The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(07-21-2017 01:39 PM)uabfanman Wrote:  Simple reason for the delay, IMO:

Most citizens of Birmingham are tired of seeing money poured into downtown while their neighborhoods and communities continue to decline. Bell has a real chance of losing to someone like Woodfin who wants to pump more money into neighborhoods. A few months ago, Bell promised an announcement on the stadium, and it was scheduled to come out around right now, right before the election. Coincidence? No. I believe Bell was hoping to use the announcement to help him get reelected, by following through on his promise to turn Birmingham into a major sports city (of course, we all know the BJCC would be mostly funding it, but Bell would try to take credit). Now, things have turned. He realizes that strategy could do much more harm than good for his reelection campaign. If an announcement comes out now, it confirms the idea that Bell only cares about downtown.

I for one, as a Birmingham resident, will not be voting for Bell for a number of reasons. I would really like to have a stadium at the BJCC, but that's not enough to win my vote.

Bell definitely has his flaws, but I think the stadium is important for the forward progression of the city. A project like this can bring a substantial amount of additional revenue that can then be used to make other neighborhood improvements. The stadium itself doesn't even have to be a money maker, but the additional people it would bring to eat/drink, stay in hotels, and shop plus the ancillary development that would occur around the stadium would really increase the city's tax base.

Lots of voters want to spend municipal tax revenue on "neighborhood projects" that might only use up money. Some can see that municipal tax revenue can be spent on "investment projects" that might produce increased municipal revenue in the future. The Crossplex, Regions Field and an MPF could serve this purpose. Huntsville has announced a $85 million enlargement and improvement of the VBC with this in mind.

Expense vs investment is a constant tug of war a municipal government must fight. It is not always a clear cut choice.

(07-21-2017 01:39 PM)uabfanman Wrote:  Simple reason for the delay, IMO:

Most citizens of Birmingham are tired of seeing money poured into downtown while their neighborhoods and communities continue to decline. Bell has a real chance of losing to someone like Woodfin who wants to pump more money into neighborhoods. A few months ago, Bell promised an announcement on the stadium, and it was scheduled to come out around right now, right before the election. Coincidence? No. I believe Bell was hoping to use the announcement to help him get reelected, by following through on his promise to turn Birmingham into a major sports city (of course, we all know the BJCC would be mostly funding it, but Bell would try to take credit). Now, things have turned. He realizes that strategy could do much more harm than good for his reelection campaign. If an announcement comes out now, it confirms the idea that Bell only cares about downtown.

I for one, as a Birmingham resident, will not be voting for Bell for a number of reasons. I would really like to have a stadium at the BJCC, but that's not enough to win my vote.

+1

Never really liked Bell or his pay to play brother.

Any Land set away for either or of a Built Stadium!./. With Parking and tailgate room. Plus room to move around. Where Folks in the State feel good about coming out to.. See with all these new opps. The Players and fans are going to want matching amenities to play in. Or it doesn't work, you cant go from nice to well you can finish the sentence.

I loathe Legion Field, and I think that Birmingham sorely needs a better facility for a variety of reasons. But as much as I'd love that new stadium, I'm not willing to vote for Bell just because he says he supports it. Birmingham has bigger issues that he has failed to address.

http://alabamanewscenter.com/2017/07/21/...rojects-2/

Top Golf: at about the 3:00 mark...
Expansion at about 4:50 mark...

(07-21-2017 01:27 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The BJCC stadium project has two critical questions to answer to get built. Where is the funding coming from and where - on what land - is it to be built. If the city is to provide the funds, it would mean scrapping all hope for a MPF for decades, and the city REALLY needs that MPF for larger convention competitions. (Will the announced $85 million enlargement of Huntsville's VBC make them more competitive?)

A dome and a new open air stadium are mutually exclusive. The city is not going to do either one by itself, they don't have the money (primarily because most of the money is earmarked directly to the BJCC). Either one will be built on BJCC land. If a dome is built by the BJCC, then that's all that will be built. If an open air stadium is built by the BJCC, that's all that will be built. Both projects will not be built by either the BJCC Authority or the city alone or in any combination, period.

(07-21-2017 01:45 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  If, indeed, the powers that be have decreed that no stadium will be built on campus and a downtown stadium continues to get resistance UAB stakeholders may have to start thinking about sites just off campus. Of course, land that was unwanted a few years ago is now some of the most valuable property in Alabama now...

What UAB stakeholders could build a stadium without UAB or city cooperation? "UAB stakeholders" meaning the Foundation and donors require explicit UAB approval. The holdup isn't that it was going to be "on campus" and moving it immediately adjacent to campus doesn't change any of the political issues preventing it from being built. I don't even understand what "just off campus" means in the context of UAB which has many properties that are not contiguous to the main campus. Who would own it?

(07-21-2017 01:54 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  Bell definitely has his flaws, but I think the stadium is important for the forward progression of the city. A project like this can bring a substantial amount of additional revenue that can then be used to make other neighborhood improvements. The stadium itself doesn't even have to be a money maker, but the additional people it would bring to eat/drink, stay in hotels, and shop plus the ancillary development that would occur around the stadium would really increase the city's tax base.

