I have not seen the latest news on this board, and I realize there are posters here with more familiarity of this situation...

The SDSU West initiative was approved by voters on Tuesday. The Soccer City initiative (introduced by supporters of a potential MLS team) was voted down. According to this article, once a land purchase deal is approved by the city council, San Diego State will be able to build a new, smaller stadium near the current San Diego stadium.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ved-voters

If they pull this off, good for them.

Quote:The new stadium for the Aztecs is expected to cost around $250 million

That's not a realistic number. It's much too low. Colorado State's new stadium cost nearly that much, and construction costs are going to be much higher in San Diego than in Fort Collins.

Also, they have to pay to demolish the current stadium, which will be an additional $10 million, at least.

Quote:SDSU will continue to play at SDCCU Stadium until the new stadium opens.

IMO this is the big win, because it means they can keep the current stadium standing indefinitely. Won't matter if it takes them 10 years to raise the money and then build a new stadium, because they'll own the stadium and the land, and won't have to worry about the city tearing down the "old" stadium.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the upkeep on that stadium was way into the 7 figures. My guess is they tear that mother down ASAP after the new stadium is built.

This is way bigger than a stadium issue. SDSU plans to build a lot of campus buildings on that land.

It's 166 acres, of which 122 is currently a surface parking lot. It's smack in the middle of the SD metro region. It's got 2 interstates along the edges and a light rail stop practically in the middle. It's 2 rail stops away from SDSU's campus.

The value of the land is priceless. It would easily fetch over $1 billion dollars if it ever went to a truly open market bidding process (although that would never happen in California because real estate development there is decided by politics rather than the free market).

This is great news!

Actually I think the city should give SDSU a 50 year lease on the land rather than sell it. The payments could be much lower than interest on the loan to pay for a purchase. If the land does wind up being utilized for a 2nd campus location great, it can be sold to the CSU system. If not, and it's just stadium, when Football dies off the city can reclaim the land.

But that is too logical to ever happen. They'll sell it way below market value, probably under $200M is my WAG. That is a win for the CSU system.

I am glad MLS was shown the door by the voters and that SDSU will have a chance to build a much cheaper and easy to maintain stadium that fits their actual needs.

There's really a LOT to be done after the public preferred their plan compared to Soccer City. SDSU basically only has hired an architect for the stadium (Populous) and for the campus as a whole (Carrier Johnson + Culture). They have no funding plan outside of thinking they'll get $15M in tax revenues to pay the bonds. It'll be so hard for them to cover the annual debt payment if they will rely just on stadium revenues, including sponsorships, rents from the various hospitality venues throughout the building and food, beverage and merchandise concessions. Still not sure alumni and others donations will always bail them out.


The SDSU President vows that they'll break ground in 2020.
https://timesofsandiego.com/education/20...ey-campus/

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

(11-08-2018 04:12 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  There's really a LOT to be done after the public preferred their plan compared to Soccer City. SDSU basically only has hired an architect for the stadium (Populous) and for the campus as a whole (Carrier Johnson + Culture). They have no funding plan outside of thinking they'll get $15M in tax revenues to pay the bonds. It'll be so hard for them to cover the annual debt payment if they will rely just on stadium revenues, including sponsorships, rents from the various hospitality venues throughout the building and food, beverage and merchandise concessions. Still not sure alumni and others donations will always bail them out.


The SDSU President vows that they'll break ground in 2020.
https://timesofsandiego.com/education/20...ey-campus/

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

SDSU is having big money issues right now, too. It might seem odd with the economy doing so good, but there's a good reason for it.

The university took a hard turn left in the last 5 years. So they've alienated a lot of the alumni/business leaders who previously funded SDSU's ability to rise above the constraints that the legislature put on the CSU system. The last President (Elliot Hirshman) got sick of the political atmosphere on campus (he was accosted repeatedly by deranged activists) and left in 2017 to be President of a small private school in Maryland.

It's only gotten worse since then. For example, I know for a fact that SDSU lost a multimillion dollar donation last year because a campus group held a birthday party for Karl Marx.

The university just hired a former union activist as President. And she's cleaned house of much of the old guard, firing the Provost and all but two of the deans who were there when she arrived. So things are only going to get worse.

(11-08-2018 01:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:The new stadium for the Aztecs is expected to cost around $250 million

That's not a realistic number. It's much too low. Colorado State's new stadium cost nearly that much, and construction costs are going to be much higher in San Diego than in Fort Collins.

