Maybe something could be worked out for MLS San Diego club and SDSU, similar like the LA Galaxy have with Cal State-Dominguez Hills. There is always hope.
MLS won't comment on this as its too early in the game and I am sure SDSU doesn't have a potential ownership group put together yet. If this was a positive meeting though I bet we hear things in the next 6 months or so. My understanding is that FSI's ownership of the expansion rights is to end this year (if they haven't already expired) so I doubt this really means much.
Hope you're right. Although MLS were quite happy to comment positively after conversations with FSI and May Faulconer in January 2017.
Agree but that isn't an apple to apple comparison though. Pure speculation on my part but I would guess this meeting was a more of " Hey we are doing this with the stadium and would offer this to a potential ownership group....are you cool with this? Is the door still open? etc"
Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) paid for 100% of the construction of Dignity Health Sports Park (at the time, dubbed the Home Depot Center). AEG continues to own, operate, and maintain the stadium. As such, they control the scheduling of events at the facility, determine the priority of tenants, and collect the vast majority of the revenues generated by the facility (naming rights, corporate sponsorships, concession sales, parking fees, etc.). When last I checked, AEG's land lease for the site saw the company paying CSU Dominguez Hills $1 per year. It is believed that CSU Dominguez Hills also receives an annual payout that represents a small portion of the revenues generated by operation of Dignity Health Sports Park, though that figure is closely guarded and - given the fact that AEG has shouldered the entirety of the facility's construction and maintenance costs - is thought to pale in comparison to AEG's take. Which begs the question, is San Diego State University ready to allow an outside developer to pay 100% of the construction costs of a stadium within the SDSU West project in exchange for said developer procuring and operating a Major League Soccer franchise as the primary tenant in said stadium? Is San Diego State University willing to cede control of the scheduling of events in the proposed stadium to the investor/operators of said MLS franchise? Is San Diego State University willing to allow the MLS investor/operators to pocket the vast majority of the revenues generated by the proposed SDSU West stadium? Because THAT would be a case of San Diego State University and a Major League Soccer investor/operator entering into a business arrangement "similar" to the one that exists between the LA Galaxy/AEG and CSU Dominguez Hills.
I THINK they MIGHT. SDSU's primary motivation for wanting the Mission Valley land was to expand their campus not just build a football stadium. The SDSU West idea has been bouncing around the community for 10+ years and didn't necessarily even include a stadium in all it's iterations. Also the stadium constitutes the single largest cost, the most difficult to justify the use of public funds on, and has the most time pressure. I think if a developer came forward to build it in return for ownership of the stadium* SDSU would listen. Now as you pointed out there are a lot of specific details to work out the biggest for me being scheduling. Since any event would impact SDSU's campus they would want a say, and their would be particular issues during MLS playoffs. But to give you the short answer, I think it's possible. *ownership for all intensive purposes since the actual legal framework would probably be some form of lease.
They might be. Keep in mind SDSU doesn’t have a solid clue how they’re going to pay for half the stadium or more right now. An outside investor might just be that missing piece, ala AEG in Carson.
Yes, "[t]he SDSU idea has been bouncing around the community for 10+ years". Yet, this is the first time that said idea managed to progress beyond the talking stages. Just what occurred that motivated the university's administration - as well as its alumni and boosters - to finally get down to brass tacks and back up the rhetoric with some concrete action? Well, there is the fact that with the Chargers' relocation to Los Angeles, the future of SDCCU Stadium was placed in doubt. In fact, City of San Diego officials went so far as to announce plans to close the venue and save the $10 million in annual operating costs that the municipality was pouring into the structure. Which, of course, meant that the San Diego State Aztecs football program was faced with the question of just where it was going to play its games long-term if the city took such action. Frankly, SDSU can talk all it likes about its "primary motivation for wanting the Mission Valley land" being the expansion of its physical plant into a "world-class university campus", but the multiuse stadium is repeatedly the component of the university's Mission Valley development plan with which they lead. Here - https://missionvalley.sdsu.edu/assets/pdfs/The-Logic-of-SDSU-Mission-Valley.pdf - it is listed before the River Park, the public/private partnerships resulting in academic and research/innovation space, the retail space serving the campus and community, and the residential units for students, faculty, staff, and the region's workforce. Similarly, here - http://missionvalley.sdsu.edu/planOverview.html - it trails only the River Park as a "priority" amongst the planned phases of the SDSU West development plan. There is every reason to believe that a new stadium for the