A few things: - SDSU isn't against working with a potential MLS franchise but that won't be FSI from reading everything (unless they let their plan die and sign up for SDSU's plan) - The plan said to have a stadium built within 7 years not 7 years later - The SDSU AD has said more info about the plan will be released in December - If Amazon were to build their second HQ in MV it would basically mean the stadium and school buildings won't be available. They want a huge plot of land to be able to expand and have housing for the 1000's of workers that would be based there. If they do build in SD county I could see it in Chula Vista or Escondido but not really within the SD city limits.
I'll concede on the Amazon stuff. I don't know enough about their plans to say what kind of facility they require. But recognize that MLS isn't working with anyone other than FSI, despite what SDSU might say or whatever hopes people have of John Moores coming to the rescue. If MLS comes to San Diego its with FS Investors. Personally, I'm more inclined to vote for the SoccerCity plan than anything SDSU puts out. I was really turned off by how the university went about cutting ties with FSI and breaking out in their own direction. The fundamental plans are exceedingly similar on the surface. This dispute boils down to control of land and revenues. We'll see if SDSU can actually come up with something that isn't just a copy of the SoccerCity plan with red and black flags.
FSI only owns the rights for this year I believe but I am not sure, they revert back to Moores either next year or 2019. FSI was short sighted in my opinion. The best bet for the city is to have an expanded SDSU (the amount of revenue the research facilities would bring in is huge, check UCSD if you don't believe me) AND a new stadium with some housing a office space mixed in. So I would be more inclined to vote for SDSU (although I was initially in the FSI camp). Its all for naught though as I am a CV resident
I think you may be mistaken regarding these MLS rights. What makes you think these right revert to anyone after a period of time? I've never heard that anywhere.
I can't remember where I read it (most likely an SDSU message board) but it said that Moores sold the rights to FSI for a fixed period of time (it was 2-3 years) as Moores wasn't interested at the time in buying Everton. It was pretty credible when I read it hence why I mentioned it again. But it could be BS as you said since I can't find the source.
Yea I am pretty confident that someone made something up. From what I understand there are no real territorial rights. Just different individuals with whom the league has vetted and acknowledged as potential owners. Moores may have been vetted/approved at some point but everything I've seen from his camp implies that they are not interested in MLS in any capacity. And the league's communications have indicated that they have identified FSI as their horse in SD.
Seems really vague on the details which has been my issue with SDSU from the start. They're tried to portray FSI as being secretive and then they come out and say we want the city to sell us the land but won't what the standard is, won't tell you what we are going to do with the land or how we'll pay for it, nor how long it will take. One question is the article says SDSU are looking to put their's on the primary ballot in May. If they can do that why aren't FSI? That seems like it would make a ton of sense for a variety of reasons.
Well SDSU's is not a full development plan on the initiative. And I think that's on purpose. They are basically playing cock block on FS Investors. They need more time to sus out the particulars and they're betting the citizens of the city will be willing to let them do that. They do set timelines and such so they have to act within a certain time frame, but it's obviously a longer time frame than FS's plan. Which should play well at the ballot box because one of the big complaints I see about FS's plan... is that it feels "artificially" rushed. In larger part due to MLS's arbitrary deadline.
The push to have the election in 2017 was certainly rushed due to the artificial MLS deadline. Scheduling the vote for 2018 in June of 2017 gives more than enough time for the public to analyze the plan from top to bottom and for the proponents to answer any questions that come up. You're right that SDSU is cockblocking/stalling for time in order to come up with a plan of their own. Personally I find that tactic to be a bit pathetic. Their argument seems to simultaneously claim that because of their status as the university in SD that Mission Valley is their property by rights, that they've always wanted to expand their campus there, and at the same time is claiming that there is no concrete vision for expanding their campus but that if we the people of San Diego were to just give them the land, then they'll figure out exactly what they want to do with it eventually. All that is made even MORE frustrating by the fact that up until earlier this year, SDSU and FSI had been negotiating a deal to work together on this SoccerCity project. There was a MoU between the groups and then SDSU backed out and started slinging mud.
I don't think they can put their proposal on a ballot any time before the SoccerCity plan. I read it as they need to get their Citizen Initiative process moving forward now because if they wait too long, SoccerCity might go on the primary election (which I think is in June not May) and the SDSU plan wouldn't be ready. I doubt they gather 70k+ signatures in the same amount of time that FSI did, but even if it only took them one month, the verification process and city council procedural stuff might not be done until after the June primary, so its best to start now.
Main issue was FSI won't budge on the stadium size and "campus" acreage in the development. FSI insist it needs to be around 30,000. SDSU regularly draws 40,000+ and that'll just grow is their program stays on the track it's on. Clearly the numbers don't line up. But if FSI had budged and accepted that SDSU has a larger stadium need NOW, nevermind if they join a Power 5 conference in the future, then this whole thing would probably have been put to bed already.
