(09-17-2021 12:00 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 11:40 AM)pkptigers07 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 11:26 AM)tigergreen Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 10:33 AM)pkptigers07 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 09:47 AM)tigergreen Wrote: [ -> ]You can go on and scratch that one off your list - the new STEM academic building that will begin construction soon will eat up a good chunk of that space (although it will be right around the ellipse/library as opposed to the residence halls to the south.)
People suggesting they demolish residence halls for it aren't keeping the main thing the main thing...the newest residence hall on campus, Centennial Place, is currently at 98% capacity for this semester. That's a good thing - we need more on-campus housing, not less.
The new STEM building will be further to the north, almost on the corner of Patterson and Central.
The “dorms” people are suggesting be demolished haven’t been dorms for years.
The STEM building will be right around the ellipse/library area, in the parking lot that is along Zach Curlin & Norriswood, not Patterson/Central...maybe you're thinking of the project for a mixed use building (apartments and retail on 1st floor) at Deloach & Central:
"The building will be located near Central and Zach Curlin St. in the parking lot behind the existing Herff College of Engineering."
http://www.dailyhelmsman.com/news/univer...76b7f.html
I got my wires crossed on Hayden/Robinson/Browning, etc. - no longer housing.
I did mean to type Central and Zach Curlin, not Central and Patterson.
In any event, I think the building site is outside of the stadium footprint based on the site on that side of campus that the Heery report identified.
You can fit the Liberty Bowl in the area just north of Elma Roane and east of Scates. It will eat up the track field, the ROTC buildings, the dorms (Browning, Robison, the 3rd one). It doesn't quite hit Zach Curlin on the east and it barely bites into the Ellipse on the north behind the library.
It doesn't come close to infringing on the new STEM location.
The new STEM building footprint will be on display on Tuesday at a University event. It is contained within the Engineering parking lot and to the north so its doorway lines up with the east door on Engineering Science.
The project footprint does not extend south of Norriswood, other than the utility connections in Norriswood.
Proud to say that one is my day job, so I am confident where it is going.
If we are going to look at master planning, discount any idea of moving eastward across Zach Curlin. You have both the Sheehan water treatment plant, the associated ground water pumping wells that go with the plant, and the larger diameter raw and treated water lines going between all of that.
That would be an enormous cost and, as noted above, you still need to put a water plant in somewhere.
However, putting it on the west side of Zach Curlin, south of Norriswood is still a fine option.
(09-17-2021 12:54 PM)tigerengineer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 12:00 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 11:40 AM)pkptigers07 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 11:26 AM)tigergreen Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 10:33 AM)pkptigers07 Wrote: [ -> ]The new STEM building will be further to the north, almost on the corner of Patterson and Central.
The “dorms” people are suggesting be demolished haven’t been dorms for years.
The STEM building will be right around the ellipse/library area, in the parking lot that is along Zach Curlin & Norriswood, not Patterson/Central...maybe you're thinking of the project for a mixed use building (apartments and retail on 1st floor) at Deloach & Central:
"The building will be located near Central and Zach Curlin St. in the parking lot behind the existing Herff College of Engineering."
http://www.dailyhelmsman.com/news/univer...76b7f.html
I got my wires crossed on Hayden/Robinson/Browning, etc. - no longer housing.
I did mean to type Central and Zach Curlin, not Central and Patterson.
In any event, I think the building site is outside of the stadium footprint based on the site on that side of campus that the Heery report identified.
You can fit the Liberty Bowl in the area just north of Elma Roane and east of Scates. It will eat up the track field, the ROTC buildings, the dorms (Browning, Robison, the 3rd one). It doesn't quite hit Zach Curlin on the east and it barely bites into the Ellipse on the north behind the library.
It doesn't come close to infringing on the new STEM location.
The new STEM building footprint will be on display on Tuesday at a University event. It is contained within the Engineering parking lot and to the north so its doorway lines up with the east door on Engineering Science.
The project footprint does not extend south of Norriswood, other than the utility connections in Norriswood.
Proud to say that one is my day job, so I am confident where it is going.
That's what I thought I saw when I was looking at going behind the library for my idea. Thank you for confirming that.
(09-17-2021 12:37 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 08:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]A friend is visiting San Fran this weekend so I was browsing around on Google maps. I moved up to Oregon and made it to Eugene.
I always assumed Oregon's stadium was on campus. It's not. It's about 3/4 mile north of campus across the Willamette River via a pedestrian bridge. Or 2.7 miles / 9 minutes by car.
Does the city own it?
University owns it. That probably means Nike paid for it. Think I read where Nike & one of the big electronics companies funded their world class track renovation.