San Diego State University Aztecs football program is what motivated the university and its "friends" to finally take concrete steps to acquire the Mission Valley property at this time. Further, it isn't a leap to think that all of the talk about expanding the school's campus to include increased academic and research space, as well as housing for students/faculty/staff, is just a way to justify building a new home for Aztecs football... a facility that, as you've pointed out, "constitutes the single largest cost" in the plan, is the component that is "the most difficult to justify the use of public funds on", and represents the one facing "the most time pressure. I don't envision the investor/operator of a proposed MLS franchise being willing to shoulder 100% of stadium construction and maintenance costs in exchange for a "lease" of the building. After all, AEG's deal in Carson sees them leasing the land for $1 dollar a year. AEG owns the stadium. As such, AEG controls the revenue streams. Naming rights. In-stadium sponsorships and signage sales. Leasing of luxury suites. Ticket sales. Parking fees. Concession sales. That is where AEG sees the return on their investment. Again, AEG doesn't have to worry about how scheduling issues will be worked out to benefit the LA Galaxy within the Dignity Health Sports Park pecking-order, because AEG controls said pecking-order. Somehow, I don't see SDSU being willing to sit still for any scenario that doesn't establish the university's needs as at least an equal co-priority with that of the MLS franchise. Likewise, if the investor/operator of a San Diego-based Major League Soccer franchise foots-the-bill for building a Mission Valley stadium "in return for ownership of the stadium", I don't envision MLS sitting still for said club having anything but top priority in the building, as it would set a precedent that the league is moving away from. Time will tell how this will all play out.
We know the answer to this question it was the SoccerCity proposal that finally forced their hand. But again the issue wasn't around the stadium it was around the other land. If it was just the stadium why wouldn't they have joined Soccer City? Or just build a stadium on or near their campus? Would recommend you read Scott Lewis in the Voice of San Diego, he covered this really well laying out the issues. Not really sure what your getting at. Are you saying they used the university expansion as an excuse to build a stadium? Well that doesn't make sense because they were pretty up front that they wanted to build a stadium. So they weren't really hiding that. And why would San Diego State want to be in the stadium ownership business anyways? Throughout the Charger negotiations SDSU was offering themselves as a tenant, so at least from the outside it looks like they'd prefer not to have to deal with building their own stadium. I think you misinterpreted my lease comment. I was saying I could envisage a situation where the official owner of the stadium is SDSU for a variety of reasons like taxes for instance, but the operator had the authority of the owner. Or maybe they would own it outright? Not sure not really a big deal, only reason I added it was to avoid a pedantic debate around "ownership" which it looks like I got into anyways. Yes and no the CSU system still get's some say. I am sure AEG has some cap on the number of events they can have and there has been limited capacity on certain nights. (The Beckham Superliga final for instance). What I am saying is the scheduling is not an absolute and even when one entity has clear priority there is still some give and take. Now could the two sides even be close enough for that give and take to work? Who knows? But it's not black and white.
This interview basically confirms that the meeting was a kick the tires sort of meeting. I hope the environmental report goes well and we hear some more movement on this in 6-9 months. We have to show progress to be able to move to the "finding a potential ownership" group phase.
Because, under the Soccer City plan, FS Investors was responsible for building the stadium. As such, they were going to be calling the shots with regard to the priority of tenants in the stadium. The MLS franchise that FS Investors was going to be investing in and operating at the Soccer City stadium was going to be the priority tenant in the facility. Further, as the lead investors in the Soccer City development, FS Investors was going to going to control the vast majority of revenue streams in the stadium. Unless San Diego State University was prepared to co-finance construction of the facility, SDSU Aztecs football was going to be a tenant in the stadium. Where, "on or near their campus" is the readily-available land on which to build a stadium for the SDSU Aztecs football program? Particularly a stadium of the size - and featuring the amenities - necessary to maintain the Aztecs as a major college football program? How was the university going to finance construction of a football stadium - particularly, on-campus - without revenue streams from ancillary development to pay for the facility? After all, the San Diego Union-Tribune has estimated that SDSU brings in approximately $12 million a year via the football program. Sorry, but that isn't going to build much of a stadium. I've read Scott Lewis' work on this topic. Frankly, it doesn't paint an altogether flattering picture of any of the parties... SDSU included. Worst case scenario? There are passages in Lewis' work that make the university appear like an opportunistically self-serving