I think if you talked to the average voter who doesn't live in Highland Park, Downtown, or Avondale, you'd probably find that they've been hearing that all this investment downtown is going to help the whole city for about 10 years now, and it's time to put up or shut up in terms of benefits from all that starting to flow into the rest of the city. And even as a white dude who owned a house in Avondale, I can not find any fault in that argument

The political tea leaves have pointed to Bell waiting to after the city election because he does not want to lose votes of the neighborhood first folks and wants the money from the economic interest that want him to spend on capital projects. So not troubled by this delay. However do not see the county(with OTM republicans and the alternative black political group) and the city group will ever come together with huge funding to build a multi-purpose dome. It does worry me that the project could get stopped AGAIN on pipe dream of dome.

As much as we would all love an OCS, IMHO with UAB overall revenue especially discretionary being constricted and our commitment to the SOM on the capped deficit - I do not see the OCS money for a decade or so. My pure hope is should know about the open air stadium by fall

All we need to do is sell Stadium Certificates

(07-21-2017 01:54 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 01:39 PM)uabfanman Wrote:  Simple reason for the delay, IMO:

Most citizens of Birmingham are tired of seeing money poured into downtown while their neighborhoods and communities continue to decline. Bell has a real chance of losing to someone like Woodfin who wants to pump more money into neighborhoods. A few months ago, Bell promised an announcement on the stadium, and it was scheduled to come out around right now, right before the election. Coincidence? No. I believe Bell was hoping to use the announcement to help him get reelected, by following through on his promise to turn Birmingham into a major sports city (of course, we all know the BJCC would be mostly funding it, but Bell would try to take credit). Now, things have turned. He realizes that strategy could do much more harm than good for his reelection campaign. If an announcement comes out now, it confirms the idea that Bell only cares about downtown.

I for one, as a Birmingham resident, will not be voting for Bell for a number of reasons. I would really like to have a stadium at the BJCC, but that's not enough to win my vote.

Bell definitely has his flaws, but I think the stadium is important for the forward progression of the city. A project like this can bring a substantial amount of additional revenue that can then be used to make other neighborhood improvements. The stadium itself doesn't even have to be a money maker, but the additional people it would bring to eat/drink, stay in hotels, and shop plus the ancillary development that would occur around the stadium would really increase the city's tax base.

I don't disagree at all on a macro level. But try to sell that right now to the person in a struggling neighborhood, where the storm drain in front of their house hasn't worked for a decade. Birmingham has way more money now than they have had in a long time, yet many basic needs like public works and remain underfunded. In fact, talk to some residents in those neighborhoods, and they'll say it was better when Langford was in office, and the city was broke.

An announcement now would be political suicide. Surprised it took Bell so long to realize that. A couple months ago he was pushing hard to get an announcement out before the election.

The money simply is not there for a dome. They've been flogging that dead horse for thirty years. It isn't happening.

Build the field at the BJCC and renovate and expand that facility. It makes a helluva lot more sense.


No one wants the OCS more than I do, but we need several old men on and around the BoT to die before it is a serious option. Things are better with regard to relations with the board, but nowhere near that good.

(07-21-2017 09:53 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  The money simply is not there for a dome. They've been flogging that dead horse for thirty years. It isn't happening.

Build the field at the BJCC and renovate and expand that facility. It makes a helluva lot more sense.


No one wants the OCS more than I do, but we need several old men on and around the BoT to die before it is a serious option. Things are better with regard to relations with the board, but nowhere near that good.

The money simply is not there for either choice right now. The limited / seasonal capability open air stadium is the cheaper choice between the two, but it offers less in return to the city for its investment.

It would be good and satisfactory for UAB's needs since UAB would only have to pay annual rent, but that would be the main return income for the city. UAB will never have to worry about convention competition or year round usage nor holding vacant campus land for the OCS regardless of the persons on the system BOT. If the BJCC stadium is built, the campus land now dreamed about for the OCS will quickly disappear under some sort of development.

When Legion Field is officially condemned(within the next 10 years) and UAB is forced to Hoover's baseball field and the classic moves onto the respective campuses or to Ladd stadium in Mobile maybe then...

(07-26-2017 07:56 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 09:53 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  The money simply is not there for a dome. They've been flogging that dead horse for thirty years. It isn't happening.

Build the field at the BJCC and renovate and expand that facility. It makes a helluva lot more sense.


No one wants the OCS more than I do, but we need several old men on and around the BoT to die before it is a serious option. Things are better with regard to relations with the board, but nowhere near that good.

The money simply is not there for either choice right now. The limited / seasonal capability open air stadium is the cheaper choice between the two, but it offers less in return to the city for its investment.

