CSNbbs

Looks like a super nice stadium and is right sized at ~41,000+


I maintain that Col. St along with Air Force would make fine additions to the AAC


http://www.csurams.com/sports/m-footbl/s...17aaa.html

Will they sell special edibles at the stadium since they are in Colorado?

(06-10-2017 08:00 AM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]Will they sell special edibles at the stadium since they are in Colorado?

I'm working behind the scenes on this boss. My thought is to partner with a local dispensary in the Denver area.

My plan is to create a 'combo pack' for sale at the stadium which will be a Diary Whip meal kit that includes cheeseburger, fries, drink and 'special' brownie for dessert.

We will call it The Dairy Whip Game Enhancer meal deal.

Stay tuned....

they draw flies and are rarely ever win in anything...

(06-10-2017 07:58 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like a super nice stadium and is right sized at ~41,000+

Very nice stadium.

36K seats plus big SRO areas in the end zones.

They have reserved 10K seats on the East side for students. Seems ambitious.

With seats saved for visitors, coaches families, recruits and corporate sponsors, they'll only be able to sell 20-22K season tickets max.

The financing plan is ridiculous. They only raised about ~$25M from donors, and had to borrow the rest on revenue bonds. They will have $10-13M annual stadium debt service for the next 30 years for a sport that currently produces less than $4M a year in revenue. So the school's debt rating or the taxpayers or the students (and certainly the non-revenue sports) will eventually take it in the shorts.

However, Hughes Stadium was old and borderline condemnable. If the school wanted to continue playing football, they needed a new stadium (or considerable renovations to Hughes) even though their boosters fell way short of their fundraising goal.

(06-10-2017 08:13 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]they draw flies and are rarely ever win in anything...

A week ago you said that "you've noticed something about me, that I blame everyone else/Aresco for ECU's problems." I took it like a man, and didn't fight back. Heck, I will concede that maybe you are right a little bit and that I do blame Aresco too much for certain things.
So in the spirit of unsolicited observations, I've noticed this about you: You hate on other programs, particularly programs you feel are a threat to Houston. I'm happy for Colorado St. They finally got a very nice OCS and moved out of their very old smaller stadium. It's much like what Houston did a few years ago, and I was happy for the Coogs then too. I won't sh!t on CSU's good news like you are doing. I hope you've got the guts and honesty to consider what I've observed about you.

(06-10-2017 07:58 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like a super nice stadium and is right sized at ~41,000+


I maintain that Col. St along with Air Force would make fine additions to the AAC


http://www.csurams.com/sports/m-footbl/s...17aaa.html

I agree ,but I think we're still in simmer mode. Wait to see what shakes out around 2024. If we're still intact maybe a slight expansion is warranted.

(06-10-2017 10:16 AM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 08:13 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]they draw flies and are rarely ever win in anything...

A week ago you said that "you've noticed something about me, that I blame everyone else/Aresco for ECU's problems." I took it like a man, and didn't fight back. Heck, I will concede that maybe you are right a little bit and that I do blame Aresco too much for certain things.
So in the spirit of unsolicited observations, I've noticed this about you: You hate on other programs, particularly programs you feel are a threat to Houston. I'm happy for Colorado St. They finally got a very nice OCS and moved out of their very old smaller stadium. It's much like what Houston did a few years ago, and I was happy for the Coogs then too. I won't sh!t on CSU's good news like you are doing. I hope you've got the guts and honesty to consider what I've observed about you.

the OP said we should add..i simple stated we shouldnt for thus reasons

and ive been a propenent for boise, byu and sdsu...all considered top teams..if they were added theyd be put in the west divison with houston..they are a bigger threat that csu

how is csu a threat???

(06-10-2017 11:54 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 10:16 AM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 08:13 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]they draw flies and are rarely ever win in anything...

A week ago you said that "you've noticed something about me, that I blame everyone else/Aresco for ECU's problems." I took it like a man, and didn't fight back. Heck, I will concede that maybe you are right a little bit and that I do blame Aresco too much for certain things.
So in the spirit of unsolicited observations, I've noticed this about you: You hate on other programs, particularly programs you feel are a threat to Houston. I'm happy for Colorado St. They finally got a very nice OCS and moved out of their very old smaller stadium. It's much like what Houston did a few years ago, and I was happy for the Coogs then too. I won't sh!t on CSU's good news like you are doing. I hope you've got the guts and honesty to consider what I've observed about you.

the OP said we should add..i simple stated we shouldnt for thus reasons

and ive been a propenent for boise, byu and sdsu...all considered top teams..if they were added theyd be put in the west divison with houston..they are a bigger threat that csu

how is csu a threat???