entity, sending signals that it was willing to work hand-in-hand with FS Investors and Mayor Faulconer's office on Soccer City, only to do an about-face and become a pointed critic of the project once it caught wind of veteran San Diego developers like Tom Sudberry and Mike Neal wanting to scuttle the plan. For instance, when FS Investors' Nick Stone initially asked Tom McCarron - the university's VP for Business & Financial Affairs, as well as its Chief Financial Officer - whether SDSU wanted FSI to dedicate any of the land in the Soccer City development to SDSU student housing, McCarron told him that wasn't necessary. In fact, McCarron explained that the university envisioned needing to add about 600 dorm-type beds over the next three to four years, but that they'd have to be close to the existing campus. Later, after Sudberry and Neal had launched a multi-million dollar campaign to sink the Soccer City proposal, SDSU and its supporters were suddenly claiming that any development plans FSI had for Mission Valley beyond a stadium were a complete surprise. Further, the school changed its tune and stated that it must expand into Mission Valley, in part to support student housing. Best case scenario? Some of Lewis' account of the Soccer City/SDSU West dance put forward the notion - as expressed by such members of SDSU's Campanile Foundation as Jack McGrory and Kit Sickels - that the university's administration was in over its collective head when attempting to negotiate a deal with slick real estate developers like the team at FS Investors. And what better way of countering FS Investors' plans for Mission Valley than for SDSU to enlist the aid of McGrory (the former San Diego city manager turned real estate developer/consultant) and Sickels (a property developer and investor) in creating its own development plan? Or, for the school to take advantage of Sudberry and Neal's multi-million dollar, anti-Soccer City "Public Land, Public Vote" campaign? Of course, let's not forget that Sudberry and Neal's primary concern with the Soccer City plan was that its entertainment district of bars, restaurants, and retail establishments would generate traffic that might negatively impact Sudberry's Civita and Neal's Mission City developments. Politics - and real estate - do make for strange bedfellows. Bottom line? The Soccer City vs. SDSU West battle featured dirty tricks and double-dealing all around. No entity's hands are completely clean. You yourself have said that "the stadium constitutes the single largest cost, the most difficult to justify the use of public funds on, and has the most time pressure." That being the case, a stadium tucked into an overall plan for university expansion might be the perfect way to get such a venue built. As a means of insuring that it maintained control of event scheduling at the stadium, as well as control over the revenues that the venue generates. Oh, I agree with you there. Nobody really wants to own a stadium. They're expensive to build and expensive to maintain. The best case scenario is to get a government entity to build a stadium for you, while granting you control of the facility and, more importantly, the bulk of the revenue streams which said facility generates. The problem for both San Diego State University and a potential Major League Soccer franchise in San Diego is that city and county officials - to say nothing of the majority of voters - don't have the stomach to pony-up for constructing such a venue. Whatever ownership situation is hammered out, the question remains: who is paying to build and maintain the facility? Whoever is footing-the-bill, I have to imagine they are going to want - indeed, need - to recoup their construction and maintenance costs. How do they do that if they don't have control of the venue and its revenue streams? But, it is a big deal. Determining which entity is actually responsible for paying for construction and maintenance of the stadium is, most likely, going to have a significant bearing on determining which entity feels it should control the venue. Which entity controls the venue is going to have significant bearing on which entity controls the revenue streams from naming rights deals, sponsorship deals, luxury seating sales, concession sales, etc. Finally, determining who controls the venue is going to have significant bearing on who controls the scheduling of events in the venue. If negotiating all of these parameters were so simple, why are we still wondering whether a Major League Soccer franchise will end up being a part of the mix at the proposed new stadium in the SDSU West development? No, it absolutely is, quite literally, "black and white". Whatever the details of the deal is between AEG and the CSU system regarding the construction, maintenance, and ownership of Dignity Health Sports Park; the lease for the land upon which it is built; the control of revenue generated by the facility; and the scheduling of events within the venue... I can guarantee you that said details are spelled out - in "black and white" - in a legally-binding document somewhere. In this day and age, the construction, maintenance, ownership, and control of the revenues generated by multimillion dollar stadia is not being left up to handshake deals. The liability - legally and financially - is simply too great. Trust me, whatever "give and take" exists in such an agreement is bandied about during the negotiating phase... and then, once clear parameters have been settled upon, they're spelled-out, locked-in, and put to paper in a legally-binding contract somewhere.
