Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CSU stadium

sackman said:
Option 3 makes the most sense. That's the direction they should go. Option 4 is filled with assumptions and projections that may or may not materialize. At least with Option 3, your costs are covered by recognized sources of revenue. If they wanted Option 4, they shouldn't have fired Captain Jack. That was his baby.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you. At the end of the day the most important thing is to get the location back on-campus and fix the mistakes made almost 50 years ago. Especially when you consider that the greatest risk to the general fund is to dump more money into Hughes. Options 1 and 2 make absolutely no sense in my mind. It sounds like Frank views it the same way.
 
Last edited:
CsquaredCC said:
I tend to agree with you. At the end of the day the most important thing is to get the location back on-campus and fix the mistakes made almost 50 years ago. Especially when you consider that the greatest risk to the general fund is to dump more money into Hughes.
Click to expand...

According to the pdf, Option 4 has the potential greatest hit to the general fund at $55million
 
Whether option 3 or 4 makes the most sense depends on the specific terms of the P3. Option 4 may be a great choice if favorable terms can be negotiated. Either way it looks like this is going to proceed, with a recommendation to move forward coming out within the next week and a half.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
****ing learn to read.

It is a partnership. Total estimated cost is $225Mil. Total estimated impact to general fund is $55mil. The school would be in debt $55Mil.
Click to expand...

Options 3 and 4 look very similar to me. In 3, the CSU would get the bond(s) on it's own, and have to pay yearly payments on it. In option 4, CSU is signing a contract to pay a yearly lease payment to a private firm who builds the stadium. They are assuming they can do this for a 5% rate of return. I don't see how that's much different than taking a bond out at 5% return. The university is contractually obligated to make payments yearly for both. They will be nominally the same. The private firm might be more efficient in the building and management, but who knows? The private firm could get the thing half built and go bankrupt. CSU basically cannot go bankrupt.

When they say total impact to the general fund is $0-55M, that is still relying on revenue projections to cover the stadium payments, which may or may not be bogus. CSU has no guaranteed revenue like CU does. If CSU's revenue from the stadium do not approach projections, then the university will have to figure out how to cover it in both options 3 and 4.

I don't really understand why they'd want option 4 unless they have a bad credit rating? They are definitely playing games with the risk to the general fund dollar number. This thing would cost maybe $12-14 million/yr (if 30 years) whether it's a P3 or an internally issued bond. That's a huge revenue jump for a program that might be around 5 million in donations + ticket sales currently. If they fall short by $5 million per year over 30 years, they are going to be in a way bigger hole than the $0-55 million they put out there.
 
Last edited:
GoBeers said:
Options 3 and 4 look very similar to me. In 3, the CSU would get the bond(s) on it's own, and have to pay yearly payments on it. In option 4, CSU is signing a contract to pay a yearly lease payment to a private firm who builds the stadium. They are assuming they can do this for a 5% rate of return. I don't see how that's much different than taking a bond out at 5% return. The university is contractually obligated to make payments yearly for both. They will be nominally the same. The private firm might be more efficient in the building and management, but who knows? The private firm could get the thing half built and go bankrupt. CSU basically cannot go bankrupt.

When they say total impact to the general fund is $0-55M, that is still relying on revenue projections to cover the stadium payments, which may or may not be bogus. CSU has no guaranteed revenue like CU does. If CSU's revenue from the stadium do not approach projections, then the university will have to figure out how to cover it in both options 3 and 4.

I don't really understand why they'd want option 4 unless they have a bad credit rating?
Click to expand...

APTOPIX-Japan-Lady-Ga_Horo-635x357.jpg
 
GoBeers said:
I don't really understand why they'd want option 4 unless they have a bad credit rating? They are definitely playing games with the risk to the general fund dollar number. This thing would cost maybe $12-14 million/yr (if 30 years) whether it's a P3 or an internally issued bond. That's a huge revenue jump for a program that might be around 5 million in donations + ticket sales currently. If they fall short by $5 million per year over 30 years, they are going to be in a way bigger hole than the $0-55 million they put out there.
Click to expand...
I believe they could work a P3 where payments are made over a longer period of time, like 40 years versus 30. CSU would pay more money in the long run but it would be a more manageable payment. Apparently the new revenue projections they are using are conservative, but I don't know enough to have an opinion on that.
 
CsquaredCC said:
I tend to agree with you. At the end of the day the most important thing is to get the location back on-campus and fix the mistakes made almost 50 years ago. Especially when you consider that the greatest risk to the general fund is to dump more money into Hughes. Options 1 and 2 make absolutely no sense in my mind. It sounds like Frank views it the same way.
Click to expand...

CsquaredCC said:
Which is why I agreed with Sackman that Option 3 appears to be the safest bet.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. Greatest risk to the general fund is Option 4, which you are chosing
 
sliderNcider said:
That's not what you said. Greatest risk to the general fund is Option 4, which you are chosing
Click to expand...