Btw - the city has offered to give the Liberty Bowl to the University— the University said no
(09-17-2021 10:23 AM)Unionman76 Wrote: [ -> ]Put housing into the stadium
Win-win
Cincinnati uses their stadium for study hall
I seem to remember a story from when UL built their OCS that they got it approved because it was essentially built as an academic building (or buildings) and they attached the stadium to the back side of the building. It went through the committee without a hitch.
(09-16-2021 05:21 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 05:03 PM)Alanda Wrote: [ -> ]Tennessean link originally post by bullet on the Realignment board.
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...281171002/
Quote:It’s a pressure the University of Memphis is perhaps feeling more acutely than anywhere else in the country this week. Whether it’s the consequences of conference realignment, or this Saturday’s home game against Mississippi State, how Memphis is perceived is not how it wants to be perceived. And, at least from a competitive standpoint, it’s maybe not how it should be perceived.
The perception is that Memphis needs to build an on-campus stadium because the Liberty Bowl is 56 years old, and Cincinnati, UCF and Houston all built or significantly renovated on-campus stadiums in recent years and got into the Big 12 over Memphis last week.
The reality is Memphis needs to show the Big 12 it has the financial wherewithal, infrastructure and alumni support to fund an on campus stadium, more so than whatever structure that’s actually built because of that fundraising.
This is a school that needed more than a decade and a significant loan to recently open an $11 million indoor practice facility for the football program in 2020.
Apples & oranges..... the IPF generates no revenue while an OCS generates enough revenue over time to more than pay for itself.
It is very unlikely that the revenue generated by an OCS would be greater than the cost to build and maintain the stadium.
(09-17-2021 01:14 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote: [ -> ]Btw - the city has offered to give the Liberty Bowl to the University— the University said no
That is because most stadiums are money pits. The university has a sweetheart lease deal with the city.
(09-17-2021 03:14 PM)Stammers Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 03:13 PM)3601 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 01:14 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote: [ -> ]Btw - the city has offered to give the Liberty Bowl to the University— the University said no
That is because most stadiums are money pits. The university has a sweetheart lease deal with the city.
Two links please...
I don't know what would constitute a sweetheart deal, but here is the use agreement between the City of Memphis and the UofM.
http://www.memphisshelbyinform.com/wp-co...144057.pdf
(09-17-2021 02:09 PM)former guest Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 10:23 AM)Unionman76 Wrote: [ -> ]Put housing into the stadium
Win-win
Cincinnati uses their stadium for study hall
I seem to remember a story from when UL built their OCS that they got it approved because it was essentially built as an academic building (or buildings) and they attached the stadium to the back side of the building. It went through the committee without a hitch.
Which I have been touting for a decade or more. This is the way to do it. Put facilities in there for the arts so they can use the stadium to teach students how a stadium and events are staged. There is no reason a stadium can't be made into an educational lynchpin for a variety of disciplines.
(09-17-2021 03:49 PM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 02:09 PM)former guest Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 10:23 AM)Unionman76 Wrote: [ -> ]Put housing into the stadium
Win-win
Cincinnati uses their stadium for study hall
I seem to remember a story from when UL built their OCS that they got it approved because it was essentially built as an academic building (or buildings) and they attached the stadium to the back side of the building. It went through the committee without a hitch.
Which I have been touting for a decade or more. This is the way to do it. Put facilities in there for the arts so they can use the stadium to teach students how a stadium and events are staged. There is no reason a stadium can't be made into an educational lynchpin for a variety of disciplines.
We can also use it to teach other schools what happens when you come in our house. :-)
(09-17-2021 12:37 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 08:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]A friend is visiting San Fran this weekend so I was browsing around on Google maps. I moved up to Oregon and made it to Eugene.
I always assumed Oregon's stadium was on campus. It's not. It's about 3/4 mile north of campus across the Willamette River via a pedestrian bridge. Or 2.7 miles / 9 minutes by car.
Does the city own it?
I don't know. The university might own it. I can check.
BRB
(09-17-2021 04:23 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 12:37 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 08:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]A friend is visiting San Fran this weekend so I was browsing around on Google maps. I moved up to Oregon and made it to Eugene.
I always assumed Oregon's stadium was on campus. It's not. It's about 3/4 mile north of campus across the Willamette River via a pedestrian bridge. Or 2.7 miles / 9 minutes by car.
Does the city own it?
I don't know. The university might own it. I can check.
BRB
Quote:History
Prior to 1967, the Ducks' on-campus stadium was Hayward Field, which they shared with the track and field team. However, by the late 1950s, it had become apparent that Hayward Field was no longer suitable for the football team. It seated only 22,500 people, making it one of the smallest in the University Division (now Division I), and only 9,000 seats were available to the general public. While nearly every seat was protected from the elements, it had little else going for it. The stadium was in such poor condition that coaches deliberately kept prospective recruits from seeing it.
