Stadium Financing

[Creebuzz]

So, I was reading the PAC 12 lunch links from espin and I come accross this article from the SF Chronicle regarding the huge debt that Cal incurred to build their stadium. Nothing really new in the article that hasn't been discussed before (Cal may or may not be furked), except I read this blurb:

Taking a grimmer view is Roger Noll, an emeritus professor at Stanford and an expert in stadium financing. He pointed to less ambitious efforts to finance new stadiums in Michigan and Texas, which aren't going well. "If Texas can't raise the money, how the hell do you think Cal can?" Noll said with a rueful laugh. "I hope they succeed, but the chances are not very high," he said. "My guess is the incremental revenue from the stadium is not going to be even close to paying off the structural deficit."

Does anyone have any details about the new stadium efforts for UM and Texas? I'm surprised that either program would be struggling to raise funds.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/colleges...stadium-bill-4604221.php?t=7903d5abac47b02379

 

[Uncle Ken]

So, I was reading the PAC 12 lunch links from espin and I come accross this article from the SF Chronicle regarding the huge debt that Cal incurred to build their stadium. Nothing really new in the article that hasn't been discussed before (Cal may or may not be furked), except I read this blurb:



Does anyone have any details about the new stadium efforts for UM and Texas? I'm surprised that either program would be struggling to raise funds.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/colleges...stadium-bill-4604221.php?t=7903d5abac47b02379

If by "nothing really new" you mean Stanford staff reminding the public of the shortcomings of Cal, then I certainly agree.

 

[Creebuzz]

If by "nothing really new" you mean Stanford staff reminding the public of the shortcomings of Cal, then I certainly agree.

That sentiment was certainly pointed out in the reader comments section, along with one person repeatedly using the term "sporty-play". I'd last 2 days in SF, tops.

 

[BlackNGold]

Texas Regents just approved a $62 million dollar expansion upgrade which I understand to be mostly adding offices and facilities at one end of the stadium - does not increase seating....I know of no fundraising issue with Texas. There have been rumors that UT will expand the stadium in the future just so they can be bigger than A&M in capacity but that is not a formal plan and mostly just talk.

 

[prf]

in related news, there's an interesting read in Mandel's latest mailbag: http://bit.ly/13Tpfpo
Relevant quote: "I know one thing: Schools have got to be absolutely nuts to approve a stadium expansion today."

Hey! guess what we're trying to do?

 

[Buffnik]

If I was in charge of the Folsom project planning, my focus would not be on expansion. It would be about enhancing the stadium environment.

That would mean enclosing the North end zone so that people can walk the circle around the stadium, increasing the noise, improving some sight lines, and taking the Ralphie Run to the next level by having her stampede out of a tunnel with the team behind her. That enhancement may result in added seats, but it wouldn't be the focus.

I'd also look at the renovation of the Press Box along with significant improvements to luxury seating on the West side. With this, I think you could add the upper ring in the NW corner and stick visitors there. That would add seats, but they would mostly be high-value seats that would also increase our home field noise advantage in goal line situations at that end.

Finally, I'd look at changing from bleacher seats to chair backs everywhere except the student section. That may decrease seating capacity (but justify making it so people were willing to pay more for seats), so my overall plan may be seating capacity neutral but certainly any increase to the total wouldn't go above the 60-65k range. Folsom has no reason to be any bigger than that.

 

[prf]

any improvements to Folsom should start with the sound system. John Cusack standing in the north end zone holding jam box over his head would sound better than what we have now

 

[Uncle Ken]

any improvements to Folsom should start with the sound system. John Cusack standing in the north end zone holding jam box over his head would sound better than what we have now

You'll say anything, won't you?

 

[Deleted member 807]

any improvements to Folsom should start with the sound system. John Cusack standing in the north end zone holding jam box over his head would sound better than what we have now

^^^
The resolution.....to all the fruitless searches.

 

[Uncle Ken]

^^^
The resolution.....to all the fruitless searches.

Don't forget to cross your t's and put the dots in your i's.

