(05-08-2015 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 10:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  Either Maryland or Rutgers is already on Temple's OOC schedules pretty much every year starting in about 2017. But they don't move the needle enough to justify a stadium. And build one near their campus? That gives you a few more butts in the seats, but chances are they aren't paying for those seats.

Penn State and Notre Dame will put 30K more fans in the Linc (fewer if they build a modest sized stadium near campus), but how often will they give Temple a home game? Once every 10-12 years?

Temple isn't likely to succeed consistently either on the field or at the gate. Whether or not they keep playing in FBS will depend on how well they think they are succeeding with their donors.

Building an OCS is only justified if high quality opponents are scheduled?

That's nonsense.


That's like saying "we can only build a new engineering building if we have really renowned engineering visiting profs. scheduled to speak here."

No, that's like saying you can only build a new engineering building if there are enough students who want to study there.

Building an OCS, when you have other options, is only justified if you can attract enough paying customers. It would be one thing if they were bringing in huge amounts of cash from a conference to help subsidize an OCS. But they aren't. And they aren't attracting paying fans either.

How much does a small stadium cost these days? In other parts of the country, the estimates are in the $hundreds of millions. Who is going to pay for that?

Yes, that's how much a nice stadium in the 35k range is going to cost. If you do it cheap, it will look cheap.

The school pays for it. If students vote for a fee increase on themselves to help pay for it, then that's that. Nothing more can be said about it.


I still don't grasp the argument you're trying to make.

I'm not trying to make any argument. Building a new OCS will cost Temple millions of dollars a year. If students want to foot the bill for that, they are welcome to do that. Just like they would be welcome to foot the bill if they wanted to add saunas in every dorm room. Have students offered to increase athletics fees?

An OCS would obviously be more important than saunas. Why would you even say that?

Regardless what the students decide, what's wrong with selling bonds to pay for it up-front?

(05-08-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Building an OCS is only justified if high quality opponents are scheduled?

That's nonsense.


That's like saying "we can only build a new engineering building if we have really renowned engineering visiting profs. scheduled to speak here."

No, that's like saying you can only build a new engineering building if there are enough students who want to study there.

Building an OCS, when you have other options, is only justified if you can attract enough paying customers. It would be one thing if they were bringing in huge amounts of cash from a conference to help subsidize an OCS. But they aren't. And they aren't attracting paying fans either.

How much does a small stadium cost these days? In other parts of the country, the estimates are in the $hundreds of millions. Who is going to pay for that?

Yes, that's how much a nice stadium in the 35k range is going to cost. If you do it cheap, it will look cheap.

The school pays for it. If students vote for a fee increase on themselves to help pay for it, then that's that. Nothing more can be said about it.


I still don't grasp the argument you're trying to make.

I'm not trying to make any argument. Building a new OCS will cost Temple millions of dollars a year. If students want to foot the bill for that, they are welcome to do that. Just like they would be welcome to foot the bill if they wanted to add saunas in every dorm room. Have students offered to increase athletics fees?

An OCS would obviously be more important than saunas. Why would you even say that?

Regardless what the students decide, what's wrong with selling bonds to pay for it up-front?

What I am saying is that anybody who wants to spend his own money for something should be allowed to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for selling bonds, I don't see any other way they are likely to come up with that kind of money. But somebody has to pay those bonds off. You suggested that Temple students might be willing to be the ones who do that. I agreed that if they want to do that, that's fine. I doubt they will volunteer to do that.

Would you think it would be wrong for the school to impose that fee increase on the students if they object to it? Or should the taxpayers of Philadelphia foot the bill?

(05-08-2015 09:35 AM)Chappy Wrote:  That said, I wonder how much of this is actually just Temple posturing to raise support for a new OCS.

just curious, since you have decided to use OCS as an abbreviation for an On Campus Stadium, then what is the abbreviation for an Off Campus Stadium?

(05-08-2015 02:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  No, that's like saying you can only build a new engineering building if there are enough students who want to study there.

Building an OCS, when you have other options, is only justified if you can attract enough paying customers. It would be one thing if they were bringing in huge amounts of cash from a conference to help subsidize an OCS. But they aren't. And they aren't attracting paying fans either.