Most of that procedural stuff can be done in less than two months. Figure it'll take them a couple of weeks to get the signatures, maybe not FSI fast but it won't take as long as you seem to think with SDSU's inroads and alumni in the community.
I'm just interpreting the article's timeline as to why they are starting now. I don't doubt that State can pull the signatures they need in time to get their plan on whatever ballot it needs to be on.
I agree the stadium size thing is a problem, nowhere near as big of a problem as SDSU is making it out to be imo, but a problem nonetheless. The issue that folks don't seem to recognize is that FSI can't budge on the stadium size. The signatures gathered back in March/April were for a stadium that maxes out at 33,500. For FSI to substantial increase the number of seat to SDSU's demands, they'd need to re-circulate an entirely new initiative. What rubs me the wrong way is that SDSU didn't pull out of negotiations with FSI until AFTER FS was locked into the plan that they worked on together. I'm not super into conspiracies but I do wonder if SDSU was just playing along long enough to commit FSI and then pull this maneuver that they have. SDSU gets a stadium either way. And while they might not gain all the perks they are looking for if SoccerCity passes, its not like they'd be any worse off than they are today. EDIT: For the record, I think FSI miscalculated the size of the stadium. 30-40k would be great for soccer too in my opinion. I'm assuming there's a cost analysis somewhere in their research that guided them in their projections though...
Maybe that’s the solution... FSI scraps their initiative and gets it right the second time around fixing all the issues everyone had with the first go including the too small stadium.
Maybe. But I just don't see that happening in time for the current round of MLS expansion. If MLS makes a decision regarding expansion before Nov 18 this is all moot regardless. But it sounds a lot like the league may delay their decisions for teams 27/28. and ultimately, if MLS is still an option going into the November 2018 election and this thing wins, there's no need to re-write anything.
That's still the route I am hoping for. I honestly want an MLS team, and a strong SDSU football program equally so anything that serves both those things makes me happy, but it feels like there is just to much bad blood between the sides. To steal the title of this thread MLS could be the game changer. If they make it clear that San Diego can still get in with this round of expansion (24-28) then the leverage shifts to FSI.
Agreed. Since SDSU football gets a stadium either way, and actually would have their new stadium even sooner under SoccerCity, I think that the league leaving the door open until after the election swings momentum in favor of FSI big time. This comment from Garber this morning seems to lean in that direction: Garber: next round of expansion we have to get right. If we can’t get it right in December, we’ll delay it.— Ian Thomas (@byIanThomas) October 5, 2017
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/sd-sp-sdsu-stadium-populous-20171004-story.html See the part where they talk about FSI owning the exclusivity rights for MLS in San Diego only until their initiative fails...this goes to what I was saying before in that they bought those rights only for a limited time. Interesting that SDSU hired this company since they are known for building SSS and multi-tenant college football stadiums
Oh I see what you mean. I still think there's a difference between their project having legs and the "rights" to a team reverting/transferring to anyone else. I read it as, "this MLS opportunity only manifests if this project goes through" as opposed to the transfer of rights. This line stuck out: “Obviously, the FS group has exclusivity right now. But if the stadium gets built and meets MLS standards, and MLS wants to award a franchise to San Diego, I’d assume they’d ask the FS group first. If the FS group says no, then they’d move onto the next group.” Big difference between transferable "rights" and some "what-if" projection. Based on what I've seen from MLS and the reality that there are other bid cities around the country, I think that is SoccerCity loses, MLS passes on San Diego altogether. They've lived without us for 20+ years. I don't think they'll fall apart if their preferred owners aren't successful here.
I think Garber has a thing for San Diego so as long as he is commish we have a chance. As for FSI..who knows what happens to them and MLS here in San Diego. I don't see SDSU making a play for an MLS stadium without knowing there are options beyond FSI so something is there we just don't know what.
I think SDSU is saying what they think people want to hear. Seems to me like they are muddying the waters of distinction between their "plan" and the SoccerCity one and turning this election into a run-off "us vs. them" popularity contest. I don't get the sense that they've spent much time working out what they will do with MV if they get it. Ultimately, time will tell though.
Huh? They haven't come up with specifics but they do know what they want. They want classroom and research space so they can expand their graduate and doctorate programs. They want housing to offer to grad/doctorate students and those high level professors that we will need. They also want more undergrad housing. Other than that they are probably relying on the developer of the stadium to tell them what else could be built (probably more housing for the general public and a few offices buildings but not many).
Please let that news from the tweet of a possible decision delay of MLS Expansion Team 27 and 28 be true, hopefully until after the SoccerCity vote!
Interesting interview. -Open to working with MLS (even FSI) - If not MLS they are open to NASL or USL - 35K limit with room to expand -Renderings and first plans will be available Dec 1