I honestly don't really follow. On one side you claim that this is all about SDSU wanting to own the stadium, while then also pointing out that owning a stadium doesn't make good business sense. So basically what are you accusing SDSU of? They said from the very beginning that they will use some of the land to build a stadium. They also said some of the land would be used for commercial businesses. This was publicly known and not unique. They are already doing that. My local Trader Joes is on SDSU land. Obviously the devil is in the details and if they turn around and build a stadium and sell off the rest of the land to developers while not expanding the campus then I'll feel tricked. But there is no reason to believe they'll do that. SDSU has become a significantly more competitive school over the last 30 years. You need well over a 3.5 to get in and have heard anecdotal stories of people turned down with 4.0's. Add to that the growing population of San Diego and California, plus San Diego becoming a hub of the knowledge based economy and their is every reason to believe they'll need to expand. Now would I have liked their campaign to be "better? Yes! If you go back on this thread you will see me being critical of the SDSU West Campaign (even before it was officially launched). But as others have pointed out it's over and I do honestly believe that if SDSU can deliver on their promises than this will be a better use of land for the community as a whole. Even if we never get a MLS team out of it.
Not only is the bolded true but SDSU also saw all the money that UCSD gets in grants due to their research programs that they want something like that as well. With this additional land they should be able to attract more researchers and offer more masters and PHD programs as well as offer housing to attract "high value" teachers and researchers.
Welll, for SDSU, owning a stadium makes slightly more sense, as state institutions of higher education enjoy tax exemptions - including property tax exemptions - that can make building such a facility more economically viable. FS Investors unveiled a plan in which they said that they would use some of the land they wished to acquire in Mission Valley to build a stadium on, and some of the land they sought to acquire to construct structures that would house a variety of commercial ventures. This was also publicly known. What was unique about FS Investors' proposal was the reaction to it. Namely, they were accused of being carpet-baggers whose Soccer City proposal was nothing but a duplicitous land-grab. Well, at least you're open-minded enough to grant SDSU's leadership the opportunity to either prove themselves worthy of the trust placed in them should they deliver upon the promises they've made, or deserving of the scorn that should be heaped upon them if they fail to make good on said pledges. I would add that your commendable decision to allow SDSU said opportunity stands in stark contrast to the many San Diegans who opted to dismiss FS Investors' proposal for Mission Valley as a scam from the get-go. Oh, I don't doubt that SDSU would like - indeed, will need - to expand as it moves into the future. Frankly, I'm all for the university doing so... provided it can achieve the feat without having to resort to allowing its alumni, boosters, and "friends" to engage in scurrilous campaigns against those it perceives as competitors. Such criticism of those behind the SDSU West campaign was a rare thing amongst San Diegans. It being over is no excuse for turning a blind eye to those who engaged in the aforementioned rumor-mongering leveled at those behind the Soccer City plan. The process of determining which of two plans is better for the community is much better served when those behind each of the options resolve to allow the strengths of their respective proposals to speak for themselves, rather than resorting to mudslinging against the opposition. Well, than let's hope that "SDSU can deliver on their promises". As someone with business interests in Greater San Diego, I'm all for the region's educational institutions - SDSU most definitely included - helping to build a brighter future for the community.
Actually this is what happened. SDSU was originally working to put a deal together with FS Investors. It is believed that other local developers working on projects in Mission Valley were afraid of the FS Investors Mission Valley development getting the in the way. So they somehow convinced SDSU that they had a better deal and planted a poison pill in the FS Investors talks.
So sounds like your major complaint was the way the "Friends of SDSU" went about the campaign. Which as I have said is fair enough, I wasn't either. But here is the key, behind all the name calling San Diegans were faced with a basic choice. What is better for the City? The land to go to expanding San Diego State, or another mixed use retail development? On that basic question I think most of us preferred it to go to State. So while we can complain about the tenor of the debate I think the result was a fair reflection of what most San Diegans wanted.
http://www.americansoccernow.com/ar...development-a-look-at-where-talent-originates Stole this article off the 27-28 expansion thread but thought it was interesting. Just more evidence that San Diego is probably the best soccer market not already in MLS.
Good article.. We can only hope that a group can step forward and form a partnership with SDSU and bring MLS to San Diego where it belongs.
It's the next step on the stadium being built. The sooner the Murph is torn down and the new stadium built the better.
To build on this...the more pieces we have in place to get a stadium done by summer 2022 the easier it is to try and woo a potential MLS ownership group.
Well looks like Donovan hasn’t given up bringing something to San Diego https://www.si.com/soccer/2019/06/19/usl-san-diego-landon-donovan-warren-smith?utm_source=reddit.com
I like it. I think he is our messiah They have a 3 year lease at USD. If they start next year that means it ends at 2023....the new SDSU should be open fall 2022.....it could line up.