How much does a small stadium cost these days? In other parts of the country, the estimates are in the $hundreds of millions. Who is going to pay for that?

Yes, that's how much a nice stadium in the 35k range is going to cost. If you do it cheap, it will look cheap.

The school pays for it. If students vote for a fee increase on themselves to help pay for it, then that's that. Nothing more can be said about it.


I still don't grasp the argument you're trying to make.

I'm not trying to make any argument. Building a new OCS will cost Temple millions of dollars a year. If students want to foot the bill for that, they are welcome to do that. Just like they would be welcome to foot the bill if they wanted to add saunas in every dorm room. Have students offered to increase athletics fees?

An OCS would obviously be more important than saunas. Why would you even say that?

Regardless what the students decide, what's wrong with selling bonds to pay for it up-front?

What I am saying is that anybody who wants to spend his own money for something should be allowed to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for selling bonds, I don't see any other way they are likely to come up with that kind of money. But somebody has to pay those bonds off. You suggested that Temple students might be willing to be the ones who do that. I agreed that if they want to do that, that's fine. I doubt they will volunteer to do that.

Would you think it would be wrong for the school to impose that fee increase on the students if they object to it? Or should the taxpayers of Philadelphia foot the bill?

Why can't Temple just pay it back themselves, over 30 years (even without student fees)? Isn't that the point of bonds?

Do you know what will be great? If Temple can play at the Philadelphia soccer stadium. It worked wonders for the Big East and Villanova.

Seriously- Temple will find a solution.

(05-08-2015 10:05 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Honesty time:

If you're not a "Power 5" conference school, you're Division 1 football days are numbered.

The fate of non-Power conference football schools can be broken down into 3 basic categories:
1) For a select and extremely small number of schools, they will get an invite into the "Power" world and will stay in Division 1.
2) A number of schools will DROP football altogether and keep their other sports at Division 1 by moving their sports into a non-FB conference.
3) A number of schools will REDUCE their football to FCS or lower levels and move into an FCS/D1 All-sports conference.

I don't see Temple being in group 1.
I could see Temple moving into a conference like the NEC... So maybe #3.
But I think Temple likely fits best into Group #2, where they discontinue FB and move into a conference like the A10.

I don't get why anyone would be forced to a situation where they drop football altogether or even relegate themselves to FCS simply because they don't get a P5 invitation. There are as many G5 schools as P5. There are now 42 bowl games - many of which highlight G5 v. G5 matchups....that will continue to make money.

So, even if Temple and the 60-plus other G5 institutions don't get the P5 invite, they're not going to disappear or drop to FCS-level. They will remain in the current world where there is a major and ever-widening funding gap, but it doesn't mean that G5 football vanishes.

Who else will the P5 play to continue to pad their win-loss records and ensure themselves 7 home games?

(05-08-2015 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes, that's how much a nice stadium in the 35k range is going to cost. If you do it cheap, it will look cheap.

The school pays for it. If students vote for a fee increase on themselves to help pay for it, then that's that. Nothing more can be said about it.


I still don't grasp the argument you're trying to make.

I'm not trying to make any argument. Building a new OCS will cost Temple millions of dollars a year. If students want to foot the bill for that, they are welcome to do that. Just like they would be welcome to foot the bill if they wanted to add saunas in every dorm room. Have students offered to increase athletics fees?

An OCS would obviously be more important than saunas. Why would you even say that?

Regardless what the students decide, what's wrong with selling bonds to pay for it up-front?

What I am saying is that anybody who wants to spend his own money for something should be allowed to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for selling bonds, I don't see any other way they are likely to come up with that kind of money. But somebody has to pay those bonds off. You suggested that Temple students might be willing to be the ones who do that. I agreed that if they want to do that, that's fine. I doubt they will volunteer to do that.

Would you think it would be wrong for the school to impose that fee increase on the students if they object to it? Or should the taxpayers of Philadelphia foot the bill?

Why can't Temple just pay it back themselves, over 30 years (even without student fees)? Isn't that the point of bonds?

