Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by FChairbanks, May 11, 2011.
The emotional attraction has costs them. They could have rebuilt it elsewhere not so close to the fault line and saved a few million.
Should be nice when it gets done.
Spending $321MM to cut seating capacity? That just makes no sense at all.
Tell the Yankees that.
Where else could it possibly have been built? This is the Bay Area -- not a lot of undeveloped space. It's not like they were gonna build a stadium out in Hayward or Concord or something. We're not UCLA.
VIP club and seat licenses = bigger seats in the same footprint. This isn't the Big 12 -- not a lot of space to work with.
Maxer, welcome to the know-it-all's...
That's not so much money when you consider a crappy 3 bedroom house would cost close to $900,000 close to campus.
Yeah sorry. Cal stuff. You know how it is. Will try to curb.
don't think abs was talking about you...
Will be interesting to see the below-field seating on one of the rafts after the quake.
well I guess we all now know where Cal's Pac-12 money is going....
I'm thinking of this from a return on investment perspective. If you're getting the same footprint, and the same or just slightly higher or even lower revenues, why bother? That's a lot of money to spend to not get anything in return.
did you ever go to the old Yankees stadium? The place was awesome(historically) but a total dump. Narrow hallways, not enough concessions and bathrooms, too bad they built it right next to the old stadium in that ****hole of a neighborhood.
The Yankees also increased their prices by some unholy amount, too. They did that because they could. Steinbrenner didn't spend that money foolishly. He was looking to make more money. I don't think that Cal could get away with massive ticket price increases. Maybe they can. I know they're talking about seat taxes and luxury suites, and that's good, I guess. But I'm not sure it'll be enough. To wit - a CU luxury box costs $50,000 per year. Assume that Cal charges twice that and has 100 boxes, they would have to sell every box, every year for the next 32 years just to break even. In another 32 years, they'll want to do another stadium renovation.
i am interested in how they got the funding passed through the legislature for the project. clearly they used the "public health, safety, and welfare" trump card...but for a publicly funded institution in a liberal hotbed area using money from a budget that is in crisis...impressive.
it seems to me that we should take a look at their funding model to see if we can use some of those similar tactics for facilities improvements in boulder. it would only take 30% of that type of funding to make significant improvements to folsom AND build facilities for other revenue generating sports programs <cough>softball/baseball</cough>
No kidding. $321MM is a lot of money and could basically solve all of our athletic department facilities issues. Are you sure they got all that from the State? If so, that is quite a coup.
Your thinking of it in nice terms with very little understanding for the project.
First they have to renovate because of the fault lines they cant simply continue with the structure as is, that alone almost makes the case to do it.
Now onto the stadium itself, much like old Yankee stadium it is: crowded, flat, has small seats, doesn't get very load, has terrible amenities, and was falling apart; (sorry maxer) it was a **** hole.
The project itself: Cal bankrolled this almost exclusively with donations and seat licenses, so in effect the stadium is costing them very little to build.
The effects: Cal now has moved number of suites an high revenue seats from almost nil to a level comparable with traditional red-neck conferences. The "roi" you are talking about for the stadium should be massive the are in effect giving up a few cheap seats they dont consistently sell for: suites, club level seats, improved concessions, a lowered field for better sight lines, and an improved overall game day experience for all fans.
For those who haven't seen the numbers they are dropping a mere 8,799 cheap seats from the stadium. losing that will probably cost them what 150K? at most in revenue. That is the cost of just 3 suites at Folsom before mandatory donations an parking (tack on another 5K per suite). The lowered field alone would recoup the revenue from the lost seats by increasing high value regular seating. Now include Club seats, Suites, Seat licenses?
This should be a boon for Cal.
Oh and this ignores the fact it isnt jsut the stadium in the renovation but locker rooms, training facilities, university offices, kitchens etc. this on the whole is a huge upgrade for them across all their facilities.
Simple answer FC:
thanks for the link, abs.
this is an interesting approach...
think we could make something like that work in boulder?
i'm guessing not, since we are still whining about the money left on the table to pay off our two previous head coaches contracts...
the challenge we face against a school like Cal is their alumni base (top 10 business and law schools), we could try something similar but I'd imagine the yeilds would be quite a bit less.
OK, I get all that. I understand the need for the renovation. The cost still seems extremely high to me. You say the ROI "should" be massive. What are the projections? What's the expected revenue increase? At what point do they recoup the investment? 10 years? 20? Or do they even expect to break even at all? If this is just a renovation because the facility needs to be upgraded, fine. CU just spent $15MM (or thereabouts) on a new basketball facility that won't add a single dollar to the bottom line, at least not directly. $15MM is one helluva lot less than $321MM.