It would be good and satisfactory for UAB's needs since UAB would only have to pay annual rent, but that would be the main return income for the city. UAB will never have to worry about convention competition or year round usage nor holding vacant campus land for the OCS regardless of the persons on the system BOT. If the BJCC stadium is built, the campus land now dreamed about for the OCS will quickly disappear under some sort of development.

I don't know if you've seen a recent version of the UAB campus master plan but there is no land set aside for a football stadium.

(07-26-2017 08:18 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  When Legion Field is officially condemned(within the next 10 years) and UAB is forced to Hoover's baseball field and the classic moves onto the respective campuses or to Ladd stadium in Mobile maybe then...

The MC classic is headed to both campuses. Huge point in Bama St getting their OCS.

UAB needs its own OCS badly dont know how it will get done but with Clark i believe it will be.

It is POSSIBLE that neither the MCC nor the Bham Bowl game will be interested in being moved to that smaller venue. The MCC may be lured away by another city no matter what the city offers if the money to move is right (The SWAC did not move its championship to Houston for the climate). ESPN has not said what it would do if asked to move its bowl game to that smaller venue.

How would (potentially) having UAB as the stadium's sole tenant affect its rental fee? IF UAB signs with the BJCC, the OCS dream is dust (see post #34) and Legion Field is demolished, what choices would UAB have for a venue then if rental fee should be increased?

(07-27-2017 12:12 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  It is POSSIBLE that neither the MCC nor the Bham Bowl game will be interested in being moved to that smaller venue. The MCC may be lured away by another city no matter what the city offers if the money to move is right (The SWAC did not move its championship to Houston for the climate). ESPN has not said what it would do if asked to move its bowl game to that smaller venue.

How would (potentially) having UAB as the stadium's sole tenant affect its rental fee? IF UAB signs with the BJCC, the OCS dream is dust (see post #34) and Legion Field is demolished, what choices would UAB have for a venue then if rental fee should be increased?

1. The bowl game already doesn't sell the place out. If you gave ESPN a brand new 30-40k seat stadium, but near uptown and all that means, they'd take it I guarantee it. The location and a new, modernized facility more than makes up for the size reduction

2. The on campus stadium dream is dust already. I don't know what universe you guys are living in that thinks it's possible anytime within the next 15 years. The football team is just barely allowed to exist. Time to stop living on the dream of "well, we're right around the corner from our own stadium!"

3. UAB already has no option for another venue, so if the city was going to screw UAB by raising rent astronomically, they could do it at Legion Field. The BJCC authority isn't likely to do that either, because UAB could walk. They've already demonstrated they have no problem shutting down the team.

(07-27-2017 06:21 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  The bowl game already doesn't sell the place out. If you gave ESPN a brand new 30-40k seat stadium, but near uptown and all that means, they'd take it I guarantee it. The location and a new, modernized facility more than makes up for the size reduction

You are correct that the bowl game doesn't sell out Legion Field, but there have only been 2 occasions where the bowl sold tickets within the range you reference with an SEC team as a participant (Florida's last Will Muschamp bowl, and South Carolina's first Will Muschamp bowl...coincidence?). The Auburn and Ole Miss appearances saw almost 60,000 fans each, so the bowl is just as likely to sell 60,000 tickets as it is to sell 30,000 if an SEC team is playing. If they could make the stadium capable of holding 50k (or even 45k) with temporary seating then it would likely make more sense for the bowl game.

I do realize other teams also play in these games, but the attendance has always been in or below the 30k-40k range when an SEC team does not appear in the game. It's clear that an SEC team appearance is the difference.

I pulled the attendance figures from wikipedia: link.

There were also two games with SEC teams that drew less than 31,300. In spite of the SEC there has only been two crowds larger that the proposed capacity (lager proposal) and not by much. Auburn & Ole Miss were involved. FWIW only three crowds larger than the smaller proposed capacity of and one was only 254 over capacity.

Yes the MCC schools both want their games eventually on campus. I toured both ADs through one of my facilities I was working on and both told me thats what their long range plans were. Since then ASU has expanded their facility and A&M is talking about it. I think it will be here for several ore years then migrate to their respective home stadiums after A&M expands one day.

I hope it stays personally as t is a great event for the city and I have attended and had a blast and the tailgate was off the chain.

(07-27-2017 06:21 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  The on campus stadium dream is dust already. I don't know what universe you guys are living in that thinks it's possible anytime within the next 15 years. The football team is just barely allowed to exist. Time to stop living on the dream of "well, we're right around the corner from our own stadium!"

Unfortunately I agree. The SOM will hold UAB to our current deficit support. The money for the original OCS plan is now committed elsewhere, The well written article about the football comeback - reinforced this.

(07-27-2017 06:21 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  UAB already has no option for another venue, so if the city was going to screw UAB by raising rent astronomically, they could do it at Legion Field. The BJCC authority isn't likely to do that either, because UAB could walk.

The city rent is practically a give away to legion field approximately 60 k a year. On the other hand the cost of operating an OCS including lighting, expenses, grounds, maintenance and deferred maintenance was estimated at least one million a year in mid-nineties by facilities