Pay it back with what? They are already spending all the money that's coming in. Unless they create some new source of revenue (like student fees or tuition increases) they only have one other option. Cut spending somewhere else in the budget by $5 million or so per year. They have already eliminated 7 athletic teams to save money, and they can't cut any more and stay at D-I.

Normally, the point of using bonds to finance a project is that you don't have the large amount of capital at hand on the front end, but will generate enough additional revenue from the project to pay the annual debt service. Nobody is suggesting that this project will come close to being self financing.

The whole "on campus" vs "off campus" thing is a bit of a red herring. It makes it sound as if this is supposed to be some sort of benefit to the students, and who could argue that doing something for the students is a bad thing? The most optimistic estimate of how many more students might attend games if they were on campus would be in the 1,000 range. If 1,000 students all bought a season ticket, it would raise only $200,000 in revenue. The other 20,000+ students who don't go to the games (and don't live on campus in most cases) would have to pay more than the cost of a season ticket each year in increased athletic fees to come close to raising the money to pay for this.

Now, Temple may feel like that's worth it because it will increase alumni donations. But it's not you or me they have to convince of that.

(05-08-2015 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 10:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 10:18 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 09:19 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  What is a realistic estimate of butts in the seats for a Tulane or Tulsa game at Temple? Obviously PSU and Notre Dame will take care of the sell-out themselves.

Low twenties paid attendance. Whatever momentum Temple gained during the Al Golden years was lost by Golden's successor, Steve Addazio. But Matt Rhule has turned around the program, bringing in better quality recruits. It's just a matter of Temple developing a fan base. Realignment has hurt the program in that there are no regional opponents, e.g. Rutgers, Maryland, Cuse, Boston College, etc., for Temple to schedule annually.

Either Maryland or Rutgers is already on Temple's OOC schedules pretty much every year starting in about 2017. But they don't move the needle enough to justify a stadium. And build one near their campus? That gives you a few more butts in the seats, but chances are they aren't paying for those seats.

Penn State and Notre Dame will put 30K more fans in the Linc (fewer if they build a modest sized stadium near campus), but how often will they give Temple a home game? Once every 10-12 years?

Temple isn't likely to succeed consistently either on the field or at the gate. Whether or not they keep playing in FBS will depend on how well they think they are succeeding with their donors.

Building an OCS is only justified if high quality opponents are scheduled?

That's nonsense.


That's like saying "we can only build a new engineering building if we have really renowned engineering visiting profs. scheduled to speak here."

No, that's like saying you can only build a new engineering building if there are enough students who want to study there.

Building an OCS, when you have other options, is only justified if you can attract enough paying customers. It would be one thing if they were bringing in huge amounts of cash from a conference to help subsidize an OCS. But they aren't. And they aren't attracting paying fans either.

How much does a small stadium cost these days? In other parts of the country, the estimates are in the $hundreds of millions. Who is going to pay for that?

Donors.

That's what SMU, North Texas, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, UCF, FAU, FIU and others have done in recent years.

(05-08-2015 03:39 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 10:05 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Honesty time:

If you're not a "Power 5" conference school, you're Division 1 football days are numbered.

The fate of non-Power conference football schools can be broken down into 3 basic categories:
1) For a select and extremely small number of schools, they will get an invite into the "Power" world and will stay in Division 1.
2) A number of schools will DROP football altogether and keep their other sports at Division 1 by moving their sports into a non-FB conference.
3) A number of schools will REDUCE their football to FCS or lower levels and move into an FCS/D1 All-sports conference.

I don't see Temple being in group 1.
I could see Temple moving into a conference like the NEC... So maybe #3.
But I think Temple likely fits best into Group #2, where they discontinue FB and move into a conference like the A10.

I don't get why anyone would be forced to a situation where they drop football altogether or even relegate themselves to FCS simply because they don't get a P5 invitation. There are as many G5 schools as P5. There are now 42 bowl games - many of which highlight G5 v. G5 matchups....that will continue to make money.

So, even if Temple and the 60-plus other G5 institutions don't get the P5 invite, they're not going to disappear or drop to FCS-level. They will remain in the current world where there is a major and ever-widening funding gap, but it doesn't mean that G5 football vanishes.