 

[Quattro]

in related news, there's an interesting read in Mandel's latest mailbag: http://bit.ly/13Tpfpo
Relevant quote: "I know one thing: Schools have got to be absolutely nuts to approve a stadium expansion today."

Hey! guess what we're trying to do?

Here is what Mandel said:

There have been several stories regarding NFL teams "competing against the couch" in terms of attendance. However, most colleges have been immune to that trend and continue to post exceptional attendance percentages. How long do you think that will last? Many schools are building extravagant stadium expansions and drastically raising capacity. At the same time, ticket prices make it difficult for many average fans to attend games (at least frequently), and virtually every game is available on TV at home.--

College programs aren't as immune to this trend as it may appear. It's certainly not something Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan and LSU, among others, have to worry about, but nationally, average attendance has dropped three percent from five years ago, virtually paralleling the NFL's dip. And it's not just a handful of programs or apathetic mid-major schools feeling the pinch. Among those with empty seats last season were Florida (98.9 percent of capacity), Oklahoma State (93.9), West Virginia (93.2), Florida State (91.9) and Stanford (86.7). Believe me, it's a huge concern for athletic directors, who are well aware of all the factors mentioned above. Michigan State AD Mark Hollis told an interesting anecdote a few months ago about his realization last season why so many students had stayed home during a rainy game. "What can't you do in the rain? Text. So they stay inside," Hollis said. Similarly, Twitter has become a staple of live sporting events -- but it sure eats up phone battery spending all day tailgating before the game.

One advantage major college programs have over the NFL with their in-stadium experiences is the pageantry: the eagle soaring at Auburn, the dotting of the I at the Horseshoe, the "Jump Around" routine at Camp Randall, etc. Most schools' fans miss out on something special and unique if they stay home. At the same time, if fans do go to the game, they're not going to see all the same replay angles they would on television, they can't switch to another game during the TV timeouts (which feel REALLY LONG in-person) and they're probably going to sit in two hours of traffic after the game. I know one thing: Schools have got to be absolutely nuts to approve a stadium expansion today. I assume that's the genesis of Mike's question; his hometown program, Texas A&M, recently announced an expansion from about 82,500 to 102,000. That could really backfire if, say, Kevin Sumlin leaves for the NFL in a few years and the program regresses. Then again, A&M is all about the 12th Man, and its game-day experience is not something a true Aggie fan would ever take lightly -- so long as that experience remains affordable.

Here are our last five year attendance figures...

Year	Attendance	% Capacity	Misc
2008	49,476	92%
2009	50,088	93%
2010	46,864	87%
2011	50,355	94%	#19 in attendance increase
2012	45,373	85%
Average	48,431	90%
2008-2009	53,750
2010-Now	53,613

So while I get what Mandel is saying, but on the other side of that from 2008 to 2012 we have gone 17-44 (.293) and have still on average filled Folsom to 90% capacity. I believe that stat shows that if we expanded Folsom to ~58,000 through enclosing the North Endzone while also expanding the Dal Ward Center, renovating Balch, and adding seat backs while putting out a product that will win some games (even like 5-7 would work I would think) then the expansion of Folsom by just under 5,000 would be justified IMO. I see it kind of like men's basketball where we went from a dead empty stadium to a packed house nearly every night.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Don't forget to cross your t's and put the dots in your i's.

Oh, I want to be that complete.

 

[Buffalo Brad]

It appears he is talking about expansion of capacity which is not what needs to be done at CU. Nik has the right idea. We need to improve the gameday experience but the facilities, i.e. the indoor practice facility, are a must for CU

 

[Uncle Ken]

Oh, I want to be that complete.

But it's still probably a fruitless search.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Expanding a stadium that is a long ways from sold out sounds ridiculous.

Build an indoor practice facility before you expand an empty stadium.

 

[Quattro]

Expanding a stadium that is a long ways from sold out sounds ridiculous.

Build an indoor practice facility before you expand an empty stadium.

Expanding Folsom would be a result of the renovations and the facilities IMO

 

[Dark Bohner]

Expanding a stadium that is a long ways from sold out sounds ridiculous.

Build an indoor practice facility before you expand an empty stadium.

