|
Post by jdredd on Apr 25, 2015 16:01:17 GMT -5
The Aztecs play 6-7 home games then there are a couple of bowl games each year. Unless there is a major overhaul the Q becomes pointless as a venue for other activities. Remodeling the Q to a more intimate seating of 42,000-45,000 would make it concert friendly and open it up to many other types of media. I do find it interesting after all these year Los Angeles doesn’t have a football team. Perhaps it has been a brilliant NFL business decision to use LA as leverage to get stadiums built/remodeled with taxpayer money. Many teams that have threatened to bolt for LA then they got what they wanted.I think you hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Apr 29, 2015 11:13:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 29, 2015 16:49:08 GMT -5
Goodbye to the billionaire's organized crime racket known as the NFL? Say it ain't so!
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Apr 30, 2015 13:45:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 3, 2015 23:04:55 GMT -5
www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/02/nfl-stadium-kroenke-rams-chargers/"Pay no attention to the NFL draft that wrapped up Saturday. The most dangerous man in football this year will continue to be Stan Kroenke, the reclusive billionaire who owns the St. Louis Rams. His plan to spend nearly $2 billion on a two-team stadium in Inglewood, just 10 miles south of downtown Los Angeles, has profoundly upset the balance inside the world’s most lucrative sports league. Chargers president Dean Spanos, who says he wants to stay in San Diego, now must place a huge bet on moving to Carson, with or without the Raiders. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who was elected thinking he had time to build a political consensus for keeping the team, is now a man in a hurry." "Kroenke has been talking to St. Louis for about five years. But now city and state officials are offering free land and $400 million in direct subsidies toward a $1 billion stadium." Was I just imagining things, or is one of the suggestions to solve the Qualcomm rehabilitation problem giving the land to Alex Spanos? How can that be legal? I would expect any city official giving away city land to a sleazy billionaire to be brought up on charges.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 17, 2015 15:44:29 GMT -5
I wanted to keep up with the whole Game of Stadiums but there is so much skulduggery going on, both publicly and no doubt behind the scenes, that you would have to spend every waking hour doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jun 17, 2015 21:21:17 GMT -5
I wanted to keep up with the whole Game of Stadiums but there is so much skulduggery going on, both publicly and no doubt behind the scenes, that you would have to spend every waking hour doing so. The city is behind the curve. There is no way the feds or the state would approve building the "Q" today. If the stadium is not downtown then forget it. I care about my Aztecs but the Chargers can go F' themselves.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 22, 2015 11:26:41 GMT -5
www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/20/chargers-raiders-stadium-los-angeles/"Last week the Chargers left the negotiating table, seemingly abandoning a giant public subsidy from San Diego toward a $1.2 billion stadium. What, if anything, should elected officials do now? One approach is to throw a going-away party, perhaps during an open house at Qualcomm Stadium for San Diego State University trustees and leading national developers. Selling the city-owned Q — either for an SDSU expansion or commercial development — offers far more to the local economy than a new NFL stadium, a subject I plan to revisit in a future column." I say give up on providing a playground for billionaires and give the Q to the Aztecs even if they only sell it, or part of it. Besides, "Qualcomm Stadium" was always a tacky name.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Oct 28, 2015 16:44:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Oct 29, 2015 4:53:15 GMT -5
OK, I'm convinced. Let's replace the existing 20th Century concrete bunker with a high-tech 21st Century mega-stadium. Maybe then, when the Spanos crime family has left town, we can get a real team. Perhaps San Diego could own it like Green Bay does, and it would be like a public works project instead of a giveaway to billionaires. Libertarians would hate that, so it must be good.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 4, 2015 23:46:10 GMT -5
I tried to pay attention to the Stadium Wars, but the comings and goings of greedy billionaire team owners was too nauseating. Also sickening is the way anti-trust laws have been waived by Congress for the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Nov 5, 2015 22:34:34 GMT -5
I tried to pay attention to the Stadium Wars, but the comings and goings of greedy billionaire team owners was too nauseating. Also sickening is the way anti-trust laws have been waived by Congress for the NFL. Yup, I certainly understand. Why would anyone in their right mind support a billionaire however I'm not sure that is the real argument. Many want a team to support. Many love football. If that means A person or person's get rich then so be it. They're (billionaires) are playing on the wants/needs of others. So who is more correct? I'm not sure. I want to have a Charger team in San Diego I won't support a Charger team in LA. There are 1,000's of trades off's if the Chargers leave. So what if a billionaire gets another billion. What we should care about is the 100's if not 1,000's of us that would become unemployed.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 6, 2015 1:25:41 GMT -5
I tried to pay attention to the Stadium Wars, but the comings and goings of greedy billionaire team owners was too nauseating. Also sickening is the way anti-trust laws have been waived by Congress for the NFL. Yup, I certainly understand. Why would anyone in their right mind support a billionaire however I'm not sure that is the real argument. Many want a team to support. Many love football. If that means A person or person's get rich then so be it. They're (billionaires) are playing on the wants/needs of others. So who is more correct? I'm not sure. I want to have a Charger team in San Diego I won't support a Charger team in LA. There are 1,000's of trades off's if the Chargers leave. So what if a billionaire gets another billion. What we should care about is the 100's if not 1,000's of us that would become unemployed. Could be I am more easily offended by grotesque displays of wealth than you, and the way politicians kowtow to the rich. But I see your point about jobs being lost, which would explain kowtowing politicians.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 9, 2015 0:32:26 GMT -5
So Mayor Faulconer is making his pitch in front of the NFL bullies on Wednesday. Good luck with that. Wouldn't it be amusing if Republican Faulconer lost the Chargers AND Comic-con to LA? Could happen if he doesn't up his game.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 12, 2015 18:33:01 GMT -5
There was an article in the NYT this morning (I tried to find it on line but couldn't) about the big Pow-wow of NFL Dons over team relocations. The bad news for Charger fans: Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, has jumped on the Carson bandwagon. Also, St. Louis is promising the moon to the owner of the Rams to keep him there, which would make Carson more likely to happen. The article mentioned the Oakland mayor's half-hearted attempt to keep the Raiders there, but no bribe with taxpayer money is involved so that looks unpromising. The article did not even mention San Diego's fearless Republican mayor. With Disney behind Carson, how can they lose?
|
|