Who else will the P5 play to continue to pad their win-loss records and ensure themselves 7 home games?

Because FCS or G5 football played only for the FCS championship or only for a G5 championship is a massive money loser and isn't much of a driver of enrollment. The main reason G5 schools play football is because FBS football helps sell the G5 universities to potetntial students. As long as FBS is the top level of college football---there will be a level of prestige and interest in the schools that play it. People in general care about the top level of football. People care about the national championship in the top level of football. I know a G5 schools has virtually no chance of winning said FBS championship---they are at least theoretically still chasing the same national championship trophy as Alabama, Texas, and Ohio State. The fact is, the lowest rated FBS bowl played by a pair of G5 teams will generally garner twice the audience of the FCS national championship game.

The reality is, there is very little interest in the college football levels below it top level. If a D4 is created and FBS ceases to be the top level, G5 ticket sales will slump, G5 tv ratings will fall, and G5 tv income will plummet. FCS, D2, D3----its all the same to the casual fan. The left behind G5's will be lumped in with that group by the typical fan. The casual fan knows the top level and nothing else exists. There would be little point in pumping money into football to chase a G5 or FCS trophy. If a split occurred, the best highest budgets G5's only chance would be to band together in a single nationwide conference and try to be included in the new highest level of football.

(05-08-2015 03:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not trying to make any argument. Building a new OCS will cost Temple millions of dollars a year. If students want to foot the bill for that, they are welcome to do that. Just like they would be welcome to foot the bill if they wanted to add saunas in every dorm room. Have students offered to increase athletics fees?

An OCS would obviously be more important than saunas. Why would you even say that?

Regardless what the students decide, what's wrong with selling bonds to pay for it up-front?

What I am saying is that anybody who wants to spend his own money for something should be allowed to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for selling bonds, I don't see any other way they are likely to come up with that kind of money. But somebody has to pay those bonds off. You suggested that Temple students might be willing to be the ones who do that. I agreed that if they want to do that, that's fine. I doubt they will volunteer to do that.

Would you think it would be wrong for the school to impose that fee increase on the students if they object to it? Or should the taxpayers of Philadelphia foot the bill?

Why can't Temple just pay it back themselves, over 30 years (even without student fees)? Isn't that the point of bonds?

Pay it back with what? They are already spending all the money that's coming in. Unless they create some new source of revenue (like student fees or tuition increases) they only have one other option. Cut spending somewhere else in the budget by $5 million or so per year. They have already eliminated 7 athletic teams to save money, and they can't cut any more and stay at D-I.

Normally, the point of using bonds to finance a project is that you don't have the large amount of capital at hand on the front end, but will generate enough additional revenue from the project to pay the annual debt service. Nobody is suggesting that this project will come close to being self financing.

The whole "on campus" vs "off campus" thing is a bit of a red herring. It makes it sound as if this is supposed to be some sort of benefit to the students, and who could argue that doing something for the students is a bad thing? The most optimistic estimate of how many more students might attend games if they were on campus would be in the 1,000 range. If 1,000 students all bought a season ticket, it would raise only $200,000 in revenue. The other 20,000+ students who don't go to the games (and don't live on campus in most cases) would have to pay more than the cost of a season ticket each year in increased athletic fees to come close to raising the money to pay for this.

Now, Temple may feel like that's worth it because it will increase alumni donations. But it's not you or me they have to convince of that.

Well obviously they won't get the bonds if they can't show a reasonable plan for the revenue that will be used to pay them back.

There's no point in us pretending to be Temple CFO's, we're not.

But we can agree on a high level principle: IF they can show the money will be there, then they should build a new OCS.


Your argument for why it shouldn't be on campus makes no sense. All one needs to do to show this is to change "stadium" to "new academic building". Indeed, why build it on campus if it's much cheaper to build it elsewhere?

(05-08-2015 03:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not trying to make any argument. Building a new OCS will cost Temple millions of dollars a year. If students want to foot the bill for that, they are welcome to do that. Just like they would be welcome to foot the bill if they wanted to add saunas in every dorm room. Have students offered to increase athletics fees?

