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!

Naming rights for CSU's new stadium - ideas?

I wonder if our little brother even understands the humor we find in his statement.
 
Now you've upset me.

I've been taking my boy to Color Me Mine every week to develop my skills and qualify for an advanced degree from CSU. You guys suck! Stop pissing on my dreams!
 
tante said:
View attachment 10087
Click to expand...

Try again. It should say:

Top: Tries to get into graduate fibers and pottery classes as undergrad.

Bottom: Dies.

Edit:

24290938.jpg
 
Buffnik said:
Now you've upset me.

I've been taking my boy to Color Me Mine every week to develop my skills and qualify for an advanced degree from CSU. You guys suck! Stop pissing on my dreams!
Click to expand...

I hope your boy is able to pursue his dreams and emerge with his Doctor of Ceramicology degree from CSU. His urning potential would be incredible if he did....
 
Sounds like the stadium meeting in fort fun didn't go as most would've hoped.

Overall, reading between the lines, it sounds like private donations
are not as settled as once thought. Further, it sounds as though CSU
season ticket holders are not enthusiastic about paying for premium
seating (Is this right?). Finally, it sounds like Frank has reasons
for pushing back the announcement, which usually has to do with $$$.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
14er said:
Sounds like the stadium meeting in fort fun didn't go as most would've hoped.



:lol:
Click to expand...
guarandamntee you Gasm is gonna be in here soon telling us all that the money is all there and this is all for politics.
 
Darth Snow said:
guarandamntee you Gasm is gonna be in here soon telling us all that the money is all there and this is all for politics.
Click to expand...

Good God CSU fans!

--CU fans tell you that the Invesco deal sucks, and nobody will attend. CSU fans guarantee us that we're wrong. A few years later they claim that being chained to CU is holding them back, and the RMS sucks.

--CU fans tell CSU fan (just one, really) that there is more to building a new stadium than just wishful thinking. That, while we wish them luck, there may be some obstacles. Obstacles arise...

--CU fans explain to CSU fans ad nauseum for decades that they're a small-time program in a small-time conference. Apparently, yesterday they reached the same conclusion.

CU fans are able to acknowledge when our team sucks in the very moment it's happening. Why does it take CSU fans so long to figure out the same **** about their team?
 
Part 2 from Terry Frei

This one is a little more critical

http://www.denverpost.com/csu/ci_21298620/csu-leaders-weigh-moving-forward-new-football-stadium

If revenue streams aren't sufficient, CSU would have to use general fund money to pay on the debt. At a July 31 public forum, Frank admitted that he was "struggling to figure out where my feeling is at on the financing issue." He emphasized that having to dip into the general fund would mean giving the go-ahead to the stadium project was a mistake. In a private interview afterward, Frank noted: "If you're saying we have the funding streams and we've got to backstop $10 million, $20 million, that's a very different proposition than if you have to backstop $120 million."
In the report issued last week, the consulting firms also identified additional sources of funding, including: corporate naming rights and sponsorships: $3.45 million to $4.8 million; premium seating: $3.7 million to $6.7 million; event, facilities development fee and other revenue: $440,000 to $4.4 million; ticket revenue: $4.3 million to $9.8 million; concessions, merchandise, tailgate and parking: $960,000 to $3.2 million.
Click to expand...
 
dio said:
Part 2 from Terry Frei

This one is a little more critical

In the report issued last week, the consulting firms also identified additional sources of funding, including: corporate naming rights and sponsorships: $3.45 million to $4.8 million; premium seating: $3.7 million to $6.7 million; event, facilities development fee and other revenue: $440,000 to $4.4 million; ticket revenue: $4.3 million to $9.8 million; concessions, merchandise, tailgate and parking: $960,000 to $3.2 million.

http://www.denverpost.com/csu/ci_21298620/csu-leaders-weigh-moving-forward-new-football-stadium

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Wow those numbers vary.
 
dio said:
Part 2 from Terry Frei

This one is a little more critical

http://www.denverpost.com/csu/ci_21298620/csu-leaders-weigh-moving-forward-new-football-stadium

[/FONT]
Click to expand...


Those are some wide ranges on additional funding. A $3mm in premium seat revenues, $2mm+ in tailgate/parking revenue, ticket revenue with a $5mm+ range, and the revenue stream Gasm is so fond of has a $4mm range for "other" revenue.

If I'm CSU I would take the low number off every projection, knock another 15% off it and that will give you an idea on how much you actually have.

Bottom line is CSU is still a long, long way away from making the new stadium a reality.
 
GoBuffs08 said:
If I'm CSU I would take the low number off every projection, knock another 15% off it and that will give you an idea on how much you actually have.
Click to expand...

you aren't going to get a stadium built by being grounded in reality.
 