Also, they have to pay to demolish the current stadium, which will be an additional $10 million, at least.

Quote:SDSU will continue to play at SDCCU Stadium until the new stadium opens.

IMO this is the big win, because it means they can keep the current stadium standing indefinitely. Won't matter if it takes them 10 years to raise the money and then build a new stadium, because they'll own the stadium and the land, and won't have to worry about the city tearing down the "old" stadium.

CSU’s stadium was 6k seats larger, included classrooms for regular students and all their football facilities. Sdsu doesn’t need classrooms or football facilities here as they will stay on the main campus.

(11-08-2018 04:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:12 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  There's really a LOT to be done after the public preferred their plan compared to Soccer City. SDSU basically only has hired an architect for the stadium (Populous) and for the campus as a whole (Carrier Johnson + Culture). They have no funding plan outside of thinking they'll get $15M in tax revenues to pay the bonds. It'll be so hard for them to cover the annual debt payment if they will rely just on stadium revenues, including sponsorships, rents from the various hospitality venues throughout the building and food, beverage and merchandise concessions. Still not sure alumni and others donations will always bail them out.


The SDSU President vows that they'll break ground in 2020.
https://timesofsandiego.com/education/20...ey-campus/

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/g...west-plan/

SDSU is having big money issues right now, too. It might seem odd with the economy doing so good, but there's a good reason for it.

The university took a hard turn left in the last 5 years. So they've alienated a lot of the alumni/business leaders who previously funded SDSU's ability to rise above the constraints that the legislature put on the CSU system. The last President (Elliot Hirshman) got sick of the political atmosphere on campus (he was accosted repeatedly by deranged activists) and left in 2017 to be President of a small private school in Maryland.

It's only gotten worse since then. For example, I know for a fact that SDSU lost a multimillion dollar donation last year because a campus group held a birthday party for Karl Marx.

The university just hired a former union activist as President. And she's cleaned house of much of the old guard, firing the Provost and all but two of the deans who were there when she arrived. So things are only going to get worse.

Hirshman bounced because he lost favor with the students and alumni. He had no heart, which is why he left at the start of this whole land deal. Moneyside, if there were donor woes, it doesn't seem too apparent, we have overshot goals in our major campaign (started at 500M, then went to 750 for a goal and finished at 815M), and our 24 hour annual campaigns. I am not privy about the lost donor, but the university is no more left than any other, and actually a little more conservative than other California schools. It is still a military town with quite a lot of Veterans and dependents attending the University.

So will the new stadium go up before or after the demolition of the old one? Will the Aztecs have to play at Petco in the interim?

Why doesn’t SDSU team up with the MLS effort to bring a team to SD and share cost? I guess they could ask the NFL/chargers to fix their LA problem, ha.

(11-09-2018 10:29 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Why doesn’t SDSU team up with the MLS effort to bring a team to SD and share cost? I guess they could ask the NFL/chargers to fix their LA problem, ha.

It stems from MLS wanting to control all of the stadium revenue and they can't do that as a tenant of a university. Originally SDSU was on board with being the tenant of an MLS team but the Aztecs required a greater stadium capacity than what the MLS group wanted to build and they were unwilling to put up the cash for the extra seats. The university walked away and put together their own plan.

If they are smart they will build the new stadium with the capacity to be expanded to NFL seating requirements for when the Chargers inevitably declare LA a failure and look to come home.

I have a hunch some discussions are happening now between SDSU and MLS. The two sides couldn’t come to terms on How the remainder of the site would be developed and that’s why talks broke off. Now that the public has spoken on who gets those rights sharing a stadium is a no brainer. Sdsu can live with 30k now but needs the ability to expand down the road should a P5 conference come calling.

Good for them. Looks like will eventually get a stadium built there. Who would have thought Cincinnati would have leaped over all of these other markets and get a MLS franchise. They start MLS play next season. Average attendance was 25,717 playing in the USL.

So the ballot favored them and attendance really didn't change.

Good luck in finding $15M in tax generation to cover the debt.

SDSU has prime model for its stadium in new venue at Colorado State
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

At $250M it should be the nicest small stadium anywhere.

The Austin/Columbus mess has taken one MLS expansion slot off the table. So apparently only one other spot available with some stiff competition that made San Diego less likely.

Watching SDSU and UNLV Saturday night, the Aztecs will be well served having a stadium where the fans aren't so removed from the field.

G5 needs to take advantage of the stadium uncertainty and scoop the Holiday bowl up.