An OCS would obviously be more important than saunas. Why would you even say that?

Regardless what the students decide, what's wrong with selling bonds to pay for it up-front?

What I am saying is that anybody who wants to spend his own money for something should be allowed to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for selling bonds, I don't see any other way they are likely to come up with that kind of money. But somebody has to pay those bonds off. You suggested that Temple students might be willing to be the ones who do that. I agreed that if they want to do that, that's fine. I doubt they will volunteer to do that.

Would you think it would be wrong for the school to impose that fee increase on the students if they object to it? Or should the taxpayers of Philadelphia foot the bill?

Why can't Temple just pay it back themselves, over 30 years (even without student fees)? Isn't that the point of bonds?

Pay it back with what? They are already spending all the money that's coming in. Unless they create some new source of revenue (like student fees or tuition increases) they only have one other option. Cut spending somewhere else in the budget by $5 million or so per year. They have already eliminated 7 athletic teams to save money, and they can't cut any more and stay at D-I.

Normally, the point of using bonds to finance a project is that you don't have the large amount of capital at hand on the front end, but will generate enough additional revenue from the project to pay the annual debt service. Nobody is suggesting that this project will come close to being self financing.

The whole "on campus" vs "off campus" thing is a bit of a red herring. It makes it sound as if this is supposed to be some sort of benefit to the students, and who could argue that doing something for the students is a bad thing? The most optimistic estimate of how many more students might attend games if they were on campus would be in the 1,000 range. If 1,000 students all bought a season ticket, it would raise only $200,000 in revenue. The other 20,000+ students who don't go to the games (and don't live on campus in most cases) would have to pay more than the cost of a season ticket each year in increased athletic fees to come close to raising the money to pay for this.

Now, Temple may feel like that's worth it because it will increase alumni donations. But it's not you or me they have to convince of that.

Houston's students voted to pay a fee to service bonds. That paid for 40 million in bonds for the stadium (plus more for a basketball arena renovation). The rest came from alumni donations and naming rights. That allowed the income thrown off from the stadium to go straight into the athletic department. Its not needed for debt.

If Temple keeps the stadium cost reasonable---I see no reason a similar method of financing couldn't be used. I think Tulane paid for the entire Yulman project with donations. I think their stadium cost was around 70 million for a 25-30K capacity. Not sure if Yulman is expandable. The UH stadium was about 128 million--but it was larger (40K) and was built with the foundation/structure to expand to 60K in the future---so it cost a bit more. I think Colorado St is nuts. They are building a $240 million stadium and borrowing all the money for it.

(05-08-2015 04:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 03:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  An OCS would obviously be more important than saunas. Why would you even say that?

Regardless what the students decide, what's wrong with selling bonds to pay for it up-front?

What I am saying is that anybody who wants to spend his own money for something should be allowed to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for selling bonds, I don't see any other way they are likely to come up with that kind of money. But somebody has to pay those bonds off. You suggested that Temple students might be willing to be the ones who do that. I agreed that if they want to do that, that's fine. I doubt they will volunteer to do that.

Would you think it would be wrong for the school to impose that fee increase on the students if they object to it? Or should the taxpayers of Philadelphia foot the bill?

Why can't Temple just pay it back themselves, over 30 years (even without student fees)? Isn't that the point of bonds?

Pay it back with what? They are already spending all the money that's coming in. Unless they create some new source of revenue (like student fees or tuition increases) they only have one other option. Cut spending somewhere else in the budget by $5 million or so per year. They have already eliminated 7 athletic teams to save money, and they can't cut any more and stay at D-I.

Normally, the point of using bonds to finance a project is that you don't have the large amount of capital at hand on the front end, but will generate enough additional revenue from the project to pay the annual debt service. Nobody is suggesting that this project will come close to being self financing.

The whole "on campus" vs "off campus" thing is a bit of a red herring. It makes it sound as if this is supposed to be some sort of benefit to the students, and who could argue that doing something for the students is a bad thing? The most optimistic estimate of how many more students might attend games if they were on campus would be in the 1,000 range. If 1,000 students all bought a season ticket, it would raise only $200,000 in revenue. The other 20,000+ students who don't go to the games (and don't live on campus in most cases) would have to pay more than the cost of a season ticket each year in increased athletic fees to come close to raising the money to pay for this.

