(10-04-2021 03:12 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 02:03 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 12:34 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Unlike every other place on the planet, instead of viewing the university as an asset and as possibly the most vital institution in the city along with FedEx; the city of Memphis will constantly do everything in its power to **** the university. Included in that list is Tiger Lane and renovations already done to the stadium, whose sole purpose was to keep its servant, the university in line. If the city genuinely had its best interests in mind, everything would be completely different.

It is weird to see leaders like Rudd, Brad Martin, and Mike Rose before his death, so willingly fall in line with this thinking. I would have thought that things would have changed drastically when the school got its on BOR; which btw, is shocking in itself, that this took so long to achieve.

If the leaders want to be leaders, it is time to start dictating terms to the city. Build an OCS and explain to the city what THEY have to do if they want to play their two events there. The school won't get ticket revenue and will only charge rent for the SHC and bowl game, so who really gives a **** about them?

Maybe I have a different perspective from most people on the board because I live in the city limits, so I'm both a university supporter and a city taxpayer. It does leave me conflicted on the issue of how much the City of Memphis should fund a stadium. The sports fan in me wants the city to finance nice arenas to get and keep nice things like an NBA team or P5 affiliation. The fiscal conservative side of me says that publicly-funded sports arenas are boondoggles, particularly seldom-used football stadiums, and the city's primary responsibility should be to me the city resident and not me, the Tiger alumnus and fan.

Either way, I don't agree that my city's government is constantly screwing my university. Apparently the stadium continues to operate at a $350-400K annual loss without the city demanding its primary tenant cover the difference. It put money into Tiger Lane and other upgrades. It's preparing to do more. It could tell the three tenants (UofM, AZLB and SHC) that they must accept rent hikes or it's closing the place, and that the university will have to build its own stadium if it wants to keep playing football; ironically, this exactly the kind of "screwing" many OCS proponents want to see happen! But the city has decided that it's of some civic value to absorb part of the operating costs without reimbursement so that the community gets the social and economic benefits of those games being played here.

That major upgrade or a new stadium are even being discussed at this point suggest that the university is viewed as an asset and/or is using some leverage.

I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Maybe my perspective is different because I don't live in the city and don't have an emotional attachment to the LB as many of you do.

From a fiscal point of view, does it make sense as a taxpayer to fund something that is already 56 years old that will probably require $100 million to maintain and renovate from 2010 - 2030 and will be 65 years old by then, AND has a huge operating deficit? Wouldn't you be much better off giving the school $50 million dollars to build a 45,000 seat stadium that will maximize revenue, and will eliminate the operating deficit, in exchange for not paying rent for the SHC?

- No logo on the field for many years until 2004
- Building falling apart until 2005
- The worst press box/luxury seats of any stadium anywhere on the planet
- The school funding the Pyramid (can't remember if it was $9 million or $20 million)
- Screwing over the school for at least one LB bid

You make good points. Most schools keep renovating and expanding their stadiums indefinitely BUT those are on campus. That doesn't happen as much for municipal stadiums, college or pro. The only exceptions that come to mind are the two big Los Angeles area college stadiums, one of which (the Coliseum) is right next to USC and they operate it.

The financials you state give some good reasons for the city to help fund an OCS in order to buy itself out of the stadium losses. There will of course be a limit. In the Daily Memphian article, Strickland does say that the university would have to foot the "lion's share" of a major renovation or new stadium but that leaves the door open for a joint effort. He mentions the university, state, and donors as the other parties.