Gamechanger.... looks like our SD MLS messiah has arrived!!

Discussion in 'San Diego' started by marford21, Mar 6, 2015.

  1. mike4066

    mike4066 Member+

    Jun 30, 2007
    Chula Vista, CA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes since they didn't have a super majority to outright do away with it they were voting today to either accept it or put it on the ballot of the normal election.

    FSI wanted the special election because of the deadline imposed by MLS (and IMO also to try and speed the approval process through).

    I have a feeling they will be reaching out to SDSU with a better offer now.
     
  2. Rahbiefowlah

    Rahbiefowlah Member+

    Oct 22, 2001
    Las Vegas
    But what is this noise about having another option for special election?
     
  3. mike4066

    mike4066 Member+

    Jun 30, 2007
    Chula Vista, CA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I haven't seen anything about that. My understanding is that a special election is off the table right now.
     
  4. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It is for now. But they can still call for one at a different point other than November. But odds aren't good it will happen. Now it's in MLS's court I guess to see if they'd accept waiting to 2018. I don't expect they will however with at least 3-4 solid bids in place.

    Frankly if we miss the boat because of this, I'm going to make it a personal mission to ensure SDSU never gets a square foot of land in Mission Valley. They can rot in the hell of their own creation as far as I'm concerned.
     
  5. mike4066

    mike4066 Member+

    Jun 30, 2007
    Chula Vista, CA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    LOL good luck with that. They will eventually get some land there and I think they need it as it is good for the city.
     
  6. owian

    owian Member+

    Liverpool FC, San Diego Loyal
    May 17, 2002
    San Diego
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As sports and politics in San Diego turns. So good too see FS hasn't completely thrown in the towel. But they are going to have to wait to let the chips fall where they may. First it's now time for the the other potential investment groups to step up. We've been hearing all this crap about not rushing to a decision, great let's see your plan. Claim FS investors was getting a sweetheart deal, okay time for another group to crunch the numbers and offer more for the land, while giving more to SDSU, and doing it with less density. AND while building a stadium that suits SDSU, with a riverpark. If someone can make that alchemy happen than power to them.

    Mind you no new group can promise MLS like FS can because they all missed the expansion deadline, so at best they are building a stadium for 8 college football games a year and hoping to get a soccer team at some unknown date.

    It's also up to MLS, if they're willing to wait we're in good shape, but can't blame them if they're not.
     
    CoronaOrange repped this.
  7. mike4066

    mike4066 Member+

    Jun 30, 2007
    Chula Vista, CA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I really think they can get the deal done with SDSU. They weren't too far apart on the issues.

    The main sticking point was the cost of possible expansion if required by SDSU in the future. I believe SDSU wanted to split the bill but FSI didn't want to pay any of it (which would have been in the 50-100 million dollar range).
    They also needed to allot some land for use by SDSU which IMO shouldn't be too hard of an issue as doing so would kill two birds with one stone so to speak (less density and land to SDSU).
     
    owian repped this.
  8. SteveUSSF_ref8

    SteveUSSF_ref8 Member+

    United States
    Oct 25, 2010
    Sun City, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Typical San Diego City politics, with the vote pushed to 2018, they have more or less killed any chance of MLS for a very very long time if ever. Our hopes for a pro team now rest with the NASL in North County. Bring back the San Diego Jaws, I'm ready!
     
  9. Rahbiefowlah

    Rahbiefowlah Member+

    Oct 22, 2001
    Las Vegas
  10. owian

    owian Member+

    Liverpool FC, San Diego Loyal
    May 17, 2002
    San Diego
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Interesting thanks for posting. A couple of takeaways...

    1) SoccerCity said publicly that they welcome MLS to extend their expansion deadline which is good because it shows that FS isn't that worried about rival developers and would be comfortable waiting until 2018. It gives MLS a window to either drag out the second announcement until after the 2018 vote (not unreasonable to wait a year), or even accept San Diego on condition of the vote passing.

    2) SDSU still has no clue what they are doing. Balboa Stadium really? Have they seen it recently? It's a giant hole in the ground with some cement steps on either side. Don't get me wrong I love the location but there is no way you could build a 35,000 + stadium on that footprint. With I-5 on one side and San Diego High on the other it's just to small.
     
    CoronaOrange repped this.
  11. Rahbiefowlah

    Rahbiefowlah Member+

    Oct 22, 2001
    Las Vegas




    Sherman is the council member who is championing the soccercity plan.
     
    owian and CoronaOrange repped this.
  12. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And he's right to be as angry as he comes across. SDSU lashed out against SoccerCity, but has no clue what it might offer as an alternative.
     
