017 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 01:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'd imagine that the Padres will want a baseball-only stadium

You don't have to imagine. The Padres have been playing in their baseball-only ballpark for more than 13 years.

To be fair, 1) the last Padres game that I remember watching at San Diego was in the '98 Word Series when the Yankees crushed them, and 2) I did say "if they haven't already"
04-07-2017 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #7
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-07-2017 05:17 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The Padres are willing to let SDSU use Petco for a year or two. After that, it gets dicey.

I don't think it's too dicey. The largest owner and executive chairman of the Padres' ownership group is Ron Fowler.

Ron Fowler is one of the biggest donors to SDSU athletics. A few months ago he donated $25 million to the SDSU business school, and it was renamed the Fowler College of Business Administration.

Anyways, I fully expect a new football stadium. It'll take awhile, but it'll get done. The Aztecs have too much pull in town - the mayor and 4 of the 5 county commissioners SDSU alums, and the mayor (who has a firm hold on power) repeatedly refers to himself as a "proud Aztec."
04-07-2017 06:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,175
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #8
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
It's dicey. SDSU needs to secure a site and start building a Stadium. Anything with the Padres would have to be temporary. And while the Pads suck now, they expect to be a playoff team in 3-4 years, whcich means SDSU will not be able to have a full slate of home games.

Basically Petco might be available for a year or two, but the Aztecs need their own stadium by 2021.

This is why being a renter is not a good idea.
04-07-2017 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,285
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #9
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?
04-08-2017 06:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
megadrone Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,306
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 46
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NJ
Post: #10
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 06:48 AM)goofus Wrote:  I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?

It's probably maintenance on the stadium that San Diego doesn't want to pay for any longer, particularly without the Chargers as the primary tenant. Did the city ever commit to a new stadium for the Chargers?

Could Angel Stadium host SDSU? I know it's a bit of a ride but other options aren't really there at present.
04-08-2017 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #11
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:48 AM)goofus Wrote:  I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?

It's probably maintenance on the stadium that San Diego doesn't want to pay for any longer, particularly without the Chargers as the primary tenant.

Right. Reportedly maintenance on the old stadium is costing the city $12 million a year.

USC is spending about $200 million of its own money (from donors and sponsors) to rehab the LA Coliseum. UCLA pays substantial rent and is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl; UCLA's rent money helped to finance renovations at the Rose Bowl. (That long-term lease looks especially good for the Rose Bowl in hindsight, because it now eliminates the possibility of UCLA moving its home games to KroenkeWorld.)

Based on what I've read, SDSU hopes that they can use local political clout to solve their football stadium problem on someone else's dime, at little or no cost to SDSU, which is obviously a completely different strategy than what USC and UCLA have done.
04-08-2017 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #12
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:48 AM)goofus Wrote:  I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?

It's probably maintenance on the stadium that San Diego doesn't want to pay for any longer, particularly without the Chargers as the primary tenant.

Right. Reportedly maintenance on the old stadium is costing the city $12 million a year.

USC is spending about $200 million of its own money (from donors and sponsors) to rehab the LA Coliseum. UCLA pays substantial rent and is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl; UCLA's rent money helped to finance renovations at the Rose Bowl. (That long-term lease looks especially good for the Rose Bowl in hindsight, because it now eliminates the possibility of UCLA moving its home games to KroenkeWorld.)

Based on what I've read, SDSU hopes that they can use local political clout to solve their football stadium problem on someone else's dime, at little or no cost to SDSU, which is obviously a completely different strategy than what USC and UCLA have done.

That's cheap. SDSU wants to play big boy football but doesn't want to pay for a stadium? That's simply astonishing.
04-08-2017 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #13
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 06:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:48 AM)goofus Wrote:  I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?

It's probably maintenance on the stadium that San Diego doesn't want to pay for any longer, particularly without the Chargers as the primary tenant.

Right. Reportedly maintenance on the old stadium is costing the city $12 million a year.

USC is spending about $200 million of its own money (from donors and sponsors) to rehab the LA Coliseum. UCLA pays substantial rent and is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl; UCLA's rent money helped to finance renovations at the Rose Bowl. (That long-term lease looks especially good for the Rose Bowl in hindsight, because it now eliminates the possibility of UCLA moving its home games to KroenkeWorld.)

Based on what I've read, SDSU hopes that they can use local political clout to solve their football stadium problem on someone else's dime, at little or no cost to SDSU, which is obviously a completely different strategy than what USC and UCLA have done.

That's cheap. SDSU wants to play big boy football but doesn't want to pay for a stadium? That's simply astonishing.

The difference between USC spending $200 million and SDSU not spending any is that USC actually HAS $200 million and SDSU doesn't.
04-08-2017 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #14
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
Bust.

Stadium will get to be a real issue in the next decade.
04-08-2017 07:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #15
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:48 AM)goofus Wrote:  I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?

It's probably maintenance on the stadium that San Diego doesn't want to pay for any longer, particularly without the Chargers as the primary tenant.