My observation about you is that you are a hater. You don't like it when good things happen for other programs. Colorado St is a threat because this makes them more desirable to P5 conferences and Houston is trying very hard to get into a P5 conference. Colorado St will have very nice attendance numbers this year with their new OCS. You think they will draw flies, I disagree.

Temple needs their stadium to get built now, if only they can get past red tape and having to pay off punks

(06-10-2017 10:04 AM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 07:58 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like a super nice stadium and is right sized at ~41,000+

Very nice stadium.

36K seats plus big SRO areas in the end zones.

They have reserved 10K seats on the East side for students. Seems ambitious.

With seats saved for visitors, coaches families, recruits and corporate sponsors, they'll only be able to sell 20-22K season tickets max.

The financing plan is ridiculous. They only raised about ~$25M from donors, and had to borrow the rest on revenue bonds. They will have $10-13M annual stadium debt service for the next 30 years for a sport that currently produces less than $4M a year in revenue. So the school's debt rating or the taxpayers or the students (and certainly the non-revenue sports) will eventually take it in the shorts.

However, Hughes Stadium was old and borderline condemnable. If the school wanted to continue playing football, they needed a new stadium (or considerable renovations to Hughes) even though their boosters fell way short of their fundraising goal.

When you are a land-grant institution and the #2 school in the state you can get more state dollars to help finance projects like this.

(06-10-2017 12:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 11:54 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 10:16 AM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 08:13 AM)pesik Wrote: [ -> ]they draw flies and are rarely ever win in anything...

A week ago you said that "you've noticed something about me, that I blame everyone else/Aresco for ECU's problems." I took it like a man, and didn't fight back. Heck, I will concede that maybe you are right a little bit and that I do blame Aresco too much for certain things.
So in the spirit of unsolicited observations, I've noticed this about you: You hate on other programs, particularly programs you feel are a threat to Houston. I'm happy for Colorado St. They finally got a very nice OCS and moved out of their very old smaller stadium. It's much like what Houston did a few years ago, and I was happy for the Coogs then too. I won't sh!t on CSU's good news like you are doing. I hope you've got the guts and honesty to consider what I've observed about you.

the OP said we should add..i simple stated we shouldnt for thus reasons

and ive been a propenent for boise, byu and sdsu...all considered top teams..if they were added theyd be put in the west divison with houston..they are a bigger threat that csu

how is csu a threat???

My observation about you is that you are a hater. You don't like it when good things happen for other programs. Colorado St is a threat because this makes them more desirable to P5 conferences and Houston is trying very hard to get into a P5 conference. Colorado St will have very nice attendance numbers this year with their new OCS. You think they will draw flies, I disagree.

I literally made a thread that i dont think the big 12 is collapsing or expanding ...i dont think anyone is a threat because i dont think anything will happen

and why dont i like good things happening to other programs??im normally the one who praises teams when they do things good...
and offcourse they'll draw on their first year..im talking long term sustainable attendance

but back to point, i do not consider csu a threat ...as a matter of fact, the reason i dont like them for the AAC is becuase i dont think they'll ever be a threat, because i dont think they'll ever be able to produce sustainable top recruiting in their area ..

if you noticed i never said anything bad about their stadium, i actual love what they did...i just question what else they can bring beyond stadium

(06-10-2017 12:47 PM)JHS55 Wrote: [ -> ]Temple needs their stadium to get built now, if only they can get past red tape and having to pay off punks

Temple needs something like Apogee Stadium. It's nice enough, holds enough people, and won't break the bank (it only cost like 80 million, which is like 95 million in Philly)

(06-10-2017 01:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 12:47 PM)JHS55 Wrote: [ -> ]Temple needs their stadium to get built now, if only they can get past red tape and having to pay off punks

Temple needs something like Apogee Stadium. It's nice enough, holds enough people, and won't break the bank (it only cost like 80 million, which is like 95 million in Philly)

Not a bad goal for a Temple on campus stadium. However, the site on campus has significant infrastructure issues which will add costs. I have no inside info, but momentum for a Temple stadium has seemed to stall.

(06-10-2017 01:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]When you are a land-grant institution and the #2 school in the state you can get more state dollars to help finance projects like this.

Sorry. Thanks for playing. Colo St promised the legislature that it wouldn't cost the taxpayers or affect tuition. Said they would pay for it with stadium revenue. That's what revenue bond means.

Neither the state of Colorado nor its legislature voted to fund this stadium with taxpayer money as you imply.

(06-10-2017 03:06 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 01:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]When you are a land-grant institution and the #2 school in the state you can get more state dollars to help finance projects like this.

Sorry. Thanks for playing. Colo St promised the legislature that it wouldn't cost the taxpayers or affect tuition. Said they would pay for it with stadium revenue. That's what revenue bond means.