As a result, the Ducks only played three home games per year on campus in most years; with the exception of the Civil War, the annual rivalry game with Oregon State, games that were likely to draw big crowds (against schools like Washington and USC) were played 110 miles (180 km) north in Portland at the larger Multnomah Stadium.
With the recognition that the football team had outgrown the campus facility and with popular support to play the entire home schedule in Eugene for the first time in school history, Oregon athletic director Leo Harris led a campaign to build a new stadium on 90 acres (0.36 km2) that the school had acquired for the purpose in the 1950s on his recommendation.[
So the school owned the land.
If "campus" is defined as that land which is owned by a school, then the stadium is technically on campus.
But it's not on campus. It's to the north across a river.
UM BlueGray!
U know a lot about the Ducks, Ike has been to the stadium, it's a hike from the main campus and the ducks get their share of rain on game days, duck fans show up rain or shine but, they r ducks and they like water.
(09-17-2021 03:12 PM)3601 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 05:21 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 05:03 PM)Alanda Wrote: [ -> ]Tennessean link originally post by bullet on the Realignment board.
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...281171002/
Quote:It’s a pressure the University of Memphis is perhaps feeling more acutely than anywhere else in the country this week. Whether it’s the consequences of conference realignment, or this Saturday’s home game against Mississippi State, how Memphis is perceived is not how it wants to be perceived. And, at least from a competitive standpoint, it’s maybe not how it should be perceived.
The perception is that Memphis needs to build an on-campus stadium because the Liberty Bowl is 56 years old, and Cincinnati, UCF and Houston all built or significantly renovated on-campus stadiums in recent years and got into the Big 12 over Memphis last week.
The reality is Memphis needs to show the Big 12 it has the financial wherewithal, infrastructure and alumni support to fund an on campus stadium, more so than whatever structure that’s actually built because of that fundraising.
This is a school that needed more than a decade and a significant loan to recently open an $11 million indoor practice facility for the football program in 2020.
Apples & oranges..... the IPF generates no revenue while an OCS generates enough revenue over time to more than pay for itself.
It is very unlikely that the revenue generated by an OCS would be greater than the cost to build and maintain the stadium.
See above, IPF generates NO revenue. A university- owned stadium will generate substantial revenue, apples & oranges.
(09-17-2021 09:22 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 03:12 PM)3601 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 05:21 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 05:03 PM)Alanda Wrote: [ -> ]Tennessean link originally post by bullet on the Realignment board.
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...281171002/
Quote:It’s a pressure the University of Memphis is perhaps feeling more acutely than anywhere else in the country this week. Whether it’s the consequences of conference realignment, or this Saturday’s home game against Mississippi State, how Memphis is perceived is not how it wants to be perceived. And, at least from a competitive standpoint, it’s maybe not how it should be perceived.
The perception is that Memphis needs to build an on-campus stadium because the Liberty Bowl is 56 years old, and Cincinnati, UCF and Houston all built or significantly renovated on-campus stadiums in recent years and got into the Big 12 over Memphis last week.
The reality is Memphis needs to show the Big 12 it has the financial wherewithal, infrastructure and alumni support to fund an on campus stadium, more so than whatever structure that’s actually built because of that fundraising.
This is a school that needed more than a decade and a significant loan to recently open an $11 million indoor practice facility for the football program in 2020.
Apples & oranges..... the IPF generates no revenue while an OCS generates enough revenue over time to more than pay for itself.
It is very unlikely that the revenue generated by an OCS would be greater than the cost to build and maintain the stadium.
See above, IPF generates NO revenue. A university- owned stadium will generate substantial revenue, apples & oranges.
It's not the money-making aspect of the IPF, it's the lacking commitment for the fund raising and the fact it took a long time to get the funding in place for it. I hate it, but it seems to be the situation we live with (and the image we project) regarding the inability to energize the fanbase (and the local and state politicians) for our projects.
(09-17-2021 09:22 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2021 03:12 PM)3601 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 05:21 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 05:03 PM)Alanda Wrote: [ -> ]Tennessean link originally post by bullet on the Realignment board.
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/s...281171002/
Quote:It’s a pressure the University of Memphis is perhaps feeling more acutely than anywhere else in the country this week. Whether it’s the consequences of conference realignment, or this Saturday’s home game against Mississippi State, how Memphis is perceived is not how it wants to be perceived. And, at least from a competitive standpoint, it’s maybe not how it should be perceived.
The perception is that Memphis needs to build an on-campus stadium because the Liberty Bowl is 56 years old, and Cincinnati, UCF and Houston all built or significantly renovated on-campus stadiums in recent years and got into the Big 12 over Memphis last week.