While I agree that the facilities outside of the stadium expansion should be the priority, prior to last year's epic collapse Colorado had very favorable attendance percentages, especially when you consider the crap on the field.

 

[Hugegroove]

If I was in charge of the Folsom project planning, my focus would not be on expansion. It would be about enhancing the stadium environment.

That would mean enclosing the North end zone so that people can walk the circle around the stadium, increasing the noise, improving some sight lines, and taking the Ralphie Run to the next level by having her stampede out of a tunnel with the team behind her. That enhancement may result in added seats, but it wouldn't be the focus.

I'd also look at the renovation of the Press Box along with significant improvements to luxury seating on the West side. With this, I think you could add the upper ring in the NW corner and stick visitors there. That would add seats, but they would mostly be high-value seats that would also increase our home field noise advantage in goal line situations at that end.

Finally, I'd look at changing from bleacher seats to chair backs everywhere except the student section. That may decrease seating capacity (but justify making it so people were willing to pay more for seats), so my overall plan may be seating capacity neutral but certainly any increase to the total wouldn't go above the 60-65k range. Folsom has no reason to be any bigger than that.

Would replacing the 80's era of TV sets through out Folsom with HD flat panel screens be asking to much?

 

[Deleted member 807]

But it's still probably a fruitless search.

I don't like to see so much pain.
So much wasted and this moment keeps slipping away.

I get so tired of working so hard for our survival.

 

[Uncle Ken]

I don't like to see so much pain.
So much wasted and this moment keeps slipping away.

I get so tired of working so hard for our survival.

What the **** are you talking about?

 

[Deleted member 807]

What the **** are you talking about?

I get so lost, sometimes.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

While I agree that the facilities outside of the stadium expansion should be the priority, prior to last year's epic collapse Colorado had very favorable attendance percentages, especially when you consider the crap on the field.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I think CU fans have done a fantastic job of supporting the team, given the product on the field. But until there are regular sell-outs, and there is significant demand for tickets - there is no reason to expand Folsom beyond its current seating capacity.

If the repairs / renovations to the facility require some expansion - that is understandable. But expanding simply to add additional seating is a ridiculous notion given the current attendance patterns.

Folsom Field has a capacity of approximately 53,600 in it's current setting. The largest crowd ever in Folsom was 54,972 - against CSU in 2005. In 2012, the largest crowd at Folsom was 46,900 for the UCLA game. Average attendance in Folsom for the entire season was 45,372. In 2011, the largest crowd was 52,123 for Oregon. Average attendance in Folsom for the entire season was 50,355. In 2010, the largest crowd was 52,855 for Georgia. The average attendance in Folsom for the entire 2010 season was 46,863.

 

[FlaBuff]

I get so lost, sometimes.

the grand facade, so soon will burm.

 

[GoBeers]

Glad to see the OP reads that article and realizes the SF Chronicle likes the print the same thing over and over and treat it like it's news.

That stanford guy is talking out of his ass too. It appears that Texas has recently increased their stadium capacity to 101k from 85k to the tune of $160 million, while Michigan added luxury boxes and club seats (which quickly sold out) to a tune of $225 million. Both schools have some desire to expand more (pretty sure UT isn't liking the idea A&M will have a bigger stadium), but here's the thing - expanding a 100k seat stadium and making money is actually really hard. Why? Because the new seats will be the worst seats in the building as they will be above or behind the existing seats. And they will be the most expensive to construct because they have to be on top of a 6-7 story substructure (when the first seats built can essentially be build on the ground for almost no cost). How did Stanford build a decent stadium for under $100 million? For starters their first deck is on a berm... not too expensive. Because they have a ton of space, all the support buildings like locker rooms, training, offices, etc are build outside the footprint. Plus it was all done by John Arrillaga's company out of his own pocket, so who knows what kind of overruns there were - not exactly public info.