  13. owian

    owian Member+

    Liverpool FC, San Diego Loyal
    May 17, 2002
    San Diego
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Clearly they are still in the "throw shit against the wall" phase. Which just dumbfounds me. I've been talking about a joint Aztec MLS stadium on the Q site for three years to anyone who would listen. IF my dumbass had thought of this you'd think this might have crossed their minds as well. AT least do a feasibility study or something. Find some Urban planning grad student and have him come up with a plan. Jeebus.

    Balboa Stadium really? I know I vented about it earlier but I used to work at SDHS, so I am very familiar with that location. There is literally NO way you could build a 35-40,000 seat stadium on that site without either re-directing I-5 or tearing up San Diego High. The fact that someone who is supposed to be involved is so ignorant of the topic they are talking about really pisses me off.

    I would not have a problem if State came forward with a genuine plan for the land. That's fine, let's have a debate around short term vs. long term gains. The advantages of an educated workforce vs. a larger tax base, a more crowded Mission Valley vs. relieving the housing shortage, and even a battle between college football vs. Soccer. Fine, let's have it and even if my side loses okay. As long as the other side has a plan with genuine merit. But they don't.

    Sorry for the rant.
     
  14. mike4066

    mike4066 Member+

    Jun 30, 2007
    Chula Vista, CA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think the issue here is that there isn't a strong central figure taking the lead on the issue.

    I think after Hirshman resigned Wicker tried to take the lead (and I honestly think was the main hangup to the FSI plan) so now that Roush has been named interim President hopefully she can take the reigns back.

    As for throwing sh*t against the wall...

    They have been discussing a number of possibilities internally (Balboa Stadium, Adobe Falls, the Q) but the issue is no one is taking the lead and they haven't come to terms with any potential development partners yet.
     
  15. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well that and they're clearly not doing anything but high level stuff right now with no one at the reigns. I mean Balboa is a non-starter, and anyone with half a brain would realize that. And thinking the city will sit on the Q as they've suggested, for 30 freaking years?
     
  16. Rahbiefowlah

    Rahbiefowlah Member+

    Oct 22, 2001
    Las Vegas
  17. Rahbiefowlah

    Rahbiefowlah Member+

    Oct 22, 2001
    Las Vegas
    Tell you one thing. Ain't on my conscience to sit back and eat my popcorn while SDSU football realizes they're broke, desperate and single for the next few years. And ever.
     
  18. mike4066

    mike4066 Member+

    Jun 30, 2007
    Chula Vista, CA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Huh?
     
  19. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #1069 athletics68, Jun 27, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
    He's saying SDSU is SOL and they just don't realize it yet. They've got no plan, and after 2019... no home.

    SDSU and its big wig alums are so focused on making the school a Power 5 player, that they've neglected to realize they won't even be a D1 player if they don't get their shit together fast.
     
  20. mike4066

    mike4066 Member+

    Jun 30, 2007
    Chula Vista, CA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    SDSU will not be in danger of losing Div1 status. They don't have a public plan but they do have some plans they aren't showing to the public (due to the fact that they either don't own the land yet or they need to coordinate with another party first).

    As for the P5 play, I think that was only one person and I hope they have been reigned in now that there is an interim President.
     
  21. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well the clock is ticking. They have 2 years to figure it out. Qualcomm is being torn down after the 2018 season, and the Padres are only letting them shack up at Petco for one season before they're kicked to the curb. If they have no home ready to receive them after 2019 I hope they like traveling because they're not going to have a home stadium.
     
  22. mike4066

    mike4066 Member+

    Jun 30, 2007
    Chula Vista, CA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agree but also realize that Petco is on the table but its not the first (nor a permanent option). Fowler is a SDSU advocate so he won't let them flail in the wind.
     
  23. athletics68

    athletics68 Member+

    Dec 12, 2006
    San Diego & San Jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually Fowler has been quoted as saying they only have one year. He and MLB don't want them tearing up the Padres field, particularly as the Padres are going to start vying for post seasons again. It's a baseball only park for a reason. MLB does not want it's teams playing in "multipurpose" venues. They will be twisting in the wind come 2020.
     
  24. Rahbiefowlah

    Rahbiefowlah Member+

    Oct 22, 2001
    Las Vegas
  25. Rahbiefowlah

    Rahbiefowlah Member+

    Oct 22, 2001
    Las Vegas


    I don't have the energy to keep up with this anymore. I'd like to know how SDSU thinks they're going to pay for the land, much less a stadium, if it's considered surplus. And I'd like to know who is going to pay for Qualcomm to be maintained and then demo'd if SDSU isn't. What a cluster. And I'd like to know why the mayor wouldn't just veto this sh!t.
     
    Threeke repped this.

Share This Page