SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
They are in serious denial. The report that they are out is was picked up by S.I. now. They need to read the writing on the wall.
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!
I hope CSU joins the big XII
- Thread starter darth-horax
- Start date
We were all misled. We didn't have access to the "mystery chart". This thing is trending on the rams twitter. So sad it's funny.
http://csnbbs.com/thread-599970-page-1568.html
http://csnbbs.com/thread-599970-page-1568.html
ECU actually confirmed that they were denied an invite, so there is some verification that the Big12 is moving forward & not just rumor. So either A) CSU is perhaps still in the game for a few more weeks; or B) Tony Frank got his Dear John letter and is trying to keep the rejection under wraps until after the RMS in order to keep the team afloat and to figure out damage control.
Csu came out and said they couldn't comment
Was Tony Frank wearing a walking boot when he said it?
darth-horax
Well-Known Member
According to this, no CSU as a finalist:
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/08/31/big-12-expansion-list-cincinnati-houston-memphis-uconn
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/08/31/big-12-expansion-list-cincinnati-houston-memphis-uconn
Because they don't want to, or don't know how?
Probably because Frank coming out before the RMS and saying that CSU won't be getting an invite would have a negative impact on the crowd and possibly the morale of the team.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
This is looking like a likely scenario. Hopefully, though, word has spread within the CSU athletic department and it destroys them from the inside leading to the same result. I don't like CSU.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Have to meet with the attorneys and bankers first...
Yeah. Got to wonder if financial models for the stadium and athletic department were contingent on a P5 assumption.
They spelled "Vetoes" wrong...and apparently can't count them.
Can they default on the stadium before it's complete?
Deleted member 807
Guest
Doubt it. I suspect lenders were aware of the risk of a P5 bid falling through and have the necessary collateral in hand. The bond holders will be made whole.
Long term, the issue will be debt service and its impact on CSU's credit worthiness. Funding that might have been available for other projects might encounter delays.
This
They have the issue of selling a brand new stadium on the belief/hope that it would be the factor that put them over the top for P5 membership. This news confirms it wasn't.
Before they acknowledge that this bid for the big time failed they are going to want to have some other hope to give to the faithful, even if it is less realistic than this attempt was.
They have been throwing the PAC at the wall but as often as they do it hasn't come close to sticking.
Might be that the next "proposal" is the strongest schools from the G5 leagues forming a super league and then forcing their way into the money through the legal system or otherwise. Doesn't have to be realistic as long as those who want to believe it do.
Deleted member 807
Guest
The selling point to the academics is that an on-campus stadium will be a piece of the strategy to attract a bigger percentage of out-of-state students who pay higher OOS tuition, allowing CSU to leverage the stadium investment to increase overall CSU revenue.
The job of Tony Frank is to ease the concerns of faculty that the stadium will not impact academic funding nor threaten the ability to provide raises for professors, even when no P5 conference bid is in hand.
Somehow it has to be shown that the new stadium will still make the campus environment better, still lead to better alumni fundraising, and still attract OOS students anyway, while making a case that the revenues from a potential P5 conference membership was the just cherry on top, but not the most important reason for the athletic facilities investment.
It's spin time.
Last edited by a moderator:
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
Just received an updated rendering of their new stadium after missing out on the Big 12
Still too big.
This is all true.
Part of the story that was sold to the academic side was that they would be getting into a major conference. They were told that this would result in significantly higher national TV exposure attracting those OOS students (and additional donations from OOS alums and other donors) and would also result in conference media revenues rising from the roughly $3.5 million they get in the MWC to closer to the normal P5 payout of $20+ million a year.
The numbers for the stadium look much different in that context. Somehow they have to convince the academics that not getting that jump in revenue isn't going to have a negative impact on the budgets that impact them. I'm waiting for this story because it will have to be a good one.
Where are the bushes? That is essential!Just received an updated rendering of their new stadium after missing out on the Big 12
No longer in the budget.
twss
Only somebody with extremely limited knowledge of college athletics would have bought off on the idea that the stadium was going to be the catalyst for a move to the B12.
There's a big difference between building the stadium because it will get you an invite and building the stadium because failure to do so would immediately disqualify you. They needed to build the stadium to have any chance. Problem was, they had very little chance to begin with.
There's a big difference between building the stadium because it will get you an invite and building the stadium because failure to do so would immediately disqualify you. They needed to build the stadium to have any chance. Problem was, they had very little chance to begin with.
Hilariously out of touch.
In the world of starving for yield fund managers are soaking things like this up. You dont get ratings without a healthy balance sheet. If I read the history correctly Moodys actually upgraded them a couple of years ahead of the bond sale. Which suggests CSUs financial health was improving.
Of the $239 million in bonds, $220 million is for construction funds and the remainder consists of capitalized interest to support payments on the bonds while the facility is constructed and revenues from its operations are not yet available.
In recent weeks [2015], both Standard and Poor’s Rating Service and Moody’s Investor’s Service affirmed the financial strength of the CSU System by maintaining the system’s underlying bond ratings. Moody’s upheld the System’s “Aa3” rating, and S&P continued its “A+” rating for CSU System debt. CSU also maintained an S&P rating of “AA-“ and a Moody’s rating of “Aa2” for bonds issued with the backing of the Colorado State Intercept Program. CSU did not use state intercept-backed bonds for the stadium project.
Later this year, CSU is planning to issue an additional round of bonds totaling approximately $160 million for the construction of a new medical center, a biology building, a parking structure, a parking lot and the relocation of the Plant Environmental Research Center.
Link Link
Moodys;
Investment Grade
S&P;
In recent weeks [2015], both Standard and Poor’s Rating Service and Moody’s Investor’s Service affirmed the financial strength of the CSU System by maintaining the system’s underlying bond ratings. Moody’s upheld the System’s “Aa3” rating, and S&P continued its “A+” rating for CSU System debt. CSU also maintained an S&P rating of “AA-“ and a Moody’s rating of “Aa2” for bonds issued with the backing of the Colorado State Intercept Program. CSU did not use state intercept-backed bonds for the stadium project.
Later this year, CSU is planning to issue an additional round of bonds totaling approximately $160 million for the construction of a new medical center, a biology building, a parking structure, a parking lot and the relocation of the Plant Environmental Research Center.
Link Link
Moodys;
Investment Grade
Aa1, Aa2 , Aa3; Rated as high quality and very low credit risk.
LinkS&P;
- Investment Grade
- AA: An obligor rated 'AA' has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest-rated obligors only to a small degree. Includes:
- AA+: equivalent to Moody's Aa1 (high quality, with very low credit risk, but susceptibility to long-term risks appears somewhat greater)
- AA: equivalent to Aa2
- AA−: equivalent to Aa3
- Link
In the world of starving for yield fund managers are soaking things like this up. You dont get ratings without a healthy balance sheet. If I read the history correctly Moodys actually upgraded them a couple of years ahead of the bond sale. Which suggests CSUs financial health was improving.
Last edited:
If you are going to finance something with bonds though this is the time to do it. Bond rates are so low that if you rating is solid you don't even have to pay to cover expected inflation.
Despite that I just don't see them getting the revenues to pay them off from stadium revenues. The school is going to end up covering a chunk of the cost.