Spending $321MM to cut seating capacity? That just makes no sense at all.
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.
Maxer, welcome to the know-it-all's...
Yeah sorry. Cal stuff. You know how it is. Will try to curb.
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.
Tell the Yankees that.
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.
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>
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.
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 public monies will be used for any part of the renovation, including the preliminary funding which will be financed through the Athletic Department's gross revenues.
Through the Endowment Seat Program (ESP), an innovative approach to financing the renovation and retrofit of Memorial Stadium, Cal Athletics has already obtained more than 650 letters of intent. In addition to supporting the CMS-West project, ESP will secure the financial future of the department by creating a long-term, sustaining endowment over the next 30 years that will be used to fund the annual operating needs for Cal's more than 800 student-athletes.
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...
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.
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'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.
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.
ruh roh...shenanigans in the approval process for the cal memorial stadium project?
(read the comments section...rather hilarious...)