So even if Michigan and Texas have problems going to 120k or whatever, it's a completely different thing than rebuilding/refurbishing/modestly expanding a stadium in the 50-60k seat range. It might not be sustainable to build luxury boxes 100 feet in the air in the endzones like some schools do. But if you look at what Cal did - they are selling the best seats in the house right at the 50 yardline from the first row to row 55 at the premium prices. And have sold 2000 out of 3000 at prices that dwarf what Michigan is getting for their club seats. The project isn't sold out, there still could be trouble in the future because yearly payments are not contractual, but it's not a complete bomb. Especially since the alternative was really abandoning the stadium and playing at an NFL site. And there is no nearby stadium even close to the quality of Invesco Field, and that sucks for CFB.

I think CU still has some very prime real estate to sell in Folsom that could fund a variety of other improvements - that's the fieldhouse. As long as you are not cannibalizing luxury box sales on the East Side, that's a lot of underutilized space that could sell for top dollar when improved. Put chairbacks in front between the 30's and close in the north endzone, which will make all those seats more desirable (and actually facing the field of play). The north endzone might not even increase capacity that much, especially if CU goes with slightly larger chairbacks for comfort, there would be fewer seats in the middle of the stadium.

 

[Deleted member 807]

the grand facade, so soon will burm.

I come back to the place you are.

PS. If this thread had a sound track, I wonder what it would be?

I'm less concerened with a burning facade. Phil DiStephano said that the north end of the east stands are unsafe and might crumble into Boulder Creek.

He might not care about wins and losses, but safety issues crosses a line.

 

[Quattro]

I'm not disagreeing with that. I think CU fans have done a fantastic job of supporting the team, given the product on the field. But until there are regular sell-outs, and there is significant demand for tickets - there is no reason to expand Folsom beyond its current seating capacity.

If the repairs / renovations to the facility require some expansion - that is understandable. But expanding simply to add additional seating is a ridiculous notion given the current attendance patterns.

Folsom Field has a capacity of approximately 53,600 in it's current setting. The largest crowd ever in Folsom was 54,972 - against CSU in 2005. In 2012, the largest crowd at Folsom was 46,900 for the UCLA game. Average attendance in Folsom for the entire season was 45,372. In 2011, the largest crowd was 52,123 for Oregon. Average attendance in Folsom for the entire season was 50,355. In 2010, the largest crowd was 52,855 for Georgia. The average attendance in Folsom for the entire 2010 season was 46,863.

Ironically all but one of those games you listed came during the worst stretch in CU football history. When CU starts to win again we will have no issue filling Folsom. Folsom needs renovations and increasing the capacity will be a result from those renovations.

What about the crowds during the late 80's up until the early 2000's? I'd wager the stadium was at capacity most weeks. If we are filling it 90% in average during this stretch it's pretty reasonable to expect us to fill Folsom as is every game when we are winning again with all the transplants in Colorado that are bandwagon fans and other football fans who used to go to games but stopped because of the product on the field as well as the booming population of Colorado.

 

[NashBuff]

We'll have to build the IPF first and have a place for the indoor track teams to practice in. Once that happens, Balch Fieldhouse will probably be razed and the same for the west side boxes. The question is do we build more suites along with club level seating or just general seating. I don't think there is a need for that much more general seating except when we enclose the stadium. Any thoughts?

 

[sackman]

A 65k seat stadium that is filled every week would probably be ideal. The local infrastructure probably can't handle much more than that, anyway. I used to be of the belief that we should be trying to fill an 80k seat stadium. I'm coming around to the idea that that is probably unrealistic and overly expensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[DexBuffsteen]

Folsom doesn't need to get much bigger than 60K. That's pretty much an upper limit here in Bronco country for a college game. I remember seeing empty seats that November day when Rashaan went over 2K. Getting the IPF built is the primary goal. Infrastructure fixes for Folsom are next. Additional seating would be gravy.

 

[dply]

Folsom doesn't need to get much bigger than 60K. That's pretty much an upper limit here in Bronco country for a college game. I remember seeing empty seats that November day when Rashaan went over 2K. Getting the IPF built is the primary goal. Infrastructure fixes for Folsom are next. Additional seating would be gravy.

There has also been an increase of almost a million people to the Denver Metro in that time span.

I do think 65k is around the correct amount though.