I cant find you the article but I've seen projections that the increased revenue would cover the portion of the stadium costs not financed by specifically assigned donations in under 10 years.
not only that, but the new practice facility effectively marries CU to either the CEC for a long time, a massive remodel, or rebuilding a new basketball only gym (were it to happen)....on that site. not a direct rev source and places restrictions on the future. look at the planetarium and kittridge.....choice land CU owns that is spread out. not a particularly economical use of space and my understanding is that most of the dorms in Kitt are at less than 50% capacity (that's a rev loss, here in the present). Kitt is being remodeled one building at a time....but, seems like better uses of the land could have been found. in hindsight, Kitt is a nice cluster of dorms but it's "forward thinking" aspect seems like a bit of a stubbed toe. how often does the planetarium get used, really.
on the by and by, i do think there is a sound logic to rebuilding smaller, basketball only arenas to replace bohemoths like the Hearnes Center at MU and the Erwin Center in Austin. UVA has a state of the art gym and it's smaller than their old barn. the Erwin Center is 1/3 empty even when UT is a top 10 team***. very few places are going to be able to fill a gym with more than, say 11,000 or 13,000 on a regular basis. at that point, it makes sense to go smaller and hike ticket prices or expect some premium revenue increase from luxury and concessions. sometimes you have to create demand. a hot ticket, fan-oriented atmosphere may grow your program more than knowing you can walk up to the ticket office and purchase a low cost GA ticket for all but one or two home games a year....and play in a morgue that is half-full for a lot of low-profile games...especially before league play.
***and they complain on the UT boards about having to buy basketball tickets to get RRS and football tickets (in addition to massive "donations"). that kind of fan enmity (de facto blackmail) is not something i think you want to cultivate as an AD.
Just to frame the debate accurately, playing in the earthquake trap called California Memorial Stadium w/o a retrofit was not an option for that many more years. The UC Regents were very worried about the structure's safety and would have set a date to rebuild or move out in the very near future. The question of reduced seats not being good for ROI is just not applicable - there are no other suitable sites for a stadium in the area so there were two options: move to the oakland colesium or do whatever it takes to rebuild a safer stadium. With the Raiders always threatening to move, and the Niners looking to build a stadium in Santa Clara (that the raiders would likely share if they stay), there is a reasonable chance that both candlestick and the coliseum will be vacant or demolished in 10 years.
The stadium is funded by selling a block of 3000 club seats between the 30 yard lines for $3k to $15k per year, or lump sum up front payments of $40k to $225k (both framed as donations for tax deductions). They aren't seat licenses but basically ownership of the seats for 40 years (fully transferable). Because football revenues are used to cover the expenses of many non-rev sports, the project could place a whole lot of strain on the athletic department budget, part of the reason sports cuts were introduced last year is because of the uncertainty of future revenue. The 'ESP' seat program was introduced just as the housing markets were crashing, so sales have been decent, but not great. If all seats sell, it would create not just funding for the stadium, but extra income to create endowments for the non-revenue sports. UC was able to get a very good bond rate because it has a separate credit rating than the State of California, so the numbers I've see say that enough seats are sold (1/2-2/3) to cover the stadium bond payments, but not that much more.
Because Colorado does not field that many NCAA sports, it is running a much leaner operation than Cal. There will be some very big choices on whether to add sports or build new facilities. I said this before, but bond rates are very low now, so it seems like the perfect time to do some intelligently planned building and use future guaranteed revenue. It would be great for CU to do something with the Balch Fieldhouse now when the getting is good. The TV money is guaranteed, and it starts at $15 million and will rise to the mid twenties (or more of p12 network pays $$$). I've been to Folsom for maybe 20 or so games and as great of a venue as it is, the fieldhouse just screams WTF is this doing in a major college stadium. Incredibly prime seats / boxes could be build in that space.
Considering Balch has been there for almost 100 years, It isnt going anywhere. However I agree that the inside should be used in a more effective manner. Refurbish the bathrooms/add more. Provide some real, permanent concession stands, a branch of the bookstore would be good inside as well. That being said in a basketball forum it was mentioned that some old school OOC basketball games should be held in there as a change of pace, and as a historic throwback kind of thing. Also the gym on the west side could be turned into an awesome donor/club area; food, beer, TV's.
From what I have read CU is looking to revamp that side of Folsom. In the Glory Colorado Initiative that got the new bball/volleyball facility built has some provisions for upgrading the Stadium. A new video board in the north endzone. Upgrading the box seating on the west side. Upgrading the sound system. But saying balch could be replaced for some new luxury boxes is unrealistic, and personally I hope the field house stays there for as long as Folsom does.
ruh roh...shenanigans in the approval process for the cal memorial stadium project?
(read the comments section...rather hilarious...)
Curse those non-native Austrailian trees...and the kangaroo they rode in on!
Gawd, I hope that's not a preview of things to come in Boulder. I thought we had it rough with the tree hugging hippies, Berkely brings it to a whole new level.
****ing allsome final comment. "**** you". 96, who knew you cared about Cal's renovation project? And yes, those are stupid hippies.
Separate names with a comma.