Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
Author Message
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,224
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 186
I Root For: UC
Location: Normal, IL & Cincy
Post: #21
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(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.

SDSU does have one trick up its sleeve: time. PETCO park is owned by SDSU's biggest supporter.

But the soccercity people have a big thing on their side too: the ignorance of the general public.

The land is worth hundreds of millions (maybe even $1 billion with those development rights). But somehow the Soccercity folks have made the deal look like a favor they're doing for the city because it eliminates the $12 million/yr cost.
05-17-2017 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,399
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #22
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-17-2017 10:51 AM)YNot Wrote:  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 has said multiple times that they are tearing it down after the 2018 season. Stadium is too expensive too maintain; Too old and the land it sits on is worth a billion so that's why it's gonzos
05-17-2017 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aztec Since 88 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 117
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2
I Root For: San Diego State
Location:
Post: #23
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
The city says it cost 12 to 14 million to operate the Q, but what they don't tell everyone that at least 5 million of that is a bond payment that has to be made from when they expanded it in the early 2000s. The city still has to make that bond payment even when the Q is raised. The real cost is around 7 million to operate annually. Any lease beyond 2018 would have SDSU picking up the cost of maintenance minus the bond debt.

If you read the soccer city proposal it is bad for the city of SD. The are trying to get the land to build a condo city under the ruse of building stadium and river park, without traffic mitigation for and additional 500O units and any events held at the new stadium. This area of toen is already congested. FS Investors could potentially get the 166 acres of land for 10K, plus the cost of stadium demo and removal.

The Soccer City plan is not good for SDSU, and they should not support it, SDSU's goal is more about campus expansion to grow the university in enrollment than it is about the stadium. Although if SDSU is able obtain part or all of the of 166, that is where they would prefer to build a new stadium.
05-17-2017 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,735
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-17-2017 02:23 PM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  The city says it cost 12 to 14 million to operate the Q, but what they don't tell everyone that at least 5 million of that is a bond payment that has to be made from when they expanded it in the early 2000s. The city still has to make that bond payment even when the Q is raised. The real cost is around 7 million to operate annually. Any lease beyond 2018 would have SDSU picking up the cost of maintenance minus the bond debt.

If you read the soccer city proposal it is bad for the city of SD. The are trying to get the land to build a condo city under the ruse of building stadium and river park, without traffic mitigation for and additional 500O units and any events held at the new stadium. This area of toen is already congested. FS Investors could potentially get the 166 acres of land for 10K, plus the cost of stadium demo and removal.

The Soccer City plan is not good for SDSU, and they should not support it, SDSU's goal is more about campus expansion to grow the university in enrollment than it is about the stadium. Although if SDSU is able obtain part or all of the of 166, that is where they would prefer to build a new stadium.

The city also ignores/hides the high costs related directly to the Chargers games that won't affect the future operational budget. A big portion of these high costs came from disability access lawsuit payments and a horrible lease - which essentially eliminated any revenue received from the Chargers.

Take away the $5M debt-service, the $800K paid to the Chargers (lawsuit related), $1.1M in public safety, and probably a good portion of their $3.4M annual personnel budget, and the cost to continue operations of Qualcomm is more likely in the $4-5M/year range.

Qualcomm made $3.1M in revenue in 2015 from non-Chargers/SDSU events. SDSU starts paying $2M in rent ($333K per game) and the problem is solved. That's $11 extra per ticket (on the average), if SDSU gets 30K attendance (The Aztecs averaged 37K in 2016, 29K in 2015, and 32K in 2014).

Of course, the other side is the $50M remaining on the bond and the fact that the land is allegedly worth $1B. Hard to keep such valuable land when it will only be used for 7 annual college football games (including bowl game), some monster truck rallies, and the weekly swap meet.

But, at that valuation, sell off like 5-10% of the parking area, and keep the rest, and the bond is paid off in full and you would probably still have enough left over for an endowment for ongoing stadium maintenance and repairs.

But this is all moot because the city seems determined to shut down Qualcomm after 2018.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2017 05:19 PM by YNot.)
05-17-2017 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,052
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #25
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
everyone is saying the land is worth $1 billion, but the reality as it stands now and probably for a while it is worth zero

and even when something is finally done the city will not come close to seeing $1 billion in actual payments or in taxes paid over decades

by the time they get in there and put restrictions and let idiot neighbors (that live 5 miles away) and everyone else get in there and get a bribe, handout, payoff or some other BS much less the use restrictions they will put on it the city will be lucky if it does not cost them $500 million over several years to get anything on that land besides a decaying falling apart stajium

it is like saying the Alameda Naval Air Station is worth X dollars, but when the morons that run that area are done you probably can't give that land away to someone that would actually be wiling to build the crap and do the things they would be required to do to actually do anything with that land......it will just sit there and be worthless (especially with Myth Busters off the air) and be nothing

