San Diego is out of the running for this announcement. I don't think they anything to do with each other.
Well that is my point. San Diego is out but I think MLS also makes some announcements when they reveal who the expansion teams are.
why does san diego state U want a new football stadium? and why would the voters want a new G5 stadium over a Pro sports team? Big fan of san diego, hoping you guys get your stadium
SDSU wants a new stadium because without it their football program will have to shut down. Their current stadium, SDCCU Stadium, is city owned and is slated to be demolished in 2 years with the Chargers having moved to another market. It no longer makes financial sense for the city to keep a 50 year old NFL stadium with a laundry list of deferred maintenance issues open any longer than they have to. The voters would want a new stadium for SDSU because they’ve been an integral part of the fabric of San Diego for a century+ and the football team in particular because they’ve similarly been part of that fabric for the majority of that time. And SDSU have been tenants at the SDCCU Stadium site for more than half a century, and have been a program on the rise for much of the last decade. They’d want to support the university and team that have been part of their community and play a more or less “pro” version of the most popular sport in the US over a pro team in at best the 5th rate pro league in the US for that very reason. MLS and soccer is still a niche product in the US despite the enthusiasm you run into on these boards. And from a proposal POV, there are plenty of things to like about SDSU’s proposal over the potential MLS owners, not the least of which is SDSU guarantees they have a team to house in the stadium (the MLS guys can’t guarantee a team), which is larger and more appropriate sized stadium as the only major multipurpose outdoor stadium in the 8th largest city in the US. And yes we all hope we can get a stadium. God knows we need it.
Oh! I didn't know SDSU wasn't going to have a stadium. I didn't realize they played in the same stadium as the chargers. Well shit, that changes things quite a bit.
To add to what athletics68 mentioned, having the SDSU stadium also leaves the option open for the Holiday Bowl to remain in town. In reality the stadiums aren't too far apart in both initiatives, the main difference is what happens to the surrounding land. The FSI initiative is focused on commercial and residential buildings while the SDSU plan is focused on expanding the university, providing housing for university students and faculty and hardly any commercial buildings beyond shops and restaurants.
Exactly. Which is why FS Investors should have made getting SDSU on board at any cost. The city isn’t going to leave SDSU out in the cold after a century just because some guys MIGHT be able to get San Diego a team in MLS (which frankly isn’t looking great given how others have risen to the top of the expansion pile while SD sank).
Is SDSU open to playing on grass? (and looking around the MLS does that really matter, I see tons of turf atm)
Plus SDSU offers a larger stadium from the get go unlike the FS Plan. Though the Holiday Bowl is safe for the foreseeable future as it is moving to Petco Park indefinitely regardless of what happens in Mission Valley. However that option long term is not open to the Aztecs. The Padres are fine sharing their ballpark for a one off bowl game during the baseball off season. But they aren’t keen to share in season with the Aztecs given how football destroys baseball fields (for evidence look at any dual use baseball/football fields like Oakland).
really? wow, how did the soccer city people not get them on board? that's a massive mistake. I feel for you guys, I didn't know all of this.
It's a bit of a saga but they had an agreement with the university's previous leadership. There was a clearout at SDSU and the previous athletic director and university president are no longer there. Around the time that they departed, new leadership came in and shut down all talks with FS and basically decided to go it alone.
My understanding is that they are keen only until a permanent solution is found for the Holiday Bowl. But yes valid point as I forgot the option was presented.
Yes Hirshman was dealing with FSI and from the sound of it didn't include anyone from the office of the AD (since Sterk left for Mizzou and Wicker didn't come in until Jan of this year). Things seemed to fall apart right when Hirshman announced he was leaving, that was when the AD office got more involved.
I’d have to look, but my understanding was that the Holiday Bowl move was permanent due to Petco being the better location from a presentation standpoint. Not to mention from a visiting fan POV due to proximity to hotels and the Gaslamp. Nothing they can build in Mission Valley will ever match that.
Not sure they actually had an agreement. They were still negotiating when the previous leadership left for other opportunities. The size of the stadium and the amount of SDSU campus expansion were always sticking points between the two that never got resolved.
Following up from last week, there are a maximum of 2,000 units of housing in the plan exclusively for SDSU students. Students could also live in the other market rate housing units if they want. Sounds like FS is will to give them some kind of first dibs window on market rate housing after the designated student housing fills up. SDSU would have to design the classroom space/layout, but the university gets up to 34 acres to do what it wants with, not including the stadium and housing. Murphy Canyon is going to be their training center for their MLS team and academy. Also, will be used to house visiting teams. There are some details in this interview that one of them gave a while back: https://www.mighty1090.com/episode/...is-will-be-the-epicenter-of-soccer-in-the-us/
According to the emails/texts referenced in this Ut article they had a term sheet. It wasn't legally binding but there was a legit agreement. These conversations started years ago and Sterk was involved. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...e/sd-sp-acee-soccer-city-sdsu-0523-story.html
I don't see anything in that article that mentions Sterk was involved. Mostly the CFO who was reporting to Hirshman.
But they do guarantee a stadium in the agreement right? So if they win and get the land they will have to build a stadium which means either they need to find a tenant or have an empty stadium in the middle of their development. Now maybe the land is so valuable that it's worth building a white elephant to uphold the agreement, but at the very least FSI has strong incentive to get a MLS team.
It’s worth it even with the unused stadium for FSI... assuming they’re required to build it at all of which I’m unsure.
little life sign from Footy and SoccerCity Happy New Year San Diego! Help us bring @MLStoSD in November!! pic.twitter.com/5vmAS1YYYk— Footy McFooty Face (@McfootyFace) January 2, 2018
Also in the good news for SD department, it looks like Sacramento’s bid is in serious trouble over a lack of monied investors. If they don’t get a team the “too many teams in California” argument loses some of its punch.
Good point. What's 1904 going to do in the event the NASL folds? Are they prepared to either reorganize for an MLS bid, or might they join Soccer City or just go to the USL or...?