Both will get in. They're far enough apart and grow MLS's market coverage enough to make both worthwhile to the league. Remember there are 4 teams coming in, so it's very feasible that two will be the California teams.
SDSU figures they can raise the $150 mil they estimate they'd need for their portion of their 47 acre project. But they also haven't ruled out partnering with FS provided FS is willing to work with them to make most of their desired things happen. They've made it clear they're not "going it alone". They intend to partner with someone be it FS or otherwise. But in releasing that information the other day they've also made clear what they want out of the project. And from what the AD Wicker was saying, they'd made those wishes clear to FS previously. FS obviously didn't tailor their project to fit SDSUs needs, which frankly will turn out to be a fatal mistake if they don't rectify it.
Yup. SDSU can get the money for building the stadium the question is how are they going to pay for the school expansion. Which goes back to working with FSI or someone else. I am still hopeful that FSI and SDSU can come to the table, if not then we are screwed as I don't see this happening anytime soon to get an MLS team.
Well at least and finally SDSU put their (wishlist)cards on the table... FS has been upfront about their goals. the city officials are involved too now. All fingers crossed the FS project and SDSU can now under City leadership in someway or form find an agreement.
The worrisome thing is supposedly SDSU's wishes were already on the table, at least the table FS has been able to see. Yes the university is public now, but it's not like these needs/demands are something FS Investors was unaware of. Which means either they weren't willing or weren't able to tailor their project to meet those needs. In either case, releasing their ballot measure before making sure those needs were at least somewhat addressed was a dumb move. It limits them to how much they can now modify their project to work with the university. And if they can't come to an accommodation within the four corners of the existing ballot measure, then it's already dead.
I am not so sure that FSI ever had this much detail. When listening to Nick Stone when this first came out and then when the AD of SDSU responded you could tell there was a disconnect. It could have been that someone in the office of the president at SDSU was talking to FSI but nothing officially from SDSU. Now that SDSU has an official stance I think there is a chance for the two to work together. Hopefully Mayor Faulkner can bring both sides to the table.
You just like finding different ways to say the project is dead, could be dead, is already dead in the water, etc. They're just negotiating. And they're negotiating with the mayor as a mediating agent. One of the SDSU reps who was a former city manager is quoted in the article saying the FS proposal can make the accommodations necessary to work for the University. Don't let the PR aspect of this discourage you, its supposed to imply a lack of cooperation so real negotiation can take place with real leverage.
I don't like finding anything of the sort. I hope they can work it out. In my view they already should have as they're not THAT far apart. There's no reason FS's plan couldn't have included a campus expansion as part of the plan from the get go. And there's no reason they had to limit the expandable nature of the stadium to 32,000, it should have been 25,000 expandable to 35,000 from the get go. I mean they're arguing over 3-5,000 seats on the stadium. And FS plans plenty of office space in their plan, why was that not adapted to include some classroom space? That's really what worries me. If FS is serious about making this happen the negotiations shouldn't be that difficult. Problem is I'm getting the feeling FS isn't being flexible on this, at least in public. And you're right, they may be simply negotiating, but perception is reality in this world. And the perception is that the two sides aren't working together right now to meet somewhere in the middle. And when you're depending on a ballot measure that is depending on approval of a city council full of people who subsist on nothing but perception... And right now the public perception isn't great.
I hope you're right. But Wicker came out yesterday and said nothing they released would be new to FS Investors on 1090. Hopefully he is just mistaken, but frankly I don't see how the AD would have been left out of the loop on something like that when he's part of the team at SDSU driving their stadium efforts. So either Stone is lying/twisting the truth/mistaken or Wicker is... because their positions on FS's knowledge of SDSUs desires are mutually exclusive.
The truth could be somewhere in the middle. Remember the SDSU president just resigned so FSI could have been talking to someone in his office that didn't relay all messages to the whole SDSU contingent.
Just got done listening to some interviews on 1090 and 1360. I think MLS is dead in the water here in SD. For some reason SDSU/FSI are playing hardball and are not looking out for what is best for SD, which is to have an MLS team AND expansion of SDSU. Its really just frustrating and typical San Diego political BS.
Yeah I'm usually hopeful until I hear SDSU and FS talking directly. And then I'm not. They're both being stubborn and don't seem willing to compromise to make both their visions work together. It's typical narrow minded San Diego bullshit. Spanos has got to be loving it. If this fails, it's proof he was right to blow out of town the way he did.