Now, Temple may feel like that's worth it because it will increase alumni donations. But it's not you or me they have to convince of that.

Houston's students voted to pay a fee to service bonds. That paid for 40 million in bonds for the stadium (plus more for a basketball arena renovation). The rest came from alumni donations and naming rights. That allowed the income thrown off from the stadium to go straight into the athletic department. Its not needed for debt.

If Temple keeps the stadium cost reasonable---I see no reason a similar method of financing couldn't be used. I think Tulane paid for the entire Yulman project with donations. I think their stadium cost was around 70 million for a 25-30K capacity. Not sure if Yulman is expandable. The UH stadium was about 128 million--but it was larger (40K) and was built with the foundation/structure to expand to 60K in the future---so it cost a bit more. I think Colorado St is nuts. They are building a $240 million stadium and borrowing all the money for it.

Tulane is a good example for Temple. Both in a crowded, urban setting. Both with a parcel of land to build an OCS. Both with historic fanbases, even if there hasn't been a lot of winning going on.

(05-08-2015 02:21 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 09:35 AM)Chappy Wrote:  That said, I wonder how much of this is actually just Temple posturing to raise support for a new OCS.

just curious, since you have decided to use OCS as an abbreviation for an On Campus Stadium, then what is the abbreviation for an Off Campus Stadium?

Haha never thought about that!

According to Equity in Athletics, Temple made just over $2,000,000 per football game in 2013 (based on 6 home games). If they keep half of that for expenses, that gives them ~$6,000,000 per year for rent. I don't believe you can rent an NFL stadium for $1,000,000 per game. I don't think that gives you enough revenue to service the debt on a $100,000,000 note either. They would need (guessing) $50,000,000 or so in donations to get that number down to a serviceable level.

(05-08-2015 04:35 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  According to Equity in Athletics, Temple made just over $2,000,000 per football game in 2013 (based on 6 home games). If they keep half of that for expenses, that gives them ~$6,000,000 per year for rent. I don't believe you can rent an NFL stadium for $1,000,000 per game. I don't think that gives you enough revenue to service the debt on a $100,000,000 note either. They would need (guessing) $50,000,000 or so in donations to get that number down to a serviceable level.

Rent at Lincoln Financial Field: $1 million for six games, not per game.

http://articles.philly.com/2015-01-05/sp...m-decision

From what I understand the Eagles have never wanted to have anybody playing on their field but various agencies have applied pressure so that Temple could play there. Has that changed?

(05-08-2015 08:05 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  No vote scheduled on proposed on-campus stadium: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/owlsinq/Source-.html

Lease at the Eagles stadium runs out in 2017 and some say they can't afford it.

Where do they go from here?

Go back to FCS football and play in the Pioneer League.

(05-08-2015 08:09 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  From what I understand the Eagles have never wanted to have anybody playing on their field but various agencies have applied pressure so that Temple could play there. Has that changed?

Why are the Eagles so against it?

(05-08-2015 08:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:05 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  No vote scheduled on proposed on-campus stadium: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/owlsinq/Source-.html

Lease at the Eagles stadium runs out in 2017 and some say they can't afford it.

Where do they go from here?

Go back to FCS football and play in the Pioneer League.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll do that. You are brilliant. I eagerly wait for your next post.

(05-08-2015 06:42 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 04:35 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  According to Equity in Athletics, Temple made just over $2,000,000 per football game in 2013 (based on 6 home games). If they keep half of that for expenses, that gives them ~$6,000,000 per year for rent. I don't believe you can rent an NFL stadium for $1,000,000 per game. I don't think that gives you enough revenue to service the debt on a $100,000,000 note either. They would need (guessing) $50,000,000 or so in donations to get that number down to a serviceable level.

Rent at Lincoln Financial Field: $1 million for six games, not per game.

http://articles.philly.com/2015-01-05/sp...m-decision

And Temple's revenues aren't per game either.