GoBuffs08 said:
Those are some wide ranges on additional funding. A $3mm in premium seat revenues, $2mm+ in tailgate/parking revenue, ticket revenue with a $5mm+ range, and the revenue stream Gasm is so fond of has a $4mm range for "other" revenue.

If I'm CSU I would take the low number off every projection, knock another 15% off it and that will give you an idea on how much you actually have.

Bottom line is CSU is still a long, long way away from making the new stadium a reality.
Click to expand...

The AD who is driving this just wants his stadium built. He does not care if the university has to come up with an additional $10 or $20 million a year in AD funding in order to pay for loans. Simply does not care. He will use whatever projections he has to in order to sell his monorail.
 
Buffnik said:
The AD who is driving this just wants his stadium built. He does not care if the university has to come up with an additional $10 or $20 million a year in AD funding in order to pay for loans. Simply does not care. He will use whatever projections he has to in order to sell his monorail.
Click to expand...

So true. The question is if the University President whose job is to make sure it is feasible and responsible for the University as a whole will make the appropriate decision given all of the most accurate information available.
 
buffedup said:
So true. The question is if the University President whose job is to make sure it is feasible and responsible for the University as a whole will make the appropriate decision given all of the most accurate information available.
Click to expand...

I think the most important thing to come out of the meetings last week, is that it is going to cost roughly $130 Million (over 10 years) to bring Hughes up to date. Upgrading Hughes without the ability to leverage additional revenue streams and facility uses would be far more risky. IMO. I have a feeling that is going to weigh heavily in any decision Frank makes. I just don't see how Hughes is a viable option at all at this point.
 
Last edited:
CsquaredCC said:
I think the most important thing to come out of the meetings last week, is that it is going to cost roughly $130 Million to bring Hughes up to date. Upgrading Hughes without the ability to leverage additional revenue streams and facility uses would be far more risky. IMO. I have a feeling that is going to weigh heavily in any decision Frank makes. I just don't see how Hughes is a viable option at all at this point.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how you are going to get any sort of significant income from moving the stadium on campus. Seems like BS to me. Only part of Folsom that is used regularly is the club box floor. That's it.
 
Darth Snow said:
I just don't see how you are going to get any sort of significant income from moving the stadium on campus. Seems like BS to me. Only part of Folsom that is used regularly is the club box floor. That's it.
Click to expand...

Bingo. This is going to be right next to a residential area. They are already unhappy with the stadium. They aren't going to put up with noise (as Nik pointed out a couple months back), parking disruption, and traffic disruption on any sort of regular basis. I can't think of a football stadium in Colorado that gets used for alternate activities on a regular basis.
 
Darth Snow said:
I just don't see how you are going to get any sort of significant income from moving the stadium on campus. Seems like BS to me. Only part of Folsom that is used regularly is the club box floor. That's it.
Click to expand...

They have talked about concerts, for example, in an effort to leverage the facility as best they can. Those are things that cannot be done at Hughes given its close proximity to residential homes. Most of the close proximity housing next to the newly proposed stadium is student based housing. Plus you lose out on any opportunity relating to the preimium seating revenue.

I just don't see how anyone could possibly justify $130 million to renovate Hughes with no significant exapansion. That, to me, would be the worst possible decision the university could make.
 
Last edited:
CsquaredCC said:
They have talked about concerts, for example, in an effort to leverage the facility as best they can. Those are things that cannot be done at Hughes given its close proximity to residential homes. Plus you lose out on any opportunity relating to the preimium seating revenue.

I just don't see how anyone could possibly justify $130 million to renovate Hughes with no significant exapansion. That, to me, would be the worst possible decision the university could make.
Click to expand...
Again, I think the last concert at Folsom was now over 10 years ago. Residential groups just won't stand for it. And how will the on campus facility not be near homes? Other than football, Folsom gets maybe 10 uses a year. Maybe. And only a few of those actually generate revenue.
 
CsquaredCC said:
They have talked about concerts, for example, in an effort to leverage the facility as best they can. Those are things that cannot be done at Hughes given its close proximity to residential homes. Most of the close proximity housing next to the newly proposed stadium is student based housing. Plus you lose out on any opportunity relating to the preimium seating revenue.

I just don't see how anyone could possibly justify $130 million to renovate Hughes with no significant exapansion. That, to me, would be the worst possible decision the university could make.
Click to expand...

you guys aren't going to get concerts in Fort Collins. It is too far from Denver and there are so many other great venues around the metro area (and I am not talking about Folsom because that place is mediocre for a concert as well).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top