I just don't get it. San Diego State needs a new stadium. MLS has made it clear that they would welcome San Diego as an expansion market, and both sides need a stadium in a similar range. This can't just be about the stadium, it must be about the land. And yeah this is typical San Diego crap. Been talking about replacing the Q for 15 years. Been talking about replacing the Sports Arena for what 20 years. Hell been talking about replacing the Airport for 60 years! But even if the FS plan dies it doesn't mean death to MLS in SD. SDSU still needs a place to play, and chances are that place will be a good size for MLS as well, and not good for much else. Soooo if they want another tenant to make the stadium financially viable MLS still makes sense. Finally anyone holding the flame for the NFL is crazy. To get the NFL to come back you would need to build a top of the line stadium AND offer an even better deal than what the Chargers were asking for. A lot of lies and misinformation came out of Charger park, but one thing that was true is they weren't asking for more than other teams were getting. To tempt a team you are going to have to offer the sweetest of sweetheart deals. (And there will be no more domestic expansion so we can forget about that).
I feel like SDSU thinks if they can kill the FS deal there won't be any alternative but a land grant.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topi...als-it-doesnt-need-qualcomm-stadium-land-yet/ Weird article. SDSU stating they want to buy land on Qualcomm site, develop it for office use, and then expand their campus in 30-50 years. Also they mention they're looking at continuing playing football in Qualcomm stadium and just paying the city more, and also at expanding Balboa Stadium. Okey dokey on those last two ideas.
And there in lies the problem. If that's really want SDSU wants, to sit on the land for 30+ years until they feel they need it for a true campus expansion, it puts them in direct opposition to FS. FS want to develop the whole site for the benefit of the entire city now. Not leave the decaying football stadium (which will still have about $250 million in liabilities and burdens tied up in it) standing and not simply carving off a small chunk of the property to build some offices to act as placeholders. Not I could see FS modifying their plan to allow SDSU to get a chunk of land to do that. I mean FS is sitting on 16 acres for a future NFL stadium. That could presumably be reassigned to SDSU since we all now NFL isn't coming. But they need to sit down and hammer this out. And SDSU has to be more realistic than that. No one is going to sit on land that has been woefully under utilized for the better part of 50 years for another 30+.
Good point, I mean look, it's easy to get emotional about every latest thing. My personal opinion is that Donald Garber has a huge hard on for San Diego, and he should. We are hot. We are very hot. If FS doesn't work out, SDSU will have JMI presumably helping them struggle out of their impotence. And JMI wants MLS in San Diego too. You know what? Most people do. The signature drive is going well. People utter the words MLS to San Diego with an assumption of value. Soccer will work here. Most of all Nick Stone is sharp as shit. He is leaning hard on all the leverage he has, which is a hell of a lot. He can tell a dude on 1090 that MLS isn't expanding after this!!!! And everyone believes it, which is hilarious. Of course they are expanding after this. There is no deadline. And he's holding a bunch of people by the balls for a $100s of millions land development over Don Garber saying "Hey you better hurry to beat Sacramento Republic, they have cool uniforms." The only deadline is your expansion fee costs more. Anyway all you dudes lurking on this thread, speak up. It needs more optimism. No more of this San Diego Never Gets Anything Done narrative. I don't believe that anymore. That's just a bunch of baby boomer old timers hating on a game most people in San Diego love. *****Disclaimer - I am drunk waiting for this USA game to start and I have been listening to eveything I can on 1090 etc. And I don't share the popular pessimistic overview of San Diego's political landscape that exists on this thread. @Nacional Tijuana, dude, come on bro, say something rational and encouraging. Like, Xolos will dominate anyway. And they will always have a better tailgate food. Although San Diego has better beer, that is not debatable.
If the FSI deal dies then MLS is done in MLS because apparently FSI has the sole license to operate a franchise. Now they may sell that I suppose but I doubt anyone wants to buy it. I think FSI needs to swallow its pride and work with SDSU and give them the 50 acres they want. That still leaves them with about 90 acres of land to work with to make money on. That is better than nothing, which is what they'll have if they don't work on this.
It's a lot more than 90. The Qualcomm site is 166 acres. As I understand it SDSU only wants 47 (and that includes the SDSU stadium). If you subtract what the stadium sits on figure SDSU only wants an additional 35 acres out of 166 that FS was either going to buy or have direct control over developing via lease. FS was setting aside 16 out of the 166 for an NFL stadium anyway. There has to be somewhere between approximately 35 and 16 acres that the two sides can meet. I mean the NFL is never coming back, so the 16 will revert to FS hands in 5 years time anyway. And SDSU wants to sit on the land anyway. So why not compromise. Make the hold out for NFL a hold out for SDSU and extend the term from 5 years to 30 and expand it from 16 to say 25-30 acres to hold for SDSU for 30 years.
Moores would be all over the rights, what are you talking about. He's been talking to MLS forever. I mean, I think I'm gonna take a break from this forum you guys are just pessimists and you're making me mad.
Lol its mostly because we have more info. Moores was asked recently if he was interested in MLS and apparently he said no. Also, not sure if this is true or not, I heard the FSI has sole custody of the MLS franchise rights which means even if anyone else was interested they couldnt do anything without FSI approval. Anyway...lets get that W tonight USMNT!
I've gone back about 5 pages and can't find what you're referencing. ...or is that why you're mentioning you're drunk?