the same fate awaits Qualcom most likely in about 15 years they will finally have some plans approved before either a new lawsuit of a poor economy stops that project dead and you have to start over again which means all new plans and all new lawsuits and a new group of grifters looking to shake anyone and everyone down to build on that land
05-18-2017 07:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,683
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 985
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #26
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 07:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  everyone is saying the land is worth $1 billion, but the reality as it stands now and probably for a while it is worth zero

and even when something is finally done the city will not come close to seeing $1 billion in actual payments or in taxes paid over decades

by the time they get in there and put restrictions and let idiot neighbors (that live 5 miles away) and everyone else get in there and get a bribe, handout, payoff or some other BS much less the use restrictions they will put on it the city will be lucky if it does not cost them $500 million over several years to get anything on that land besides a decaying falling apart stajium

it is like saying the Alameda Naval Air Station is worth X dollars, but when the morons that run that area are done you probably can't give that land away to someone that would actually be wiling to build the crap and do the things they would be required to do to actually do anything with that land......it will just sit there and be worthless (especially with Myth Busters off the air) and be nothing

the same fate awaits Qualcom most likely in about 15 years they will finally have some plans approved before either a new lawsuit of a poor economy stops that project dead and you have to start over again which means all new plans and all new lawsuits and a new group of grifters looking to shake anyone and everyone down to build on that land

Yes. Cities often move at a glacial pace. 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 and for maintenance/utility costs that are several million a year. They have plans to tear it down and proposals to use it as anything from a casino to an indoor park. To date--still no decision.

Given Houston doesn't have zoning, you'd think they would be more nimble.at this sort of thing. I hope San Diego moves faster than Houston for SDSU's sake.
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 07:57 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-18-2017 07:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,683
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 283
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #27
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(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.
05-18-2017 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,683
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 985
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #28
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(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.

Correct. But my point was to illustrate that these things can drag on for an extended period of time (15 years in the Astrodomes case). SDSU needs something to come together pretty quickly if they want to be ready in the next 2-3 years.
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 09:19 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-18-2017 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,735
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(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).
05-18-2017 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,683
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 985
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #30
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(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.
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 10:06 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-18-2017 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,397
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 425
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #31
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(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.

The fact that Arkansas State's development was on campus, while SDSU is trying to play hardball with land they neither own nor control, is a very significant difference between the two situations.
05-18-2017 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,735
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #32
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(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.
05-18-2017 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,594
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 625
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #33
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 11:13 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(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.

The fact that Arkansas State's development was on campus, while SDSU is trying to play hardball with land they neither own nor control, is a very significant difference between the two situations.

More analogous to what Georgia State did with Turner Field.
05-18-2017 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,683
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 985
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #34
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(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)?
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 12:01 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-18-2017 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,735
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #35
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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:  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)?

Worse case is SDSU pays rent to use the new FC stadium. That's a lot less money than the $100M the FC deal was seeking from SDSU.
05-18-2017 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,655
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 84
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #36
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
PETCO is not much of an option. First off the math YNot is giving looks like a B1G school's rabid fan base. This is a CSU where student tickets are so deeply discount or even free as part of the student intercollegiate athletics fee. They make up at least 25% of the crowd (which separates SDSU from other Cal States). Also many people buy tickets at only the discount general admission rate -- G5 football is minor leagues afterall. You are not going to come anywhere near even half the gate you are claiming. The crowds are likely to be good for the first game or two but will almost certainly fall off quickly. To begin with it's a much more significant trip fro students to get to PETCO than to the Q. So unless it's a huge game that portion of the crowd will largely vanish.

But there are logistical problems. To begin with the stadium will be in baseball configuration at least through the end of September and some years well into October. This effectively limits SDSU to only late season home games, likely sacrificing 1 or even 2 of their 6 home games. Also even though the owner is a supporter, he has only indicated that perhaps a year or two bridge use while a new stadium is being built. This is not a long term solution.

SDSU is in a very bad spot. When they withdrew from the MLS group, it was a recognition of what many in San Diego have been saying, that FS Investors is nothing more than a sham front by developers who have no intention of ever building a stadium, and certainly no intention of paying $200M to MLS for a franchise. They just want to be able to develop city land for a huge profit without either paying for the land or going through the congestion mitigation requirements. This is a DOA proposal.

SDSU seems to have woken up to that fact. But they need to now get a very serious task force together to identify a feasible site to build a stadium on their own. And it is not going to be some slick top tier all the bells and whistles stadium, it si going to be a bare bones, perhaps simply and earthen stadium with bench seating and a single building for football facilities and locker rooms. But even that requires they get the fund raising going in parallel. From what I have seen , I give the chances of doing something like this in the next five years less than 10% chance. And unless they have something like this really moving, I can't see the city extending their lease even a year. (why would you if nothing is going). The Q will become a serious safety issue in just a few years if it is cut down to the absolute minimum maintenance. We saw that with similar aged Candlestick in it's last couple years, after the baseball team moved out and the 49ers were throwing everything at getting the new stadium built. Literally pieces of concrete were falling randomly.