The reality is Memphis needs to show the Big 12 it has the financial wherewithal, infrastructure and alumni support to fund an on campus stadium, more so than whatever structure that’s actually built because of that fundraising.
This is a school that needed more than a decade and a significant loan to recently open an $11 million indoor practice facility for the football program in 2020.
Apples & oranges..... the IPF generates no revenue while an OCS generates enough revenue over time to more than pay for itself.
It is very unlikely that the revenue generated by an OCS would be greater than the cost to build and maintain the stadium.
See above, IPF generates NO revenue. A university- owned stadium will generate substantial revenue, apples & oranges.
I don't think anyone doubts that a stadium would generate revenue compared to an IPF which generates none. The question is whether it would generate enough to cover its own costs. Depending on borrowing rates, I'd estimate that a $150M stadium would cost the university at least $7M per year in debt payments for 30 years. A $200M stadium would run $10M/yr. The school can't cover all that just on naming rights, savings or extra concession/parking revenue vs. LBMS. Relying on large attendance increases, massive ticket price increases or possible P5 invite revenues would be highly speculative, raising risk and consequently resulting in higher borrowing costs.
This gets back to Dr. Rudd's statements. An OCS absolutely would need some large infusion of public funds from city, state or both to get the project's debt down to something the UofM could reasonably cover long term. One possibly is state approval of a Tax Increment Funding (TIF) district, but one already exists for the whole Highland Strip from Poplar to Park, to finance infrastructure improvements.
Some very large donations could also do the trick, but as we saw with the IPF, our donor base just isn't that deep-pocketed.
(09-16-2021 11:24 AM)griffin Wrote: [ -> ] (09-16-2021 09:55 AM)Stammers Wrote: [ -> ] (09-15-2021 10:22 PM)griffin Wrote: [ -> ]A capital campaign for something like this:
1) More than half would be raised before they ever announced it - on purpose
2) They would know where another significant portion was coming from and would be working on closing it
3) What Rudd did this week was to send a message to the State - if we are doing this, they need to help pay something to help us catch up - and there is a story here with visiting fans from a P5 league would bring in a tremendous amount of sales tax revenue
4) Had to be done with average fans donating with a commitment, which will probably over 5 years to pay it off - the personal commitments I mean here
5) A portion will be financed - prob 25%
6) The majority of tickets will have a donation attached to them - best guess 75% used to pay off the debt service initially then for CAPEX spending after
Based on what was shared awhile back, this still would be part of the existing overall strategy of taking over Audubon Park and golf course from the City - which becomes very political as well as taking all homes between the university and Audubon park. More than enough room for everything.
The economic impact to business on Park Avenue and Highland would explode.
This plan exists today.
To raise $50 million quickly, you would need your top 7,500 supporters to step up to buy seat licenses for each seat.
2,500 supporters making a one time donation of $10,000 for each seat
5,000 supporters making a one time donation of $5,000 for each seat
That might be stretching it, but I would guess that our football fanbase is around 7,500 that contribute a lot, a core of 25,000 that will attend most games, another 5,000 - 15,000 that will go to a few games, and top that off for truly marquee games.
The seat licenses would either be permanent, or could be for 10, 15, or 20 years. Not a bad deal at all for the rights to luxury boxes or prime seating for all events.
$ 200 M Stadium
1) $ 20 M - Naming Rights deal - FedEx (Houston/Cincy/UCF - all have $ 15M deals)
2) $ 20 M - State funding
3) $ 50 M - 5,000 seats x $ 10,000 Seat donation (donation to new name capex 503c to get tax write off, as of 2018 can't write off unless set up on capital campaign etc) - My guess is play in this mix of seat location/suites - w range of donation levels to make target
4) $ 10 M - Other Naming Rights deals inside stadium
5) $ 20 M - Stadium Capital Campaign - similar to "Time to Shine for Basketball and Football Facilities" A) Large Donors Net New Ambassadors and Existing Ambassadors
6) $ 20 M - Student Activity Fee ($ 100 per semester x 20K students over 5 years) - good discussion could be had around the federal government forgiving student loan debt anyway - if so, at least other schools would be helping us in this regard.
7) $ 60 M - Loan/Bonds - last plan
Just a quick shot of what it could look like - doing this on the fly.
I would think all of those today are doable with a good bit of work and vision. I would say #2 could happen w a good strategic plush and #3 is probable but the most questionable based on fan base
It's definitely something that could happen
Does not include land acquisition cost, new infrastructure cost which would need another funding strategy - this is where the State as well would need to help in a big way along with the city on the infrastructure.
Math here is pretty good....except I would expect the state to contribute more in the $40mm range. Seat donations would be spread over 4-5 years. Ive already told whoever at the university will listen that I will donate dollars and time to help make this happen.