Right. Reportedly maintenance on the old stadium is costing the city $12 million a year.

USC is spending about $200 million of its own money (from donors and sponsors) to rehab the LA Coliseum. UCLA pays substantial rent and is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl; UCLA's rent money helped to finance renovations at the Rose Bowl. (That long-term lease looks especially good for the Rose Bowl in hindsight, because it now eliminates the possibility of UCLA moving its home games to KroenkeWorld.)

Based on what I've read, SDSU hopes that they can use local political clout to solve their football stadium problem on someone else's dime, at little or no cost to SDSU, which is obviously a completely different strategy than what USC and UCLA have done.

That's cheap. SDSU wants to play big boy football but doesn't want to pay for a stadium? That's simply astonishing.

The difference between USC spending $200 million and SDSU not spending any is that USC actually HAS $200 million and SDSU doesn't.

Right, USC can raise that money. They have a massive athletic donor base and they net several million in ticket sales and concessions from each home football game.
04-08-2017 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,092
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 506
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #16
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-07-2017 01:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Pro - If you're a football fan in San Diego, I'd imagine that your eyes are probably on the Aztecs.

Con - If Qualcomm goes away, where will SDSU play? I can't imagine that it will be easy to get a new stadium. And w/ the Chargers gone, will Qualcomm stay put? I'd imagine that the Padres will want a baseball-only stadium, and they might now have the leverage to get it (if they haven't already).

So is SDSU a buy, sell, or hold?

Bust.

The future is bleak for the Aztecs.
04-08-2017 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #17
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 07:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Bust.

Stadium will get to be a real issue in the next decade.

Well bullet, the AAC dodged a bullet on adding SDSU
04-08-2017 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #18
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:48 AM)goofus Wrote:  I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?

It's probably maintenance on the stadium that San Diego doesn't want to pay for any longer, particularly without the Chargers as the primary tenant.

Right. Reportedly maintenance on the old stadium is costing the city $12 million a year.

USC is spending about $200 million of its own money (from donors and sponsors) to rehab the LA Coliseum. UCLA pays substantial rent and is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl; UCLA's rent money helped to finance renovations at the Rose Bowl. (That long-term lease looks especially good for the Rose Bowl in hindsight, because it now eliminates the possibility of UCLA moving its home games to KroenkeWorld.)

Based on what I've read, SDSU hopes that they can use local political clout to solve their football stadium problem on someone else's dime, at little or no cost to SDSU, which is obviously a completely different strategy than what USC and UCLA have done.

And it seems really contrary to the political climate in California. The Rams 20 years ago, the Raiders and the Chargers couldn't get anyone to pay for their stadiums.
04-08-2017 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,106
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #19
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Based on what I've read, SDSU hopes that they can use local political clout to solve their football stadium problem on someone else's dime, at little or no cost to SDSU, which is obviously a completely different strategy than what USC and UCLA have done.

And it seems really contrary to the political climate in California. The Rams 20 years ago, the Raiders and the Chargers couldn't get anyone to pay for their stadiums.

Yeah, this March 27th article from the San Diego paper does make it look like SDSU is trying to bargain down from an offer of a $100m SDSU investment into a shared MLS/SDSU stadium with an alternative proposal of a $150m all-SDSU stadium with no financing plan attached.
04-08-2017 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #20
RE: SDSU FB - Boom or Bust?
(04-08-2017 06:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 11:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 06:48 AM)goofus Wrote:  I still don't understand why they can't keep the old Qualcom. That would be the cheapest most practical solution. USC and UCLA both play in ancient stadiums. Why not SDSU?

It's probably maintenance on the stadium that San Diego doesn't want to pay for any longer, particularly without the Chargers as the primary tenant.

Right. Reportedly maintenance on the old stadium is costing the city $12 million a year.

USC is spending about $200 million of its own money (from donors and sponsors) to rehab the LA Coliseum. UCLA pays substantial rent and is locked into a 30-year lease at the Rose Bowl; UCLA's rent money helped to finance renovations at the Rose Bowl. (That long-term lease looks especially good for the Rose Bowl in hindsight, because it now eliminates the possibility of UCLA moving its home games to KroenkeWorld.)

Based on what I've read, SDSU hopes that they can use local political clout to solve their football stadium problem on someone else's dime, at little or no cost to SDSU, which is obviously a completely different strategy than what USC and UCLA have done.

That's cheap. SDSU wants to play big boy football but doesn't want to pay for a stadium? That's simply astonishing.

The difference between USC spending $200 million and SDSU not spending any is that USC actually HAS $200 million and SDSU doesn't.

SDSU probably could raise $200 million. But $200 million won't buy you an FBS-quality stadium in California.

They'd probably spend $200 million before they even moved the first dirt. The land alone would cost half of that, and the environmental review might take that much too (slight exaggeration - but didn't you know that everything in California is in a "sensitive" ecological area?). And then there's California's unions, which make New Jersey look like a free market.
04-09-2017 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.