In related news the Inglewood stadium is delayed almost a year, so the Rams and Chargers wont play there until 2020. (The rains caused major delays and issues ... 49ers got lucky and completed theirs during the drought). So the cChargers will be in that rinky dink soccer stadium for 3 years. That shoudl make San Diegans smile.
05-18-2017 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,397
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 425
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #37
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-18-2017 01:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  PETCO is not much of an option. First off the math YNot is giving looks like a B1G school's rabid fan base. This is a CSU where student tickets are so deeply discount or even free as part of the student intercollegiate athletics fee. They make up at least 25% of the crowd (which separates SDSU from other Cal States). Also many people buy tickets at only the discount general admission rate -- G5 football is minor leagues afterall. You are not going to come anywhere near even half the gate you are claiming. The crowds are likely to be good for the first game or two but will almost certainly fall off quickly. To begin with it's a much more significant trip fro students to get to PETCO than to the Q. So unless it's a huge game that portion of the crowd will largely vanish.

But there are logistical problems. To begin with the stadium will be in baseball configuration at least through the end of September and some years well into October. This effectively limits SDSU to only late season home games, likely sacrificing 1 or even 2 of their 6 home games. Also even though the owner is a supporter, he has only indicated that perhaps a year or two bridge use while a new stadium is being built. This is not a long term solution.

SDSU is in a very bad spot. When they withdrew from the MLS group, it was a recognition of what many in San Diego have been saying, that FS Investors is nothing more than a sham front by developers who have no intention of ever building a stadium, and certainly no intention of paying $200M to MLS for a franchise. They just want to be able to develop city land for a huge profit without either paying for the land or going through the congestion mitigation requirements. This is a DOA proposal.

SDSU seems to have woken up to that fact. But they need to now get a very serious task force together to identify a feasible site to build a stadium on their own. And it is not going to be some slick top tier all the bells and whistles stadium, it si going to be a bare bones, perhaps simply and earthen stadium with bench seating and a single building for football facilities and locker rooms. But even that requires they get the fund raising going in parallel. From what I have seen , I give the chances of doing something like this in the next five years less than 10% chance. And unless they have something like this really moving, I can't see the city extending their lease even a year. (why would you if nothing is going). The Q will become a serious safety issue in just a few years if it is cut down to the absolute minimum maintenance. We saw that with similar aged Candlestick in it's last couple years, after the baseball team moved out and the 49ers were throwing everything at getting the new stadium built. Literally pieces of concrete were falling randomly.

In related news the Inglewood stadium is delayed almost a year, so the Rams and Chargers wont play there until 2020. (The rains caused major delays and issues ... 49ers got lucky and completed theirs during the drought). So the cChargers will be in that rinky dink soccer stadium for 3 years. That shoudl make San Diegans smile.

StubHub Center isn't rinky dink, it's a really nice facility. The only issue for NFL is the number of seats. The Chargers games there will probably be a great experience for anyone who attends. Certainly 30,000 fans in a 30,000 seat building is better than 30,000 fans in the 90,000 seat LA Coliseum.
05-18-2017 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,655
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 84
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #38
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
The Rams will be able to get some corporate box money from the coliseum. And they wont have just 30,000 for all games, some will definitely be higher.

The Chargers will lose a ton of money on lost gate. And a 3rd year there will be a lot of lost money.

Ironic the Raiders will be in a new stadium at the same time. Still wonder what they'll do in 2019.
05-18-2017 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,276
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 80
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #39
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
I've hoped for some time SDSU could get out of the UC-controlled PAC region and find a home as a major elsewhere. Among all of the schools remaining in the MWC, other than AFA, it's the Aztecs and not CSU I would think could have found their way by now. The Big East fb-only thing was just a momentary taste. But, when you see stuff like this, then see CSU going full bore into a football stadium the state is just letting them blow money on, I guess this is why CSU's on deck as the school most likely to leave for a major on that side of the country.

It's a crappy game, football stadiums for colleges; to be among the major players club, the thing has to be yours, whether you can afford it or not. To not have one makes you look weak and non-committal. But, really, if you're in CA, what are your options when everything is glacial?
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2017 02:49 PM by The Cutter of Bish.)
05-18-2017 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,510
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 344
I Root For: Tulane, Jags
Location:
Post: #40
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
So, is this still happening?
(01-12-2017 12:13 PM)SDSU-Alum2003 Wrote:  This is the future for San Diego State University...

[Image: 837]
05-18-2017 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.