Read the PDF. The greatest risk to the general fund is Option 2 "Hughes 2050" - which carries a potential risk of $86 Million to the general fund. As I said, dumping more money into Hughes makes absolutely no sense.
 
Think i'll post a CU construction thread on ramnation, about as relevant as this thread is here.
 
I hope they get a nice stadium - it should be on campus - just don't poison the well with a boondoggle please.
 
ramU said:
Theres a pretty big difference between building a new stadium and just replacing some bleachers and calling them "club" seats.
Click to expand...

I know, right! Like the difference between an indoor practice facility that fits an entire football field vs. one that only fits a "midget" field.
 
ramU said:
Theres a pretty big difference between building a new stadium and just replacing some bleachers and calling them "club" seats.
Click to expand...


It's a $143 Million project. Not a small endeavor by any stretch and certainly nothing to scoff at. Both Universities have ignored their facilities issues for far too long and its good to see these type of improvements being made at both schools.
 
BuffsNYC said:
I know, right! Like the difference between an indoor practice facility that fits an entire football field vs. one that only fits a "midget" field.
Click to expand...

Hey 8 man football is still played up here in Northern Colorado, it's a state of the art facility for 8 man pro prospects. Classic case of the old AD and president not doing a job the way it should be. That's changed now.
 
ramU said:
Hey 8 man football is still played up here in Northern Colorado, it's a state of the art facility for 8 man pro prospects. Classic case of the old AD and president not doing a job the way it should be. That's changed now.
Click to expand...

It is? Cuz last I heard you guys still didn't have an AD.
 
ramU said:
Hey 8 man football is still played up here in Northern Colorado, it's a state of the art facility for 8 man pro prospects. Classic case of the old AD and president not doing a job the way it should be. That's changed now.
Click to expand...
Who let you out of your cage, Bilo?
 
ramU said:
Theres a pretty big difference between building a new stadium and just replacing some bleachers and calling them "club" seats.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, where does planting some trees by the parking lot fit in your rankings?
 
ramU said:
Theres a pretty big difference between building a new stadium and just replacing some bleachers and calling them "club" seats.
Click to expand...
Little do you know those bleachers are going to be made of pure gold and buffalo skin! $150 million worth!
 
ramU said:
Theres a pretty big difference between building a new stadium and just replacing some bleachers and calling them "club" seats.
Click to expand...

Biggest difference is that the club seats have a much higher chance of being fully occupied than the new stadium.
 
If you told me three years ago they would be where they are and we would be where we are, I probably the would have bet the house against it. I hope they get their on campus stadium. Use some of the Pot tax revenue. The dirty hippies up there will love that.:thumbsup:
 
http://www.9news.com/story/sports/n...llion-infrastructure-needed-stadium/19580973/
An on-campus CSU stadium would require up to $24 million in infrastructure improvements to the city of Fort Collins, according to a report released by the city Tuesday.

City staff recommends a detailed agreement with Colorado State University to mitigate the impacts on infrastructure and municipal services if the university proceeds with an on-campus stadium.


The City Council is expected to review and vote on the recommendations Tuesday. On Dec. 5, CSU President Tony Frank is expected to make a formal recommendation to the CSU Board of Governors on whether to — and how to — proceed with an on-campus stadium that could cost between $180 million and $225 million.


The report is intended to serve as a starting point for negotiations between the city and CSU on what's actually needed, said Mark Jackson, deputy director for planning, development and transportation for the city. City and CSU staff worked together to develop the list, he said.


"This is where the conversation begins," Jackson said.


City staff estimates between $13 million and $22 million in transportation improvements would be needed to accommodate an on-campus stadium. That doesn't include an estimated $37,136 per-game cost to add buses, police and parking enforcement.


The city also estimates needing between $1.75 million and $2.3 million in other infrastructure improvements for a new stadium.


CSU estimated up to $30 million would be needed for city work associated with an on-campus stadium and budgeted it in with its estimated cost for the stadium.


The report looks solely at the stadium and the special problems that come from moving tens of thousands of people in and out when it's used, Jackson said. Other growth near the area, such as the 1,000-bed Aggie Village North apartment complex, wasn't given much weight, he said.


The recommendations include intersection improvements and bike and pedestrian crossings. Jackson said the transportation plan would fit nicely with the city's overall goal of multi-modal commuting options. He noted the proximity to the MAX rapid bus system and other bus routes, and how the city and CSU already work together on some of those initiatives.


"We think we have a lot of opportunities," Jackson said.


The city estimates up to 8,000 people would walk or bike from off-campus for a sold-out stadium event, requiring thousands of bike stalls. Those who worked on the report also think as many as 3,000 off-campus parking spaces will be needed.


The report recommends pursuing immediate towing for those who try to park in a neighborhood during an event without a parking permit. Jackson said that deterrent, obviously a stronger one than tickets, is used successfully at places like the area surrounding Mile High Stadium. It would also come with a need for enforcement officers and more, at a cost of $3,710 per event, according to the report.


"If you just ticket folks, there's some who feel the cost of a ticket is an acceptable price versus just buying a parking ticket," Jackson said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top