Neither the state of Colorado nor its legislature voted to fund this stadium with taxpayer money as you imply.

Guess who backs the revenue bond? Taxpayers!

Even state bonds are backed by taxpayers of the state.

(06-10-2017 04:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 03:06 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 01:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]When you are a land-grant institution and the #2 school in the state you can get more state dollars to help finance projects like this.

Sorry. Thanks for playing. Colo St promised the legislature that it wouldn't cost the taxpayers or affect tuition. Said they would pay for it with stadium revenue. That's what revenue bond means.

Neither the state of Colorado nor its legislature voted to fund this stadium with taxpayer money as you imply.

Guess who backs the revenue bond? Taxpayers!

Even state bonds are backed by taxpayers of the state.

It is backed but they won't pay a dime unless the stadium doesn't meet the revenue projections. They are generally conservative with these estimates but I don't know anything about the deal.

(06-10-2017 05:05 PM)PT_american Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 04:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 03:06 PM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2017 01:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]When you are a land-grant institution and the #2 school in the state you can get more state dollars to help finance projects like this.

Sorry. Thanks for playing. Colo St promised the legislature that it wouldn't cost the taxpayers or affect tuition. Said they would pay for it with stadium revenue. That's what revenue bond means.

Neither the state of Colorado nor its legislature voted to fund this stadium with taxpayer money as you imply.

Guess who backs the revenue bond? Taxpayers!

Even state bonds are backed by taxpayers of the state.

It is backed but they won't pay a dime unless the stadium doesn't meet the revenue projections. They are generally conservative with these estimates but I don't know anything about the deal.

The state still wont pay a dime. Colorado St University would be on the hook next---then perhaps, the state if Colorado St can't pay the tab.

The new stadium at Colorado St is extremely attractive---reminds me a lot of Baylors new home. CSU's new stadium may be the best in the G5 when complete. If its not the best---its certianly right near the very top.

That said, Ive pointed out the financing would really concern me if I were in the CSU administration. For one thing, while the stadium spins off alot of new revenue--nearly all of it will be going to service debt. That means one of the main advantages of a new stadium---additional athletic department revenue---isnt going to materialize anytime soon. Worse yet---what if the revenue projections are off (if CSU has a few bad seasons in a row---the projections could be waaaay off). At that point, the new stadium could easily become a financial anchor around the neck of the athletic department--actually pulling monies away from their current uses.

I think the financing on this deal is very risky and the decision to rush into the stadiums construction with so little money raised privately was impulsive. In fact, Im going to predict right here that this isnt the last time you will hear about this financing. I can pretty much guarantee that at some point---probably within a decade (if not sooner) we will begin to hear about financial problems within the CSU athletic department that will be directly tied to this debt service. 200 million is a lot of debt. CSU isnt Texas A&M or Cal. The CSU athletic department doesnt have 30 million in annual TV income to throw at the problem.

Beautiful stadium and Fort Collins is such an underrated college town. But man, they only raised $25 million and the stadium costs $220 million?

Holy.

They did sell out premium seating but it is only bringing in $3 million in the first year.

23 suites at $35-45,000
43 loge boxes at $12-16,000
149 indoor club seats at $2,300
819 outdoor club seats at $1,500

No stadium donations were required to buy in.

In 2021, bond payments jump to $12.18 million a YEAR. Rams be in trouble...

Here's the deal.

When the deadline came, Colo St raised about $25M or so and had another $25M or so in "pledges."

Because this fell well short of their goal, Colo St value engineered the project from $254M to $220M.

Then, school president Tony Frank sought and obtained authorization to borrow all $220M, including $195M in revenue bonds. The $25-50M in donations and pledges will be used to pay off these bonds in the first few years.

These revenue bonds are not backed by the state. They are backed by Colo St. They were not sold based on the state's bond rating. They were sold based on Colo St's bond rating.

If stadium revenue is insufficient to meet the bond obligations, then Colorado State owes the bondholders and would have to divert money otherwise collected for tuition and student fees (or perhaps state or federal subsidies) to pay off the stadium instead of their intended use.

This means tuition and fees are going up and/or they have to ask the legislature for extra money and/or other programs and departments are going to be underfunded to move money to cover the stadium debt.

If they can't do this, then the school's bond rating will tank.

Basically, Colorado State's athletic program is fixing to get house poor unless that stadium generates a ton of revenue. Because at $10-13M per year in bond obligations, the football program would have to generate $17-19M just to be equal to what the revenue it is producing today ($4-6M).

The way it's structured (using the fundraised money to pay off the bonds the first ~5 years), it's almost as if they financed it with the expectation of joining a Power 5 league by 2022.

If that doesn't happen, look out below.

http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/loc...e406af63b0